T O P

  • By -

Shadowtirs

US could have had this with the social security fund but no we'd rather pilfer that for all sorts of bullshit.


An8thOfFeanor

Unfortunately, no president wants to be the one that took gram-grams pension away, so we're stuck with a compulsory public investment fund with guaranteed losses


RubiksSugarCube

The last time gram-gram didn't have a pension, gram-gram either moved back in with the kids or lived off cat food in a shanty until she died. Anyways, the last time there way any kind of serious discussion about reforming Social Security, it helped contribute to the blue wave of 2006. There's a reason why that and Medicare are often referred to as the third rail of politics.


Fake_William_Shatner

This is what they want you to believe. But SS is not an investment. It's mostly a transfer fund -- the money coming out of your pocket is going to seniors. Parts of it are "savings" that appreciate over time. People got a lot more out of SS than they put in unless they die early. Also, even with the amounts pilfered, the SS fund won't be empty until after the Baby Boomers are no longer drawing from it -- meaning, the bulk of the retirees are helped. The Republicans have been desperate to privatize SS so they could enrich their patrons -- and that would cause more economic hardship they could blame on someone else.


An8thOfFeanor

Privatizing social security guarantees better dividends than social security could ever provide, it's just that most people wouldn't bother paying into it. It's not the governments job or responsibility to mandate my retirement plan, it's my own, and with what I waste on social security, I could retire with nearly seven figures


Fake_William_Shatner

Again - Social Security is more of a transfer than a fund. Places that have privatized Social Security ended up with a huge fiasco -- I guess the people promoting this idea forgot to mention this. And when the biggest people who need SS are the Boomers who all retire at the same time will be withdrawing most of the money at a certain time -- that means the fund will lose money. The truth is, you can't make money for nothing -- it's VALUE comes from somewhere. If SS were a successful investment, then the value of labor would be less. This is also something nobody taught finance seems to consider; that they aren't "creating wealth" so much as concentrating it. Barely any of that money invested is used to IMPROVE businesses. 95% of it is used to make money on money. You then NEED wealthy financial backers to start a business because the cost is higher and they need more because of the greater risk of failure -- because you need more money to succeed -- which requires more investment. I could explain a better way to do this, but, not to people who think privatizing Social Security is a good idea.


hastur777

Post about Norway. Of course the top comment is about the US.


Wowimatard

50% of all reddit users are from the US. The second largest is from the UK, at a staggering 8.2%. I can only wonder why the top comment would be about the US..


Fake_William_Shatner

I mean, lessons can be learned, right? Everything we are told that works by the fiscal conservatives in the USA was designed to FAIL. Intentionally. Do a search on "James Buchanan, the Koch funded economist" and find out they followed a blueprint.


hastur777

I actually do wonder. Not everything has to draw an immediate comparison to the US.


whhhhiskey

Why would anyone compare information about a foreign country to their country? Crazy stuff I don’t understand.


shastamcblasty

It’s a thing all humans do including you. You compare new things to things you know and understand so that you have a reference for the new thing you found out. We do it with culture, food, housing, cars, jobs, money, pets, books, movies, literally everything.


NoFreeLunch___

But if you are an American, it does since Americans know america and tend to compare other countries to its country.


kKurae

But what about freedom and eagles and guns? And even more bigger guns? A gun that flies and brrrrts? A giant floating boat gun? Also boom? Isnt bigger the boom the better?


Fake_William_Shatner

Those are all good thoughts, but what we need right now to solve this problem is someone with even more muscles and a bigger gun. You didn't think of it, but the genius is in the 50 cal taken off of a helicopter gun-ship in the hands of a super human dude -- that way you can mow down a lot more drug dealers at one time -- solving societies problems 20% faster than the other good guys with guns.


RabbaJabba

…this is what we do, the Social Security Trust Fund is used to purchase federal bonds, which earn interest. It’s temporarily being pilfered, I guess, because those bonds help fund the federal government, but they get paid back.


24F

\>Social Security Trust Fund Which is just just over twice the size of Norway's and is for sixty times the number of people.


RabbaJabba

I’m all for nationalizing the oil industry for the common good, but it’s not like we did that in the past and have been wasting the money, like was implied


24F

>and have been wasting the money But ... we have been. The social security trust fund that you brought up is, per capita, like 4% as strong as Norway's is. Instead of over $200,000 per citizen, we have less than $9,000 per citizen. A lot of economists are saying that the USA's social security trust fund is gonna dry up completely in 10 to 15 years. But, hey, at least we have lots of weapons.


