8 ms·

Related, a recent video from PolyMatter titled Why Oil Doesn't Corrupt Norway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu8ClwrTpbA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu8C

Related, a recent video from PolyMatter titled Why Oil Doesn't Corrupt Norway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu8ClwrTpbA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu8ClwrTpbA

adventured 5y ago
Canada, US, China Three of the six largest oil producers. Norway's lack of suffering from the so called resource curse isn't that special. What's special about Norway is their privilege to control so much oil with such a small population, quite similar to the sheiks of the Middle East (who have often made their people quite wealthy compared to their less oil fortunate neighbors, as in the case of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or UAE). No coincidence Norway is also still a backwards monarchy that installs a king as head of state after a thousand years.
- AlexCoventry 5y ago
  Alberta's sovereign wealth fund is worth $18B according to the video, IIRC, whereas Norway's is worth $1.45T.
  - ayngg 5y ago
    A big difference is that Norway is a sovereign state and didn't have to deal with federal and inter-provincial politics like Alberta did. I have my doubts about whether or not a federal government that has done something like the National Energy Program would allow a province within their country to hold a sovereign wealth fund worth hundreds of billions, or even over a trillion dollars.
    - thedmstdmstdmst 5y ago
      > would allow a province within their country to hold a sovereign wealth fund worth hundreds of billions, or even over a trillion dollars. This is Alberta we are talking about? If in your hypothetical the Federal Government didn't mess it up the Province would.
      - soperj 5y ago
        They're the only province to run a balanced budget for last 50 years.
        throw0101a 5y ago
        Alberta has had plenty of deficits in the last 10 years, never mind the last fifty: * https://www.fraserinstitute.org/fr/node/9227 https://www.fraserinstitute.org/fr/node/9227 And they're not the only ones to be positive, as Ontario has had several surpluses or small deficits ($200M): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_government_debt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_government_debt This of course assumes that a balanced budget (or surplus) is something that even should be aimed for. Certainly one shouldn't go crazy with spending (especially when stimulus isn't needed), but the balanced idea seems to be a strange fiscal fetish that is over-focused upon.
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      > A big difference is that Norway is a sovereign state and didn't have to deal with federal and inter-provincial politics like Alberta did. As I understand it the Alberta Fund is completely controlled by the province. There is some national policies, especially with exports, that falls under the Feds, but how much (or little) flows into the Fund is completely up to the province. It is on Alberta itself that it decided to have low/er provincial income taxes and no provincial sales tax. Those things were 'funded' by the resource revenues, which effectively came a sort-of cheque to the habitants of the province. And when oil prices went down, government funded went sideways. IMHO Alberta shouldn't blame Ottawa for not setting aside something for a rainy day.
      - ayngg 5y ago
        I am not saying that there is blame or not, it isn't so much blame as recognizing that there are different circumstances between Alberta and Norway that influenced the direction they went. The big example is the National Energy Program which (aside from its economic impact on the province) basically tainted politics in Alberta and probably contributed to their hesitancy to contribute to a fund which could potentially be raided by the Federal government in the future.
- Cyph0n 5y ago
  Norway handled their oil way better than any of the Gulf monarchies did.
- codetrotter 5y ago
  > still a backwards monarchy that installs a king as head of state Our royal family is there mostly just for show. Lots of us walk past the castle on our constitution day and wave to the king and the rest of his family and they wave back. Over the remainder of the year they hold some speeches, attend some openings and other events. We are a democracy, and the power that is given to our king in the Norwegian constitution of 1814, has actually been managed by the government instead for a long time since then. The function of our monarchy is largely one of ceremonial nature these days. There was a vote in stortinget a couple of years ago over whether to disband or retain the monarchy. 36 representatives vote for disbanding the monarchy, and 130 representatives voted for keeping it. I think this is reflective of the overall attitude that we have of our monarchy; some are against it but the majority wants to keep it.
  - frosted-flakes 5y ago
    What you say is also largely true of the British, Canadian, Australian, etc. monarchy.
  - webmobdev 5y ago
    People don't seem to understand the concept of constitutional monarchy, and mistakenly believe that the King or Queen in such setups wield power. They are just titular heads of states in a democratic state where the elected representatives and the government hold the real power. However, I'd say the United Kingdom is an exception here as the Queen still has a lot of power, legally, many of which they have never exercised (atleast in a public manner). Some weird quirks include not needing a license to drive or not requiring a passport for international travel. She doesn't need to pay taxes (but does pay some). Apparently the Queen of England also owns all Swans in around river Thames and all the Whales / Dolphins in British waters. More serious powers include being immune to prosecution, exception from Freedom of Information Request, the ability to over rule ministry decisions (in case of emergency or constitutional crisis), the ability to dismiss a government and call for an election. Any law affecting the monarchy requires the "Queens consent" before it can be debated in Parliament or the Queen can also refuse her assent to discuss a particular bill in parliament. She is the Commander-in-Chief of the entire UK military and has the power to order a nuclear strike. (Ofcourse, in recent decades, it is understood that most of these powers should only be exercised under the advice of the elected government, but that is not how the laws are written and framed. All in all, I'd say she is the most brilliant politician of the 20th century to hold on to power for so long.)
- qw 5y ago
  Canada and Norway are constitutional monarchies and can not be compared to countries where the monarchs have real power.

