Thriving Norway provides an Economics Lesson
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
This probably has more to do with their successes as a country than anything else. Smaller populations are easier to govern (New York's population is around 20mil), and being an energy exporter ensures that there's enough wealth to go around to provide it's citizens with a large social safety net.
“We have become complacent,” Mr. Mork added. “More and more vacation houses are being built. We have more holidays than most countries and extremely generous benefits and sick leave policies. Some day the dream will end.”
The have a huge surplus and are saving 11% of their governmnets bugdet. At some point their savings could probably fund all government spending at which point running out of oil would not be the end of the world. Granted government spending is only 40% of GDP but 30 years from now they could have 40% unemployment and still have a stable functioning society.
It's probably part of the reason for the push to renewable energy and energy efficiency. And also services/IP?
As it is, most oil revenue is set aside, and there wouldn't be a massive budget deficit if the oil revenue went away tomorrow. Doesn't mean there wouldn't need to be some adjustment if the oil revenue dried up, since it provides a lot of employment and the cost of dealing with increased unemployment could be significant, but Norway is surprisingly independent of the oil revenue, and becoming increasingly independent of it as the oil fund swells.
A couple of friends of mine are Bangladeshi academics. They are the nicest, "squarest" and most hard working nerds I've ever met. I had lots of fun sending them a reference to the news last year -- about problems in Oslo with Bangladeshi street gangs... :-)
But sure, the problems with planning and controlling a society isn't proportional to the population, more like the population squared.
It should also be less problems with fewer variables.
Either way, the point still stands.
Without oil, Norway would be like Denmark, or Sweden.
There are downsides to having a very homogeneous culture, of course. If you are different, you will have a hard time finding a broad network of friends. Norwegian culture is pretty tolerant in the most important ways, but a total population of 1/4 that of any major world city is noticeable. In terms of land area, our country is larger than you would think. This isn't just some weird enclave.
But it is probably impossible to enforce harmonically coexisting, internally homogeneous cultures. And I'm not even sure that would be something we'd want. My most important personal value is freedom to, within reason, do and say and think whatever I want. Meeting different cultures first-hand is often necessary in order to be able to do this, since there is a broad range of behaviors and mindsets that are excluded within any particular culture. We create our own intellectual walls without even thinking about it.
But oil is the biggest export of Denmark. Norway just has a lot more. Only Russia and Saudi Arabia exports more oil than Norway IIRC.
This is a powerful strategic argument for proactively promoting carbon neutral energy in advance of the market. This is especially true for energy delivered in the form of electricity, due to the nature of its delivery infrastructure. Someone stands to benefit from first mover advantage here.
What you find is that the real strength of these countries are in their culture, not in their natural resources.
Another thing to consider is how one would actually manage this kind of wealth if you actually obtained it. In my opinion, the way Norway spends huge amounts of money on foreign development projects, spreading progressive values such as gender equality, and promoting the role of the UN, are certainly better than building huge palaces or indoor ski slopes.
"Just around the corner from Norway’s central bank, for instance, Paul Bruum takes a needle full of amphetamines and jabs it into his muscular arm. His scabs and sores betray many years as a heroin addict. He says that the $1,500 he gets from the government each month is enough to keep him well-fed and supplied with drugs.
Mr. Bruum, 32, says he has never had a job, and he admits he is no position to find one. I don’t blame anyone, he said. The Norwegian government has provided for me the best they can."
Why should other people be forced to subsidize that kind of lifestyle?
The salient point is that even if I'm happy to subsidize that sort of lifestyle, I don't think the government should make the decision for me (especially not at the point of a gun).
If you think all taxation is inherently illegitimate, that's fine, but such a position is not strengthened by your disapproval of the target of the tax funds, no matter how silly or frivolous you think that target is. If, on the other hand, you think some taxes are reasonable -- that is, it is acceptable to apportion according to a majority in some cases -- then your argument needs to address the inappropriateness of the target of the funds, not the legitimacy of the taxation itself.
I am all for charity (I give a fair amount myself). Any of us could fall on hard times. But I am against being forced to give money to these sorts of causes.
What if I, personally, feel like there is somebody else who is more worthy of my charity (those in the third world, those who were never given a first chance, those with genetic diseases, etc). It should be my choice who to help.
The problem I have with government welfare is that they tell me that if I don't contribute I will be thrown in jail (and if I refuse to go to jail, they will kill me). I don't like having that sort of threat hanging over my head - even if I was planning to do what they want anyways.
I have no intention of joining the KKK - but I would be just as angry if the government told me I couldn't do that.
Is drug addition a greater problem in Norway than say the US? The alternative is for Mr. Bruum to rob, pimp or deal to feed his habit.
That said, I'm still happier to be working here as opposed to being back home in the States. And, while Norwegians do work fewer hours, most of them are more productive during the hours they do work.
i'm not sure about uae, especially dubai
(It puts the UK at 47%, and the UAE at 22%.)
http://clipmarks.forbes.com/2009/05/14/the-real-norway-lesso...
Haha, brilliant. Sounds a little like a lottery winner offering financial advice.
What a bullshit article. Sorry...
Lessons learned: it's good to have a lot of oil.
Did they invest so wisely? Maybe, maybe not - even if they did, who says they were not just the lucky ones that are bound to exist (just as with fund managers)?
Here's one case (and I'm sure there are others) which is a resounding no: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/world/europe/02norway.html
(as an aside: I've been to Narvik, in the summer, and the scenery is absolutely stunning. The 2am sunshine is also amusing to behold.)
Technology wise, Norway is way up on the list. Most of us have 20mbit ++ directly into the wall, a diverse open source environment, a subsidized media channel which delivers lots of their TV shows via BitTorrent in 1080p/720p, etc.