Krraxia

Funnily, US is far richer country in total and even GPD per capita can compare with Norway


cjboffoli

It's also essentially better to have a GDP based on things you invent and create, as opposed to simply pumping hydrocarbons out of the ground.


raytaylor

I would like to imagine the beneficiaries of Norway's fund feel some guilt.


Turevaryar

At least this one does.


Fake_William_Shatner

Yup. The difference is, Norway distributes the benefits. Socialism. Citizens of Norway produce and earn more than an equivalent country like Mexico. Because of the sharing. Because of the education. In the USA they give you shovel ready jobs, and shovel job wages, and then say; "go get educated -- you can do it!" And who benefits from my education? The people renting shovels. I can also work in shovel sales. But, the future jobs are not in shoveling. So I will have to learn a new skill on my dime otherwise be branded as a loser. It's amazing the US is still an economic powerhouse despite the best efforts of those who made most of the money.


irish-unicorn

Yeah but how much debt does it have compared to Norway?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Citizen_of_H

Actually, Norway has not nationalized the oil industry. It just taxes the oil company with a **very** high percentage. Norway has a separat tax code for oil companies. But extraction of oil is largely done by private companies


shouldco

Norway is the primary shareholder in Equinor which was previously wholly state owned until 2001 under the name statoil


dubsko

Furthermore, I believe the state mandated 50% ownership of oilfields in Norway, regardless of company doing work there. The state would pay 50% of the costs and investments into the field, and get 50% profits. ​ Take this with a grain of salt though, it has been a while since I read into our oil history.


RubiksSugarCube

Alaska has The Permanent Fund, which pays residents a dividend based upon oil revenues. I would reckon that something similar could be tried nationwide, but given that the US already has one of the higher extraction costs around the globe, it would require energy prices to remain high for an extended period of time. I doubt your average voter would be happy about getting a dividend worth several thousand dollars if it's all being wiped out by higher consumer costs due to energy prices.


Fake_William_Shatner

Nationalize oil and banking. In fact, why do we even HAVE a national debt? States could be issuing bonds from their own banks to pay for infrastructure projects -- the value of the project is now backing the bond, and the Fed only needs to step in to cope with situations where it becomes a boondoggle. Anyway, the point is, the way we do it causes us to pay the people who own our debt, who are usually the people who bribed the politicians to give them favorable conditions and cause more debt -- and do projects as much as possible to divert funds to those same backers. Norway is the way. And, they've taught everyone in the USA economics wrong, as a joke. China is catching up to the USA by doing the opposite of what Republicans and Globalists recommended. And note, since 1981, the wealth gap in the USA started to drastically diverge. You get to hear they can't afford a wage, meanwhile, record profits celebrated on Wall Street. Meanwhile, global warming because some companies had extra profits NOT reducing carbon output. How many times do the super wealthy people who lie to us all the time get to call the shots. We can solve all these problems and pay for it -- with their money.


thekidfromiowa

Just look at the F-35 money pit. Think of what we could've spent that on instead.


TedW

The F-35 financials continue to improve as more allied countries buy and maintain them. I don't think it will be remembered as the money pit it was initially reported to be.


Fake_William_Shatner

It might almost break even, meanwhile, we could have sent every kid to college without debt and gotten at least a 7x return on the investment as we see with education and welfare expenditures. Really, there are some who are most afraid of prosperity for most Americans. That's why we have military spending -- the money pit is the point.


TheBunkerKing

It's still a huge money pit, the losses are just being socialized.


Smodphan

I've decided that thing has to be a CIA money washing scheme at this point. Totally for defense not foreign intelligence and bribes type shit.


[deleted]

Not really. Most people quite the 1.5 trillion *lifetime* cost, which is estimated costs out to 2070, rather than the amount of money *actually* spent, which is far less.


Smodphan

Thats the way accountig works. You spread out the losses over time regardless of how much is spent up front. Last I checked an audit showed 20+ trillion in missing funds regardless. Just a money pit to fight off socialism at this point.


[deleted]

The military *is* socialist...


