4 ms·

Only if you have a choice in where you are born. Almost a quarter of Norway's GDP stems from the sale of oil and gas. In the UK it's like 1-2%. Because of these

Only if you have a choice in where you are born. Almost a quarter of Norway's GDP stems from the sale of oil and gas. In the UK it's like 1-2%. Because of these sales, Norway owns the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. The UK couldn't have something like that even if they wanted to.

082349872349872 2y ago
The UK is a rich* country, that once had an empire; London is still a financial capital. (and norway ranks below ireland and luxemburg for GDP/capita) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Financial_Centres_Index#GFCI_34_(September_2023) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Financial_Centres_Index... * recall: Brexit was sold on the premise that the UK would get even richer outside the EU.
- sigmoid10 2y ago
  It's different when you actually have to work (as in exploit you working class) to generate vast wealth vs. you can just dig stuff up in your country and sell it. The former approach is more long-lived as you correctly have discovered, but here and now the latter one is way more powerful if you want heaps of disposable income for the government to fix social issues. So in the long term I would rather bet on the UK than Norway. Maybe less so after Brexit, but the Tories now getting slapped is a start.
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    > heaps of disposable income for the government to fix social issues I think this is where we're arguing at cross purposes. I don't see heaps of disposable income having much to do with free range parenting: it's cheaper, after all, to let your kids organise their own activities than to be endlessly shuttling them between formal paid activities. That said, the flip side of it being cheaper is that you can't just go out and buy a high-trust country even if you want to and have disposable income; you have to give everyone the experience that it's much nicer to live someplace where things don't just sprout legs and walk away if you leave them unattended. Those experiences don't cost anything, but getting there takes work, and while I think the US and UK would be willing to spend a lot of legal tender to "fix social issues", neither polity seems willing to get there by paying their dues instead.
    - sigmoid10 2y ago
      >I don't see heaps of disposable income having much to do with free range parenting Maybe not directly. But indirectly it has a huge effect on the overall well-being of your society and thus the things you can or can't do. Or do you believe that Norwegians would still behave the same way if they had income inequality similar to less fortunate countries? Because I don't see any evidence for that.
      - 082349872349872 2y ago
        I believe they have less income inequality because they behave the way they do, not the other way around. (that is: if you set out to make a society where "free range" parenting works, you will naturally also reduce income inequality; if you set out to make a society where middle class workers have to be kept motivated by fear of falling into a –reputedly or truly— crime-ridden underclass, you probably won't wind up with one suitable for what I would consider normal parenting)
        vinnyvichy 2y ago
        Reconsidering my thesis in light of ROK.. nominally Confucianist but not (currently) free-range. could be due to US influence? Also has a unusually marked (even for EastAsia) bully problem in schools..
        vinnyvichy 2y ago
        https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095555 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
        sigmoid10 2y ago
        >if you set out to make a society where "free range" parenting works, you will naturally also reduce income inequality That is an extremely bold assumption that has zero evidence. In fact, if you look at income inequality around the world, you'll see other factors are infinitely more important.

082349872349872 2y ago

The UK is a rich* country, that once had an empire; London is still a financial capital. (and norway ranks below ireland and luxemburg for GDP/capita) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Financial_Centres_Index#GFCI_34_(September_2023) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Financial_Centres_Index... * recall: Brexit was sold on the premise that the UK would get even richer outside the EU.

sigmoid10 2y ago
It's different when you actually have to work (as in exploit you working class) to generate vast wealth vs. you can just dig stuff up in your country and sell it. The former approach is more long-lived as you correctly have discovered, but here and now the latter one is way more powerful if you want heaps of disposable income for the government to fix social issues. So in the long term I would rather bet on the UK than Norway. Maybe less so after Brexit, but the Tories now getting slapped is a start.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  > heaps of disposable income for the government to fix social issues I think this is where we're arguing at cross purposes. I don't see heaps of disposable income having much to do with free range parenting: it's cheaper, after all, to let your kids organise their own activities than to be endlessly shuttling them between formal paid activities. That said, the flip side of it being cheaper is that you can't just go out and buy a high-trust country even if you want to and have disposable income; you have to give everyone the experience that it's much nicer to live someplace where things don't just sprout legs and walk away if you leave them unattended. Those experiences don't cost anything, but getting there takes work, and while I think the US and UK would be willing to spend a lot of legal tender to "fix social issues", neither polity seems willing to get there by paying their dues instead.
  - sigmoid10 2y ago
    >I don't see heaps of disposable income having much to do with free range parenting Maybe not directly. But indirectly it has a huge effect on the overall well-being of your society and thus the things you can or can't do. Or do you believe that Norwegians would still behave the same way if they had income inequality similar to less fortunate countries? Because I don't see any evidence for that.
    - 082349872349872 2y ago
      I believe they have less income inequality because they behave the way they do, not the other way around. (that is: if you set out to make a society where "free range" parenting works, you will naturally also reduce income inequality; if you set out to make a society where middle class workers have to be kept motivated by fear of falling into a –reputedly or truly— crime-ridden underclass, you probably won't wind up with one suitable for what I would consider normal parenting)
      - vinnyvichy 2y ago
        Reconsidering my thesis in light of ROK.. nominally Confucianist but not (currently) free-range. could be due to US influence? Also has a unusually marked (even for EastAsia) bully problem in schools..
        vinnyvichy 2y ago
        https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095555 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
      - sigmoid10 2y ago
        >if you set out to make a society where "free range" parenting works, you will naturally also reduce income inequality That is an extremely bold assumption that has zero evidence. In fact, if you look at income inequality around the world, you'll see other factors are infinitely more important.