The Norway example is really annoying. It keeps coming back as an example to follow, when everybody knows it is a complete outlier that cannot be reproduced elsewhere.
Norway is sitting on a gigantic pile of offshore gas that it uses to generate massive profits that go into a huge fund they don't know what to do with, all of that for a 5M population that drowns into social programs.
There is literally no country in the world that has this ratio of natural resources $ / capita.
Yet, when you look at what Norway has actually produced over the past few decades in terms of innovation, companies, etc. the picture is very, very empty.
The US government only takes a 12.5% royalty on profits from oil and gas extraction on public land [1]. Norway has a petroleum tax of 27% and a special tax of 51% for a total of 78% [2] in comparison.
While we would generate less tax revenue per capita than Norway would, that's not the point. The point is the state should take a much larger share of the profits of extracting natural resources that state owns.
The royalty rate is on production, not profits. The government takes 12.5% of all produced oil and has the right to the revenues. This is a much more burdensome tax than a tax on profits in that the government gets paid before the oil company, even if the oil company loses money on their investments. That’s why it’s not taxed at standard corporate tax rates.
Norway may be at the far end of the spectrum, but it's not black and white. Most countries have resources and very few share them with their citizens. It's not just to be born into a system where an incumbent oligarchy has control of resources. That kind of modern realpolitik doesn't develop any kind of civic duty or pride.
> Norway is sitting on a gigantic pile of offshore gas that it uses to generate massive profits that go into a huge fund they don't know what to do with, all of that for a 5M population that drowns into social programs.
> Yet, when you look at what Norway has actually produced over the past few decades in terms of innovation, companies, etc. the picture is very, very empty.
I don't agree with this being used as a primary metric for determining the worth of a nation or the value of its policies.
The #1 priority of a country should be the well-being of its people. Not "of its wealthiest"; not "of its economy". The well-being of all its people.
Norway is, last I knew, consistently among the happiest countries on Earth. I think that's a far, far more meaningful metric than "how many new ways to part people from their money have they come up with?"
(Now, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made with respect to things like basic scientific research, improved green technologies and other advances toward ending climate change, etc—particularly since that's vitally important for every nation's long-term well-being. But that's not at all the same thing as "innovation, companies, etc".)
If you are going to use the happiness of the country as justification for something you need to do a bunch of fancy statistics to try and disagregate the specific thing you are justifying from the large basket of differences between the countries you are comparing, as there are often large differences that are unrelated to what you are talking about driving happiness differentials.
It is also extremely disingenuous to call innovation and companies "new ways to part people from their money." People are often parting with their money because that new thing meaningfully improves their lives. Also, the basic scientific research argument is extremely overplayed. Breakthroughs in basic scientific research amount to nothing if they don't make it into the supply chain for goods and services eventually and that happens through company formation.
Norway's state oil&gas revenue pays and subsidizes pensions, tuition free education and healthcare while actually growing rather than shrinking most of the time. Unless your definition of feeling rich is the government buying you a lambo I'd feel very rich in Norway based on services provided at no or little cost alone.
This is how almost every single human being alive right now or alive in the past thinks. I have a lifelong friend who through a combination of luck, hard work, and being a legitimate genius is now wealthy ($10,000,000+ net worth and climbing).
However, he and his wife insist they are not 'rich'.
If you own a penthouse in a 30 story condominium and a lake house on the Great Lakes and haven't flown less than first / business class in the past 10 years, you're rich by any nation's standard.
I can see how getting a bunch of stuff without working for it appeals to a certain segment of the populace. Venezuela (and Libya) also had oil-backed welfare for their populace. Best not to get too used to it.
Ah the old patronizing saw "you just want free stuff"... no sir, I don't. I'm just playing another Game with a different equilibrium. One where everyone doesn't get to die for lack of health-care, like animals in the wilderness. One where my neighbor's education is not considered a threat to the small place under the sun I've managed to rip out of their hands, like predators quarreling for some spoils.
Hey who doesn't like free stuff. I like free stuff. Just pointing out not to get too used to it. History hasn't been kind to those who become too dependent on oil revenue, including in the form of distributions from the state.
>"you just want free stuff"
Ah the old patronizing "I invent a quote the person didn't say, and then I straw man against it like they did."
Yeah, Elon really worked super-hard for those $200B. Man clearly outworked every other person in world history except Bezos, who has a team that photoshops him into vacation scenes practically every other week to keep Amazon employees to from understanding what a tremendous strain he puts himself under.
Oh, wait. He was born rich, continues to suckle the teat of the US government, and will generally make money if all he does is sit there and do nothing, because money is power, and power has a gravitational pull of its own.
Also, the reason that wealthy people with families who have hundreds of years of wealth are so stingy is because they don't want to work for it.
There is a difference between paying for things directly with oil money and buying a diversified portfolio with oil money and using the profits from that portfolio to buy things.
> Yet, when you look at what Norway has actually produced over the past few decades in terms of innovation, companies, etc. the picture is very, very empty.
Do you have anything to back this claim up? Most of what I've searched about the Nordic countries in terms of innovation seems to disagree with this assertion.
Norway is sitting on a gigantic pile of offshore gas that it uses to generate massive profits that go into a huge fund they don't know what to do with, all of that for a 5M population that drowns into social programs.
There is literally no country in the world that has this ratio of natural resources $ / capita.
Yet, when you look at what Norway has actually produced over the past few decades in terms of innovation, companies, etc. the picture is very, very empty.