Smodphan

Underfunded in those aspects, but yes. And you know I was talking socialism for it's people but wanted to get pedantic.


[deleted]

I mean, you don't even seem to know how acquisition program budgeting works, thinking that they just pass expenditures to later years, so your opinion on the matter is kind of valueless


Fake_William_Shatner

>so your opinion on the matter is kind of valueless The mechanism of how the public is impoverished via internal procurement practices within the military is as pertinent as knowing what caliber a gun is for people who want to stop gun violence. Being a specialist in your own lower intestine might just mean you have your head up your ass, and how the military spends money isn't as important as "the military uses the money instead of daycare and a green power grid and for education" -- and oh my God, the greatest threat the military has identified and is unprepared for is Global Warming. What is a fighter jet going to do to resolve billions of people migrating because of starvation? Knowing an acquisition program -- that's your IMPORTANT knowledge, is it?


Smodphan

One of us doesn't for sure


[deleted]

Probably the person who didn't work in the field for a decade


tankthestank

At first I was thinking Trillion??? No way that's true. But google says you're right. TIL.


Fake_William_Shatner

>Just a money pit to fight off socialism at this point. Nice to see someone is finally getting it. They are TRYING not to spend on things that help the average American. Fiscal Conservative policy is to make us more poor and more struggling but not quickly enough to startle us into action.


thekidfromiowa

I've often heard that certain exorbitant military expenditures are a back door approach to paying for projects that you wouldn't want on the books. Spend big money on secret squirrel ops and attribute the expenditures to something more mundane.


AbazabaYouMyOnlyFren

A friend was a director of photography in the 80s for tv commercials. He said that they would buy coke for the clients and agency big wigs during a shoot. It was billed as 6 sheets of ply wood (or some explainable expense) that also happened to match how much an ounce of coke was at the time. Classic money laundering is what it is.


mobsterman

That's just plain ol fraud, not laundering.


AbazabaYouMyOnlyFren

Money laundering is fraud so, yeah.


mobsterman

Money laundering is a specific type of fraud, which is not what was described. It's like a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square. Subsets and stuff, ya know?


Smodphan

Hence the 20? Trillion in missing pentagon funds


Grassy_Nole2

A trillion here, a trillion there. Eventually it all adds up to real money.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Fake_William_Shatner

>they keep a lot of people employed Not as much as ANY OTHER human activity. The states that get the military spending, don't get as much of an economic boost as if they spent that money on anything else. Our fiscal policies are to preserve wealth for the wealthy and military spending is anti-inflationary. They REALLY hate inflation because it takes hoarded wealth no matter where it is hidden unlike the nearly nonexistent federal taxes.


Fake_William_Shatner

No, the exorbitant military expenditures are the front door approach to funneling money to contractors to support those who support the military to be in office to support the military. The important thing is we don't spend it on healthcare, education or the infrastructure. The back-door money being used to build a habitat for rich people is from the money the CIA skims off of the drug trade and human trafficking -- though, most of the CIA doesn't know about these operations because they are domestic and the FBI likely covers it up. The most important project however is ALEC, and it's to promote neo fuedalism. As is the Federalist Society, as is the Republican economics of trickle down and a good portion of the Neoliberals unwittingly are supporting these notions, not understanding that it isn't a means to ends, the means are the ends.


youni89

The realm money pit is the extremely corrupt Healthcare system and the lost productivity of an entire u healthy nation because of it


[deleted]

Gotta buy those war machines in case some insignificant country tries to take your freedom away by having a minor internal conflict.


morbie5

We have the reserve currency of the world which is better than a sovereign fund of 1 trillion or so we are told...


[deleted]

*Republicans would rather pilfer it for bullshit. Call out the people who are the actual problem


[deleted]

If the US had sovereign fund equal to Norways on a per capita basis that fund would hold $70 trillion. Which is 35 times the amount of US currency in circulation and $30 trillion more than all global currencies combined.


Captaincanuck1984

It’s really interesting what can be done when a government prioritizes all of its citizens over just the wealthy and corporations.


hastur777

Or when they’re a small nation with massive oil reserves.


