All the other scandinavian countries that don’t swim in fossil fuel wealth are still doing pretty well, though. Also, lots of countries that are rich in natural resources don’t actually let the majority of their population participate in that wealth.
That’s my point. America actually has roughly 10 times as much oil as Norway, but in Norway everyone benefits from the oil rather than just a handful of mega-rich oil barons.
USA also has about 60 times as many people as Norway. The USA certainly has an above-average amount of natural resources per capita, but it’s not quite “swimming in oil”-level.
Norway is a stupid example. Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland easily have the same level of welfare or arguably better than Norway in many regards. The key is to make public investments into the country’s resources (be it farmland, forestry, mines, electricity) and build infrastructure and institutions that benefit the people.
By investing directly, you are doing the thinking instead of deferring judgement to bankers and the “invisible hand” that’s really just a bunch of rich dudes with their own incentives that don’t align with yours. You cut out billionaire middlemen and money doesn’t have to “trickle down”, and you can steer the behavior of your industries and universities toward causes that take your country’s needs over time into account.
That’s how good investors think about their business empires - why should countries choose to not strategize at all and just let nature do its thing?
True, and worth a reminder. But they choose to do, well, social things with it*. In addition to more “normal” social welfare stuff they give money to people who live in the very North, just for living in the North.
They also have so many waterfalls that all their electricity is hydro, and they have too much of it.
They tried to sell it cheaply to the EU some decades ago but of course our energy lobby blocked it.
* also cultural etc. etc. Like another commenter said: they choose to let their people participate in it
They are also absolutely floating in oil wealth.
All the other scandinavian countries that don’t swim in fossil fuel wealth are still doing pretty well, though. Also, lots of countries that are rich in natural resources don’t actually let the majority of their population participate in that wealth.
Oh yeah, good on them for managing their oil wealth in a way that benefits their society.
They could also have been like the UAE. Or the US.
So is the US
The US citizens are definitely not oil wealthy.
That’s my point. America actually has roughly 10 times as much oil as Norway, but in Norway everyone benefits from the oil rather than just a handful of mega-rich oil barons.
Won’t someone think of the
billionairestrillionaires!USA also has about 60 times as many people as Norway. The USA certainly has an above-average amount of natural resources per capita, but it’s not quite “swimming in oil”-level.
That definitely ain’t right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves
Oh wow, I knew Venezuela was rich in oil, but damn!
IIRC Venezuela’s oil is both a bit shit, and hard to get at but they have huge amounts. That’s why they’re not as rich as UAE
Honestly, it’s incredible that it took the US so long to invade them.
Norway is a stupid example. Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland easily have the same level of welfare or arguably better than Norway in many regards. The key is to make public investments into the country’s resources (be it farmland, forestry, mines, electricity) and build infrastructure and institutions that benefit the people.
By investing directly, you are doing the thinking instead of deferring judgement to bankers and the “invisible hand” that’s really just a bunch of rich dudes with their own incentives that don’t align with yours. You cut out billionaire middlemen and money doesn’t have to “trickle down”, and you can steer the behavior of your industries and universities toward causes that take your country’s needs over time into account.
That’s how good investors think about their business empires - why should countries choose to not strategize at all and just let nature do its thing?
True, and worth a reminder. But they choose to do, well, social things with it*. In addition to more “normal” social welfare stuff they give money to people who live in the very North, just for living in the North.
They also have so many waterfalls that all their electricity is hydro, and they have too much of it.
They tried to sell it cheaply to the EU some decades ago but of course our energy lobby blocked it.
* also cultural etc. etc. Like another commenter said: they choose to let their people participate in it