Related, a recent video from PolyMatter titled Why Oil Doesn't Corrupt Norway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu8ClwrTpbA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu8ClwrTpbA

adventured 5y ago

Canada, US, China Three of the six largest oil producers. Norway's lack of suffering from the so called resource curse isn't that special. What's special about Norway is their privilege to control so much oil with such a small population, quite similar to the sheiks of the Middle East (who have often made their people quite wealthy compared to their less oil fortunate neighbors, as in the case of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or UAE). No coincidence Norway is also still a backwards monarchy that installs a king as head of state after a thousand years.

AlexCoventry 5y ago
Alberta's sovereign wealth fund is worth $18B according to the video, IIRC, whereas Norway's is worth $1.45T.
- ayngg 5y ago
  A big difference is that Norway is a sovereign state and didn't have to deal with federal and inter-provincial politics like Alberta did. I have my doubts about whether or not a federal government that has done something like the National Energy Program would allow a province within their country to hold a sovereign wealth fund worth hundreds of billions, or even over a trillion dollars.
  - thedmstdmstdmst 5y ago
    > would allow a province within their country to hold a sovereign wealth fund worth hundreds of billions, or even over a trillion dollars. This is Alberta we are talking about? If in your hypothetical the Federal Government didn't mess it up the Province would.
    - soperj 5y ago
      They're the only province to run a balanced budget for last 50 years.
      - throw0101a 5y ago
        Alberta has had plenty of deficits in the last 10 years, never mind the last fifty: * https://www.fraserinstitute.org/fr/node/9227 https://www.fraserinstitute.org/fr/node/9227 And they're not the only ones to be positive, as Ontario has had several surpluses or small deficits ($200M): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_government_debt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_government_debt This of course assumes that a balanced budget (or surplus) is something that even should be aimed for. Certainly one shouldn't go crazy with spending (especially when stimulus isn't needed), but the balanced idea seems to be a strange fiscal fetish that is over-focused upon.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    > A big difference is that Norway is a sovereign state and didn't have to deal with federal and inter-provincial politics like Alberta did. As I understand it the Alberta Fund is completely controlled by the province. There is some national policies, especially with exports, that falls under the Feds, but how much (or little) flows into the Fund is completely up to the province. It is on Alberta itself that it decided to have low/er provincial income taxes and no provincial sales tax. Those things were 'funded' by the resource revenues, which effectively came a sort-of cheque to the habitants of the province. And when oil prices went down, government funded went sideways. IMHO Alberta shouldn't blame Ottawa for not setting aside something for a rainy day.
    - ayngg 5y ago
      I am not saying that there is blame or not, it isn't so much blame as recognizing that there are different circumstances between Alberta and Norway that influenced the direction they went. The big example is the National Energy Program which (aside from its economic impact on the province) basically tainted politics in Alberta and probably contributed to their hesitancy to contribute to a fund which could potentially be raided by the Federal government in the future.
Cyph0n 5y ago
Norway handled their oil way better than any of the Gulf monarchies did.
codetrotter 5y ago
> still a backwards monarchy that installs a king as head of state Our royal family is there mostly just for show. Lots of us walk past the castle on our constitution day and wave to the king and the rest of his family and they wave back. Over the remainder of the year they hold some speeches, attend some openings and other events. We are a democracy, and the power that is given to our king in the Norwegian constitution of 1814, has actually been managed by the government instead for a long time since then. The function of our monarchy is largely one of ceremonial nature these days. There was a vote in stortinget a couple of years ago over whether to disband or retain the monarchy. 36 representatives vote for disbanding the monarchy, and 130 representatives voted for keeping it. I think this is reflective of the overall attitude that we have of our monarchy; some are against it but the majority wants to keep it.
- frosted-flakes 5y ago
  What you say is also largely true of the British, Canadian, Australian, etc. monarchy.
- webmobdev 5y ago
  People don't seem to understand the concept of constitutional monarchy, and mistakenly believe that the King or Queen in such setups wield power. They are just titular heads of states in a democratic state where the elected representatives and the government hold the real power. However, I'd say the United Kingdom is an exception here as the Queen still has a lot of power, legally, many of which they have never exercised (atleast in a public manner). Some weird quirks include not needing a license to drive or not requiring a passport for international travel. She doesn't need to pay taxes (but does pay some). Apparently the Queen of England also owns all Swans in around river Thames and all the Whales / Dolphins in British waters. More serious powers include being immune to prosecution, exception from Freedom of Information Request, the ability to over rule ministry decisions (in case of emergency or constitutional crisis), the ability to dismiss a government and call for an election. Any law affecting the monarchy requires the "Queens consent" before it can be debated in Parliament or the Queen can also refuse her assent to discuss a particular bill in parliament. She is the Commander-in-Chief of the entire UK military and has the power to order a nuclear strike. (Ofcourse, in recent decades, it is understood that most of these powers should only be exercised under the advice of the elected government, but that is not how the laws are written and framed. All in all, I'd say she is the most brilliant politician of the 20th century to hold on to power for so long.)
qw 5y ago
Canada and Norway are constitutional monarchies and can not be compared to countries where the monarchs have real power.