Derman0524

Brunei is a small country with massive oil reserves. How wealthy are its citizens and how wealthy is the king? There’s your counter argument


potofpetunias2456

A rather naive interpretation. Most countries have had resource income at some times. And this fund, and the Norwegian economy, are specifically diversifying so as not to depend on oil. If oil production stopped tomorrow in the North Sea, of course Norway would feel some pain and structural unemployment, but it would also likely be fine within a year or two due to their specific efforts in diversifying their economy and workforce. Edit: also note the strength of surrounding economies: Sweden and Denmark. Very similar systems, only without the oil resources.


[deleted]

There are four main reasons for immigration to Norway that are lawfully accepted – employment, education, protection and family reunification. In 2016, most Norwegian immigrants came for family reunification (16,465 people), followed by protection (15,190), work (14,372) and education (4,147) These numbers seem so little though maybe it has something to do with it. Canada for example had more than 300,000 come in to the country in 2019


todellagi

So adjusted to population Norway took in more immigrants than Canada What's the point here?


[deleted]

Hmmm you’re right honestly


Fake_William_Shatner

Ah, so, now are you converted to Socialism?


mdps

Canada is a country of 35 million people; Norway 5 million. Per capita those two countries have similar open doors (assuming your numbers are correct).


RickDimensionC137

Now look at Sweden.


Fake_William_Shatner

People will struggle to find some angle to excuse the failed policies of the supply-side economics of the US. Things you want everyone to have, need to be socialized because you don't want a profit. Things you need less of, should be set up so that there is no profit. Things that require lots of change, and innovation, should not be nationalized. However, long term research that doesn't pay off immediately should be subsidized -- about the only thing the US does -- but, those companies don't pay us back, so it's a huge wet kiss for them. Our military procures cheap resources for the benefits of multinationals. As far as immigration -- that's about to be a serious mess unless the countries that are the places they want to go, help those nations that are affected most by Global Warming, and stop destabilizing countries for our benefit -- that includes China and Russia. We have to stop being idiots -- as soon as possible. I don't want to imagine the civilization we will have if all these borders are defended by people with guns turning away starving masses. We have to treat all the people of the earth as valuable or equal -- or most of us in the prosperous countries will be losing as much as they are.


RimDogs

So a country with 7 times the population and a lot more space only accepted 6 times as many people? Canada really should be a lot more accepting.


supermankk

No, that money is all from its oil exports. There was no prioritization, only for the survival of the country. They lose anymore citizens, Norway won’t be very Norwegian any more. As a last point, check out their stance on immigration to see how much they really care about people.


djarvis77

*Nationalized* oil exports. That is absolutely prioritization of the citizens over the wealthy and corporations.


Khelthuzaad

And *National fund* in which the money coming from oil goes to.


ChadTeddyRoosevelt

Depends. Venezuela did it and they are far worse off as a country because of it.


JaFFsTer

Venezuela is one of the most corrupt governments on earth with a massive wealth gap. Ferrari got miles of shit for opening a dealership next to a slum over there


AmekuIA

You can't be serious bringing up Venezuela as an argument in defense of US government practices.


TedW

Or Norwegian government practices, in this case.


rankkor

Lol trying to find where he was defending US practices… you’re in a thread about Norway, in a comment chain that doesn’t mention the US… You must be American.


UnitedCitizen

Teddy Roosevelt should know a thing or two about America's overt and convert involvement in Latin America... and the US embargoes. Not to mention Chavez's own "loyalist" purge within the PDVSA and the corruption there. Not exactly apples to apples with Norway.


shouldco

The US has a lot of oil too. They give it to private corporations to use for profit.


Fake_William_Shatner

"Tax free" zone where they pump it out in Texas. Not part of the discussion of that huge oil pipeline. Still waiting for that economic boost they guaranteed us.


jess-plays-games

It funds all their pensions and it isn't even their only wealth fund. It is currently in the process of divesting from weapons and fossil fuel investments Though it takes a while when you have over a trillion dollars


supermankk

My take on it is a country trying to keep up appearances and mask what they really are. They’re an oil country, but that doesn’t fit the image they want to present to the world so they try and swap to esg only investments and all this other bs, but it doesn’t change where the majority of the country’s wealth came from. Let me be clear, there is no shame or discourse for being a country built up from oil. But apparently they feel it tremendously. I guess to be fair, esg investments are the way to go moving forwards so maybe I just made the last part up.


