Hacker News Reader

Comment by mullingitover | Hacker News Reader

The US is really in the worst of both worlds: it's a petrostate, the world's leading fossil fuel producer. With that comes all the tendencies for corrupt authoritarianism and democratic backsliding. However, we don't get the customary low direct taxes. In fact, the taxes are going up on the populace, significantly, (via tariffs) almost in lockstep with the increasingly brazen corruption.

View on HN

Norway is a petro-state but is well governed and democratic. I think petroleum is an accelerant but the fire of democratic backsliding/authoritarianism has to already exist in the first place. We took it for granted the institutions and traditions that safeguarded our government and didn't really ensure those are kept healthy.

A well-governed, democratic petro-state that has been very, very careful to keep much of anyone there from getting too high on their own supply: unlike just about any other petro-state, the state's cut of petroleum revenues do not go straight out - it all goes into a permanent fund (Government Pension Fund of Norway), with a maximum of 3% being allowed to go towards current spending. Norway's domestic fuel taxes are actually higher than their neighbors, and Norwegians still have to pay VAT and income tax like the rest of Europe... though they still haven't joined the EU (but their EEA membership means that they agreed to conform to a lot of EU laws and standards)

The most forward and obvious difference is Norway runs it's oil as a state enterprise so there's less outside influence created by the money. It's not perfect and depends on strong institutions and norms to keep from looking like Saudi oil money but imo having it be state run definitely helps.

Yes, I think the bigger problem we have in the US is the lack of trust. The country was founded on the idea that you shouldn't trust your government at all. That concept is enshrined in our constitution with the 2nd amendment.

Not saying people should blindly trust their government, but we went for the other end of the spectrum instead, which is similarly unhealthy.

Norway is a kingdom with royal family. Democracy is for the peaceful times. It's not full kingdom like ME but royal family directly have special laws that protect them. So not a full democracy.

I think you'd be hard pressed to get most people to agree to that strict of a definition where Norway wouldn't be considered a democracy. It's easy to pick at things like "someone has immunity in court" as unequal, but that kind of thing is typically considered compatible with a democracy. Same with grants, titles, ceremonial roles, etc - so long as the voters choices about such things aren't being suppressed it's pretty solidly in the "democracy" camp - which isn't mutually exclusive with having a decorative king.

I'm not sure what the reference to "democracy is for peace" is about, unless you count Nazi occupation and rule as the same government or something.

"King Harald holds the rank of General in the Army and Air Force, and of Admiral in the Navy. He is the nation's highest-ranking officer."

It's easy to verify and see who will lead during non peace times. Thank you for your attention.

https://www.royalcourt.no/artikkel.html?tid=28731&sek=27277

I'm not sure which particular passage you're referring to, but keep in mind that page is basically a puff piece about the kings ceremonial roles. He does not actually control the government, act as the leader of the military, etc in the same way his title is "king" but any non-ceremonial rights belong to the elected prime minister. If he tried to name someone else as prime minister during the transition it wouldn't actually mean anything as it's a ceremony. Etc, unless you feel there is a specific passage which the role is not ceremonial, but it's difficult to explain how the whole thing is in response to a single link and no context.

This is nonsense. Norway is a full democracy according to the Economist Democracy Index, where it has ranked #1 the last couple of decades.

Norway's government is elected through open, free elections. While the king is nominally the head of state, this is a symbolic position with extremely limited powers, and the king has not played a meaningful role in politics since World War 2. The royal family has no power over the government.

this does not sound limited powers? sounds literally opposite with proof. see quote :

"King Harald holds the rank of General in the Army and Air Force, and of Admiral in the Navy. He is the nation's highest-ranking officer."

https://www.royalcourt.no/artikkel.html?tid=28731&sek=27277

Those are not political appointments, and have no bearing on Norway's status as a democracy. Those military roles are largely symbolic. While nominally "commander in chief", this isn't the same way the U.S. president is CiC; the de facto head of the armed forces is not the king, but the chief of defense.

As head of state, the king has a very limited role in political affairs.

The key difference is in Norway the government owns the majority stake in their petroleum companies. Here, they are freely traded among capitalists.

I think, to be a petrostate, you need to derive a huge part of your economy from pumping valuable stuff out of the ground. Fossil fuels in the US are like ... 6% of the US economy? Not nothing in absolute terms - if there was a "United States of Fossil Fuels", it would be the 12th biggest nation by GDP in the world. But still, America derives a vast majority of its economy from non-fossil fuels

That might be the case, but as far as the political party with a complete, iron-clad grip on the neck of the government is concerned, every other industry is an afterthought. For example, solar and wind are essential parts of an energy portfolio for domestic industry. These are being taken out back and kneecapped with billy clubs to prop up oil/gas/coal.

If the country isn't a petrostate it's certainly cosplaying one to a psychotic degree.

Imagine if that 6% of the GDP fed back into social services, education, and other government programs that benefit people.

About 17% of the GDP is paid to the federal government in taxes. Nationalizing oil production is equivalent to lowering the effective federal tax rate by 35%.

Nationalizing oil has been tried quite a few places with wildly variable results. In the worst case, you get Venezuela, in the best you get something like UAE where the citizens basically only have jobs if they get bored or want to play police to lord over the foreigners.

What about Alaska?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

6% of gdp does not mean profit

they fully control the federal government, doing exactly what they said they would do by flooding courts and firing appointees who are insufficiently loyal. they don't think they will need to ever deal with free elections ever again, and they think we're too stupid to do anything about it (bonus: decades and decades of underfunding public education means they might be right).

Take from the poor, give to the rich. It's an Ayn Randian gerontocracy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com