4 ms·

I’d say number four should be first in your list. Had they not been sensible they might not even have found this deposit, nor would they have had a massive sove

I’d say number four should be first in your list. Had they not been sensible they might not even have found this deposit, nor would they have had a massive sovereign fund. They’d been buried in rusty lambos and warlord money.

vizzah 3y ago
Well, investing their surplus into Facebook/META (among many other stonks) is a pretty risky trade.
- nradov 3y ago
  With that much money they pretty much have to invest in every publicly traded company.
bugglebeetle 3y ago
Famously saved by a former Iraqi petroleum executive, who knew about the resource curse: https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.2604105 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.2604105
- gruez 3y ago
  [deleted]
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    This is honestly such a bizarre degree of skepticism for something so widely reported, I’ll try not to impute what might be motivating it. Farouk Al-Kasim was knighted by the King of Norway for his efforts in this of all things, so no, not really. You’re quite wide of the mark. His guidance was also shaped more by the experience of Netherlands in the 60s as much as it was Iraq, as is cited in the article.
- vages 3y ago
  Norway had successfully georgist tax policies in place for hydropower for half a century at that point. He was not fighting as much of an uphill battle as he would almost anywhere else: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/05/17/norway-the-once-and-future-georgist-kingdom/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/05/17/norway-the-once-and... https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/norways-sovereign-wealth-fund?ts=w https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/norways-sovereign-... (Update: This is not to detract from his achievement, but to harp on the fact that Georgism is one of the most useful, underrated tools in the economic toolboxt)
sundvor 3y ago
Yep, just look at Australia - bending over backwards for the foreign mining companies, quivering in fear at the prospect of taxing them even a fraction of Norway's 78%. Spine vs spineless.
- tommiegannert 3y ago
  Why would Australia be doing that? What's the threat? That the foreign mining companies leave? Wouldn't that be a neutral outcome to Australia? Then the mines could be seized for non-operation somehow, and given to domestic companies with a 78% tax?
  - tfourb 3y ago
    Mostly capture of politics by shareholder interests. Once a political system becomes thoroughly permeated by the interests of a specific industry (i.e. through campaign contributions, individuals moving from industry into politics, labour interests, etc.) it becomes quite hard for governments to make sensible decisions in that area, because industry interests and identity politics at some point become indistinguishable. See also Germany's car producers and the military-industrial-complex in the U.S.
    - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
      See also Alberta, Canada
      - MandieD 3y ago
        And howdy from Texas and its somewhat widely distributed mineral rights, creating a landed gentry that sometimes doesn't even have to deal with the inconveniences of owning said land, but often has, on a personal level, an even more vested interest in continued petroleum extraction than the average employee of Exxon-Mobil.
    - sundvor 3y ago
      Yes. Political campaign contributions is the perfect euphemism for corruption. Corporations aren't allowed to make direct campaign contributions in Norway; political campaigns are paid for by the public. (I've been an expat for over two decades, please correct me if anything has significantly changed - of course the companies still have political influence through choices of where to invest etc, but at least it's nowhere as blatant). One might say it would be a waste of taxpayer money to do the same in Australia, but in the end we would be far better off by cutting off the direct corporate influence. We might not have gotten an EV tax instead of incentives if we had politicians not directly receiving money from big petrol. And we might just be able to raise corporate mining taxes to a far better level, clearly state that if you don't like it then just pack up and leave - and let someone else who is willing come profit instead.

vizzah 3y ago

Well, investing their surplus into Facebook/META (among many other stonks) is a pretty risky trade.

nradov 3y ago
With that much money they pretty much have to invest in every publicly traded company.

bugglebeetle 3y ago

Famously saved by a former Iraqi petroleum executive, who knew about the resource curse: https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.2604105 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.2604105

gruez 3y ago
[deleted]
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  This is honestly such a bizarre degree of skepticism for something so widely reported, I’ll try not to impute what might be motivating it. Farouk Al-Kasim was knighted by the King of Norway for his efforts in this of all things, so no, not really. You’re quite wide of the mark. His guidance was also shaped more by the experience of Netherlands in the 60s as much as it was Iraq, as is cited in the article.
vages 3y ago
Norway had successfully georgist tax policies in place for hydropower for half a century at that point. He was not fighting as much of an uphill battle as he would almost anywhere else: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/05/17/norway-the-once-and-future-georgist-kingdom/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/05/17/norway-the-once-and... https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/norways-sovereign-wealth-fund?ts=w https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/norways-sovereign-... (Update: This is not to detract from his achievement, but to harp on the fact that Georgism is one of the most useful, underrated tools in the economic toolboxt)

sundvor 3y ago

Yep, just look at Australia - bending over backwards for the foreign mining companies, quivering in fear at the prospect of taxing them even a fraction of Norway's 78%. Spine vs spineless.

tommiegannert 3y ago
Why would Australia be doing that? What's the threat? That the foreign mining companies leave? Wouldn't that be a neutral outcome to Australia? Then the mines could be seized for non-operation somehow, and given to domestic companies with a 78% tax?
- tfourb 3y ago
  Mostly capture of politics by shareholder interests. Once a political system becomes thoroughly permeated by the interests of a specific industry (i.e. through campaign contributions, individuals moving from industry into politics, labour interests, etc.) it becomes quite hard for governments to make sensible decisions in that area, because industry interests and identity politics at some point become indistinguishable. See also Germany's car producers and the military-industrial-complex in the U.S.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    See also Alberta, Canada
    - MandieD 3y ago
      And howdy from Texas and its somewhat widely distributed mineral rights, creating a landed gentry that sometimes doesn't even have to deal with the inconveniences of owning said land, but often has, on a personal level, an even more vested interest in continued petroleum extraction than the average employee of Exxon-Mobil.
  - sundvor 3y ago
    Yes. Political campaign contributions is the perfect euphemism for corruption. Corporations aren't allowed to make direct campaign contributions in Norway; political campaigns are paid for by the public. (I've been an expat for over two decades, please correct me if anything has significantly changed - of course the companies still have political influence through choices of where to invest etc, but at least it's nowhere as blatant). One might say it would be a waste of taxpayer money to do the same in Australia, but in the end we would be far better off by cutting off the direct corporate influence. We might not have gotten an EV tax instead of incentives if we had politicians not directly receiving money from big petrol. And we might just be able to raise corporate mining taxes to a far better level, clearly state that if you don't like it then just pack up and leave - and let someone else who is willing come profit instead.