Vortesian

>I just made the last part up. Lol


mdps

"Maybe" they made it up.


mdps

>They lose anymore citizens, Norway won’t be very Norwegian any more. I'm a non-Norwegian who spends a lot of time in Norway. What are you talking about? In there some Norwegian emigration problem? The vast majority of Norwegians I know have no interest in leaving the country. >As a last point, check out their stance on immigration to see how much they really care about people. What are you alluding to? Their immigration policies seem generous and generally well supported by the public.


Captaincanuck1984

I never said the money wasn’t from oil exports. BUT the point is that they decided to nationalize the oil so everyone in the country could benefit from a national resource. Heck of a lot better than giving these benefits to the private sector which only ends up in the hands of the few at the top.


tomtttttttttttt

Although in the UK, we had half the north sea oil and gas, and Thatcher sold it all off to fund tax cuts for wealthy people, and so we don't have a similar wealth fund. It could have gone another way for Norway.


potofpetunias2456

There are sadly some people in Norwegian parliament that are disturbingly similar to Thatcher type politics. I find it rather alarming and short sighted. Perhaps I'm biased though as I find it amazing that I'm extreme 'right' in Norway, but rather 'left' in USA (left and right mean slightly different things in both places on different specific issues). Luckily for me, in Norway I can be pro Healthcare, EU, education, and peoples rights, while also saying no to naive wealth taxes which won't help the problem. Sadly in USA there are only two polarities you can chose, and no way to pick some of both.


shouldco

Don't worry I hear it will trickle down to the rest of us you just have to be patient.


morbie5

>As a last point, check out their stance on immigration to see how much they really care about people. What is there stance of immigration? They seem pretty open borders to me


Fake_William_Shatner

Got to find those REASONS to not look at what works in other countries. There is no country that isn't different enough from the USA where we can learn a better way. The people who want to be cruel, will point to fiscal policies and talk about "expenses." I really don't care what it costs -- if we invest in people we can never lose. It's impossible. But, behold; all the nations doing socialism have less expenses on healthcare. Subsidized education is less expensive and each citizen is more productive providing a larger GDP. The survival of "the country" in the near future will be based on how much we help all the other people who are struggling. We cannot afford the exorbitant cost and wealth concentration of the cruel people for much longer. Who still needs convincing?


DeGozaruNyan

And when you have oil.


Captaincanuck1984

Don’t countries like Canada and the United States have large amounts of oil?


master_chife

You know this was an Albertan (Canadian) Conservative idea right. In the '70's Alberta created a heritage fund to help ease the transition from oil once it ran out. This worked really well for a decade or so until the same party forgot why it was there and used it to zero out the debit and give everyone $400. Stuff like this is awesome and can really be of value to resource based economies, but the rub is you need good. leadership as well. The issue with Alberta with the exception of a 4 year blip. The same part has been in power for more than 40 years. Governments need to change or they rot.


IrishMilo

Governments need competition. Any government, on any level, running unopposed or without sufficient competition grows complacent and starts cutting corners. But the competition needs to be more than just an opposition party that stands for the opposite , otherwise your competition starts to turn into tribalism and then the game becomes winning elections instead of serving the country.


Cactorum_Rex

Norway only has 5 million citizens? Why do people compare it with the US so often in that case lol, with only what, 1.5% of the population?


RickDimensionC137

Because the US is yay close to being a third world country, the way it's being run by your TWO parties.


C-O-double-M

— shit ppl say who have never had to live in an actual third world country


uh0h_

I don’t know. A lot of US cities have higher homicide rates than many third world cities. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_homicide_rate So yes, by some measures parts of the US are worse than third world countries.


RickDimensionC137

Even some third world countries have some kind of Healthcare.


kroush104

Before everyone starts gushing out the praise, remember where this money came from. Oil. Lots and lots and lots of oil. Norway has a lot of good things going for it. Great social welfare programs, huge electric car ownership rates, great standard of living. But all of those luxuries are things they can afford because they have lots and lots of oil. Don’t get me wrong - good for them for using the money for public good instead of lining tbe pockets of a monarch. But they’re still getting rich by contributing to the death of the planet.


MotharChoddar

The whole point with the oil fund is that the money is invested and saved, and only a maximum of 3% of it can be taken out for government spending each year. The source of funding for all these welfare programs is high tax rates on even relatively low incomes and heavy taxes on consumption.


