5 ms·

I am not sure that comparing only sovereign wealth funds per capita tells the whole story. For instance Australia has a lot more private wealth saved up than No

I am not sure that comparing only sovereign wealth funds per capita tells the whole story. For instance Australia has a lot more private wealth saved up than Norway. At a lower GINI coefficient as well! I am also not sure that the major resource exports like iron ore and coal have the same ability to extract cartel rent extraction of oil, which is a lot more concentrated in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe... Wealth per capita $USD 2021: Country Median Mean Australia 238k 484k Norway 118k 276k The Australian compulsory super-annuation scheme has made Australian long term pension sustainability much better than the rest of the world. How much of the wealth that could have gone into a sovereign fund has gone into private savings instead? I don't know if Norway or Australia did better.

somedangedname 5y ago
Is doing well be a bar against doing better? The wealthy have no hangups about taking profit so why should the rest of us? Mining activity is 10% of Australia's GDP. Mineral land rights in Australia are property of the government so why do overseas and private-domestic operators get to make all the profit? When Norway's example shows us that a publicly funded and owned industry was possible! Too late now though - the last attempt to extract more value out of a booming industry led to the downfall of the government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerals_Resource_Rent_Tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerals_Resource_Rent_Tax.
femto 5y ago
Another part of the story is to compare the public mindedness of Farouk Al-Kasim with Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer.
eirki 5y ago
> For instance Australia has a lot more private wealth saved up than Norway. At a lower GINI coefficient as well! This is demonstrably false: https://data.oecd.org/chart/6tTs https://data.oecd.org/chart/6tTs
djrobstep 5y ago
Australia's superannuation system is a disaster. Compared to Norway's SWF: - Fees are 20x larger as a proportion of AUM ($30 billion a year, nearly as much as the military budget, and 2x what the country spends on electricity) - The assets are overwhelmingly owned by people who are already rich (Norway's SWF shares the wealth equally) - Super has totally failed to prevent retirement poverty (elderly single women are the most impoverished demographic in Australia).
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Norway has a 1.4 trillion dollars in oil wealth. In Australia individuals save for their own retirement. Comparing these two retirement funding mechanisms on the basis of how much individuals benefit and transaction cost per AUM isn't sensible. Obviously being given free oil money is better than needing to save.
  - djrobstep 5y ago
    I don't understand your point at all. Both are very similar pools of assets. Why is it inappropriate to compare management costs and distributional outcomes between the two?
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      > I don't understand your point at all. Both are very similar pools of assets. OK, let me explain it. Yes, the assets owned by both funds are financial assets that are comparable. They both own bonds and corporate shares, etc. But the issue is not what assets are in the funds. When you are given lots of money, this reduces poverty much more than when an individual gets a tax break on saving their own money. Norway has trillions in oil reserves to support a small population. I am not sure why I need to explain this, but having a trillion dollar windfall reduces poverty much more effectively than subsidizing the savings of each individual. Moreover, when you save each pay period you have to make lots of small little asset purchases, as opposed to making huge purchases in a SWF fund in which the money comes from selling oil, so transaction costs are higher in a 401K style system than when you are sitting on an ocean of free oil.

somedangedname 5y ago

Is doing well be a bar against doing better? The wealthy have no hangups about taking profit so why should the rest of us? Mining activity is 10% of Australia's GDP. Mineral land rights in Australia are property of the government so why do overseas and private-domestic operators get to make all the profit? When Norway's example shows us that a publicly funded and owned industry was possible! Too late now though - the last attempt to extract more value out of a booming industry led to the downfall of the government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerals_Resource_Rent_Tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerals_Resource_Rent_Tax.

femto 5y ago

Another part of the story is to compare the public mindedness of Farouk Al-Kasim with Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer.

eirki 5y ago

> For instance Australia has a lot more private wealth saved up than Norway. At a lower GINI coefficient as well! This is demonstrably false: https://data.oecd.org/chart/6tTs https://data.oecd.org/chart/6tTs

djrobstep 5y ago

Australia's superannuation system is a disaster. Compared to Norway's SWF: - Fees are 20x larger as a proportion of AUM ($30 billion a year, nearly as much as the military budget, and 2x what the country spends on electricity) - The assets are overwhelmingly owned by people who are already rich (Norway's SWF shares the wealth equally) - Super has totally failed to prevent retirement poverty (elderly single women are the most impoverished demographic in Australia).

rsj_hn 5y ago
Norway has a 1.4 trillion dollars in oil wealth. In Australia individuals save for their own retirement. Comparing these two retirement funding mechanisms on the basis of how much individuals benefit and transaction cost per AUM isn't sensible. Obviously being given free oil money is better than needing to save.
- djrobstep 5y ago
  I don't understand your point at all. Both are very similar pools of assets. Why is it inappropriate to compare management costs and distributional outcomes between the two?
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > I don't understand your point at all. Both are very similar pools of assets. OK, let me explain it. Yes, the assets owned by both funds are financial assets that are comparable. They both own bonds and corporate shares, etc. But the issue is not what assets are in the funds. When you are given lots of money, this reduces poverty much more than when an individual gets a tax break on saving their own money. Norway has trillions in oil reserves to support a small population. I am not sure why I need to explain this, but having a trillion dollar windfall reduces poverty much more effectively than subsidizing the savings of each individual. Moreover, when you save each pay period you have to make lots of small little asset purchases, as opposed to making huge purchases in a SWF fund in which the money comes from selling oil, so transaction costs are higher in a 401K style system than when you are sitting on an ocean of free oil.