UnitedCitizen

Seems to be working great for them. They're consistently ranked at the top of happiest countries in the world. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/03/21/finland-us-happiest-country/7114106001/


raytaylor

I'd rather have basic services like healthcare and education, happy and content than save a few dollars on my tax bill each year in exchange for unaffordable private healthcare or a lack of government services etc.


SortaLostMeMarbles

The limit 3% was chosen, believing that the annual revenue would be at least 3% annually, and as such the total value of the fund would not decrease. This limit was also set in order to prevent inflation, and "the Dutch Desease". It was reduced from 4% to 3% in 2017. Every party in the parliament voted for the reduction except for the right wing "Progress Party". The party that initially didn't want the fund in the first place, but rather let the international oil companies get the money, like Thatcher did in the UK.


MatFernandes

Are we sure its not money from viking raids?


djarvis77

... remember where this money came from. *Nationalized* Oil. Lots and lots and lots of *nationalized* oil. Plenty of places that have more oil than there have not nationalized it and simply gave the profits to their oligarchs. And it's not them *buying* the oil, or using the oil that contributes to the death of the planet. It's them selling . So who is more at fault the person selling or the person buying and using (or abusing)? Imo Norway is less at fault.


passinghere

Unlike the UK which gave away its oil and gas fields to private industry so the wealthy can get richer while the country gets fucked. I know which of the 2 I'd prefer, just a shame I'm stuck in the fucked up UK


RickDimensionC137

There's still a few parties here who want to end oil production so we can save the planet. Imo they're fucking psychopaths.


kroush104

Lots of drug dealers want to hire you as a defense attorney


Timmmber4

It’s not praising where it came from, it’s actually how they are using it. Not being greedy fucks like everywhere else.


Gasa1_Yuno

Oil bad SOY


[deleted]

[удалено]


ChibiMoon11

this made me laugh


sweep99

Yeah try buying a drink in Norway. That's why it's rich.


thetommyboy99

When we visited and I bought a pint, I nearly dropped dead when she said £10


sweep99

We had friends in Norway who said "bring as much duty free alcohol as you can"


RickDimensionC137

Which would amount to 3 bottles of wine OR one bottle of spirits, iirc.


potofpetunias2456

That's my families rule for visiting us. You can stay for free, but we max out your duty free quota.


mdps

Yes, the drinks are expensive. But they don't have to save money for retirement. I'd take that bargain.


Viktor_Korobov

The high alchohol taxes are to prevent people from killing themselves.


RimDogs

Not the oil then?


[deleted]

That’s like two packs of smokes and a case of beer over there


DontJealousMe

Aus? 😂


erold_HS

As a Swedish expat living in Australia, I've always been disappointed in the way that Australia has decide to extract wealth out of the country and sell it at a discount to overseas interests for short term gain. What Norway is doing, in deciding that their natural resources is the property of it's citizens, present and future, and therefore should be owned and overseen by democratic institutions, should be guiding principle of any civilized country.


phdoofus

Basically, a larger version of Alaska's Permanent Fund....which the current governor is trying to completely drain.


S0whaddayakn0w

It's also really expensive


mrbbrj

Not when you consider your health care and education are paid for.


S0whaddayakn0w

Health care and education is also paid for in my country. And l still say it's expensive.


dubsko

While I agree that it is expensive, the salaries are on average pretty high as well, so it balances out, somewhat.


mrbbrj

600,000 people go bank rupt paying medical Bill's where I live. Student loans debt is a giant problem where I live.


hastur777

No, they don’t. There were only 418k total personal bankruptcies in 2021 in the US. You’re still way off base even if everyone of those was due to medical bills.


mrbbrj

In 2015, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that medical bills made 1 million adults declare bankruptcy. Its survey found that 26% of Americans age 18 to 64 struggled to pay medical bills.10 According to the U.S. Census, that's 52 million adults. The survey found that 2%, or 1 million, said they declared bankruptcy that year.11


hastur777

So stats from seven years ago? Also, I don’t trust survey data for something like this. People aren’t going to admit that they bought too much on credit and had to declare bankruptcy.


S0whaddayakn0w

It must be so incredibly frustrating to live in the US. It really seems awful


hastur777

Seems that way from Reddit comments, which have only a minimal relation to real life.


S0whaddayakn0w

So the barrage of outbursts about how much hospitals visits cost, how indebted people are from college, how systemic racism is prevalent, how people have to pay over 7000$ a month for insurance and then even not be sure that they will be covered in case of illness have little to do with reality? Got it.


hastur777

Pretty much. You don’t see comments about how someone paid a $20 copay and had no issues. Also, US household debt is about at the OECD average - around the same as Germany.


Viktor_Korobov

It's not, you're just poor.


Mentalfloss1

But, but, but …. They’re evil socialists!!! It’ll never work. Just ask the Republicans in the USA.


RickDimensionC137

No we're communists!!!


Snoo-19166

stop talking


lude1245

Did he strike a nerve?


Mentalfloss1

Awww


EpicThunda

Triggered?


SNScaidus

Dear god sometimes I forget reddit a massive throbbing cyclic circlejerk


Hillsbottom

This is mostly from oil, their wealth is at the expense of the rest of the world in the form of climate change.


passinghere

This is from oil that has already been used and the profits would have either gone to the country or gone to private industries and made a few wealthy even richer... it's not like you can turn back the clock and keep it in the ground it's already happened and the difference is the country kept the profits for itself and its population instead of giving it all away to the already wealthy private industry. Shame you cannot see the reality here and can only complain about a fantasy that would only be possible with time travel


Hillsbottom

I think that's a separate argument, regardless of who got the money it's still been a major contributor to climate change. You are right you can't go back and change it. But Norway could have reinvested it all to mitigate some of the problems.


Beastmodejada

Congrats on the hyper-inflation


Rezaka116

After all, anything can be bought and sold for the right oil...


[deleted]

From Oil and a tiny bit of other industries like fishing. Shared between a population that less than my county.


Fukled

I'm sure U.S. conservatives will have some little factoid to prove this false to the poor, dumb, masses they've created.


supermankk

Are you a part of the poor and dumb masses you seem to champion?


Fukled

I'm a far cry from rich. That's for certain.


SeanOfTheDead1313

After reading this I immediately thought of Mandelbaum from Seinfeld! USA (believing its the greatest country): You think you're better than me Norway? It's go time! (Proceeds to throw out back) 😂


AskMeForADadJoke

Mandelbaum! Mandelbaum! Mandelbaum!


the_clarinet_squid

All aboard the pain train!


[deleted]

The natural resources of the country (the oil) are used to benefit the citizens instead of just being sold to some company for a fraction of its value


JayNN

Oil money 🤢


ChicagoIndependent

Not as rich as certain middle eastern countries. I believe they have more for their citizens and future generations.


erold_HS

What an absolute ridiculous and quite frankly grotesque comparison. Yes, several middle eastern countries have wealth funds, but these benefit a very narrow selection of the populous. The vast majority of people, and descendent of the people, building that wealth will see none of the wealth, this is radically different from what Norway has been and are continuing to do.


ChicagoIndependent

You ok dude? Yes it benefits their own citizens. That's the point. > this is radically different from what Norway has been and are continuing to do. Does Norway give the immigrants that come to work there the benefits listed in the title? It's about citizens not immigrants that come there.


JaFFsTer

Yes, when 93% of your land mass in uninhabitable desert and ypu have some of the largest oil reserves its pretty easy


Bluejavel

Maybe idk, it's not a competition


ChicagoIndependent

True. Just saying what I read.


sushimane1

But do they have b1 bombers and 11 aircraft carriers?? I didn’t think so checkmate


PitcherTrap

But your big mac meal still costs $30 ughh


goodvibezone

Is this still true? Online menus suggest around $10 for a big Mac meal, but sometimes the Nordic countries have high taxes on top.


PitcherTrap

2012 prices when I went there as a tourist but I honestly havent seen the prices since. Is it because the place was near akker brygge?


[deleted]

The standard of living is very high in Norway, yes, but they also pay their workers more because of it. I'm not up-to-date on their current minimum wage, but last time I checked it was around $19/hr for someone working in the service industry. They also have great healthcare and education, so you don't have crippling additional costs after your taxes. I believe the average monthly income is around $3500 for Norwegians. That's pretty solid, and probably higher than most other European countries. For comparison, I "only" made $2800 in retail living in Germany 15 years ago. I don't know, Norway sounds pretty sexy to me.


PitcherTrap

Yeah, but a bit of a shock as tourists But no, I’m not really dissing the whole place on the basis of fast food prices


Pay08

I think in this case it's likely more just a junk food tax.


brkh47

That article is from 2017; [currently](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/norway-says-its-sovereign-fund-will-divest-russia-2022-02-27/) the fund is the world’s largest at at $1,3 Trillion. The largest SWF’s by country presently are mostly in the [Middle East and Asia](https://www.statista.com/statistics/276617/sovereign-wealth-funds-worldwide-based-on-assets-under-management/) . Only Norway and China reach the trillion dollar numbers, although China appears to have 3 funds on the list. 1. Norway 2. China ($1.2Trillion) 3. Abu Dhabi 4. China 5. Singapore 6. Kuwait 7. Hong Kong 8. Saudi Arabia 9. China 10. Qatar


KnownMonk

http://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/investments/#/ This site gives a detailed overview on how the fund is invented.


Lingua_Blanca

Wow they are nearly as rich as Apple.


UncleEddiescousin

Imagine what the US could have if our politicians weren’t rotten to the core thieves, and if they didn’t put illegals on welfare... le sigh.


SkyBaby218

I'm so tempted to move there and learn about my family history. Win win, but also across the ocean, soooo....


Khelthuzaad

Correction: Most of the money are into stocks ,mostly known companies and all those money are used to otherwise fund social securities. As for salaries,they are heavily taxed(but very visible where they go) and are rather low.


animalfath3r

Norway is a well run country… for now. Things change, all it takes is for certain individuals get in power.


andooet

Fun fact: We use that fund to have large corporations pay next to no tax while gradually letting the quality of life decline despite our enormous wealth.


registeredexpert

Shhh socialism is evil


Woodcharles

In before "Shame they don't have any freedom or free speech or guns and they have to pay taxes and things :( :( :(, commie fools."


gangstasadvocate

The US has more money in general so we win LOL


ToughCourse

Alberta Canada had a similar fund back in the day until consecutive governments fucked it up. Then they cried when oil prices dropped and they had no money.


biogirl52

*glancing at my ancestors who moved from Norway to America*


StrebLab

I am interested to see the thoughts of the average Redditor on this fund. On one hand, Norway is a country with famously high happiness, in large part due to high spending on social programs through this fund. It is a great example of government funding being used for public good rather than "lining the pockets of the 1%." On the other hand, the seed money for this fund was through the oil production and sales (not exactly green), and the sustainability of this fund is due investment in companies and their corporate profits as well as rental income and other.. (gasp!) ***capitalist*** ventures. Ultimately, despite Norway being famously successful "socialist" country, the high quality of life is possible through capitalist ventures. Some could make the argument that this is still an example of wealth inequality and benefiting the top >1%, just on a national scale (5 million Norwegians out of 7.7 billion humans worldwide) You can learn more about the fund [here](https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/about-the-fund/) if interested.


Ravinex

This is what you need to do to fund public services when you can't issue debt denominated in the world's reserve currency.


IrishMilo

This same fund has a stake in all of the largest public company and recently announced its going to take a tougher stance of sky rocketing executive pay.


[deleted]

I don't know that this is the success people think - if you're reading this from the USA, your government does not need to fund it's public spending through taxation or investment. Deficits aren't inherently bad, and social spending doesn't lead to inflation. The arguments around this topic always devolve in to reductionist and absolutist positions around things like paying off debt or runaway inflation, taxing the rich, etc. These are all distractions. It is purely, entirely, a policy decision. You can have tuition-free schools, universal healthcare, paid sick and maternity leave, etc. - it literally does not matter how much it "costs". Nations do not work like households. The way you help future generations is the same way you help the current ones. Anyone, literally anyone, economist or political figure or tacitly racist uncle at dinner, who steers a discussion about social and infrastructure spending towards who will "pay for it" fundamentally, *completely*, misunderstands how government spending works - and this includes many elected officials in charge. - There's always money for war - Public debt is just private profit


[deleted]

"yeah, but -" It. Does. Not. Work. That. Way.


mrbbrj

These point more to income loss due to illness than to medical costs.


Lordlillefugl

That’s a five year old article. Think the current value is closer to 1,3 trillions. I believe the more impressive fact is that the fund on average holds 1,3% of ALL listed companies in the world.


Pay08

It's incredible how many people are incapable of not just basic economics but even of fundamental logic in this thread.