So, why the hell would....

Martin Mayers

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
7,612
Likes
919
Points
113
Location
Manchester
#21
I know Wiki is not always reliable but $192,000 per person won't last forever

"The Government Pension Fund of Norway comprises two entirely separate sovereign wealth funds owned by the government of Norway.

The Government Pension Fund Global, also known as the Oil Fund, was established in 1990 to invest the surplus revenues of the Norwegian petroleum sector. It has over US$1 trillion in assets, including 1.3% of global stocks and shares, making it the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund.[1] In September 2017 it was worth $192,307 per Norwegian citizen. It also holds portfolios of real estate and fixed-income investments. Many companies are excluded by the fund on ethical grounds.

The Government Pension Fund Norway is smaller and was established in 1967 as a type of national insurance fund. It is managed separately from the Oil Fund and is limited to domestic and Scandinavian investments and is therefore a key stock holder in many large Norwegian companies, predominantly via the Oslo Stock Exchange."
Given the fist they've made of their country so far wouldn't you back them to make the correct decisions and have plans in place to deal with their future?
 

Blackcloud6

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
10,705
Likes
595
Points
113
Location
Shangrila
#22
<shrug> I just moved North to Wyoming from Colorado. I spent 5 winters doing oilfield (semi outdoor) work in the Canadian Arctic.

Rather cold than heat for me. I hated Texas (for multiple reasons) and I was writhing in agony the few times I went to Florida.

I have a friend who retired and moved to Las Vegas. He and his wife just moved back to here to the metro-Detroit area after less than two years. he said the summers were brutal, they stayed inside most of the time. I'm not so sure I would like the heat either and in the old the South the humidity is brutal too.
 

Marty Ward

Active Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
10,832
Likes
262
Points
83
Location
Maryland
#23
Given the fist they've made of their country so far wouldn't you back them to make the correct decisions and have plans in place to deal with their future?
You think they have something to replace the oil revenue? Herring maybe?

The only reason they could build a fund was from the oil. If they stop selling oil then eventually the fund will run dry which is why despite all the warnings from the Norwegian government that the world needs to stop using it they will continue to sell it.
 

MrP

Smile,you won didn't you?
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
5,786
Likes
414
Points
83
Location
Woof? Bark? Whine?
Skype
ian.percy
#24
Sounds terrible doesn't it?
I know Wiki is not always reliable but $192,000 per person won't last forever

"The Government Pension Fund of Norway comprises two entirely separate sovereign wealth funds owned by the government of Norway.

The Government Pension Fund Global, also known as the Oil Fund, was established in 1990 to invest the surplus revenues of the Norwegian petroleum sector. It has over US$1 trillion in assets, including 1.3% of global stocks and shares, making it the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund.[1] In September 2017 it was worth $192,307 per Norwegian citizen. It also holds portfolios of real estate and fixed-income investments. Many companies are excluded by the fund on ethical grounds.

The Government Pension Fund Norway is smaller and was established in 1967 as a type of national insurance fund. It is managed separately from the Oil Fund and is limited to domestic and Scandinavian investments and is therefore a key stock holder in many large Norwegian companies, predominantly via the Oslo Stock Exchange."
 

Martin Mayers

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
7,612
Likes
919
Points
113
Location
Manchester
#25
You think they have something to replace the oil revenue? Herring maybe?

The only reason they could build a fund was from the oil. If they stop selling oil then eventually the fund will run dry which is why despite all the warnings from the Norwegian government that the world needs to stop using it they will continue to sell it.
Oh right. Yes I agree. They will probably continue selling whilst buyers exist.
 

Marty Ward

Active Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
10,832
Likes
262
Points
83
Location
Maryland
#26
Sounds terrible doesn't it?
It would if they decided to follow what they tell others and stop selling oil. They spend ~3% of it each year so even if they didn't need to spend more to replace lost oi revenue it would run out in 30 years or so. Of course I expect them to keep selling oil while continuing to warn of the catastrophic consequences of using oil.
 

MrP

Smile,you won didn't you?
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
5,786
Likes
414
Points
83
Location
Woof? Bark? Whine?
Skype
ian.percy
#27
I'm not getting your point Marty - this is a bad thing because? They have a social fund worth over a trillion $ and you seem to be painting a picture that it's awful that they have such a thing? Maybe it's just overall negativity but isn't the fact that they have such a thing (and we don't and never will) a good thing?
It would if they decided to follow what they tell others and stop selling oil. They spend ~3% of it each year so even if they didn't need to spend more to replace lost oi revenue it would run out in 30 years or so. Of course I expect them to keep selling oil while continuing to warn of the catastrophic consequences of using oil.
 

Dave68124

Active Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
14,785
Likes
498
Points
83
Location
United States
#28
I'm not getting your point Marty - this is a bad thing because? They have a social fund worth over a trillion $ and you seem to be painting a picture that it's awful that they have such a thing? Maybe it's just overall negativity but isn't the fact that they have such a thing (and we don't and never will) a good thing?
I guess all that global warming that funded it is no longer an issue?
 

Martin Mayers

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
7,612
Likes
919
Points
113
Location
Manchester
#29
I'm not getting your point Marty - this is a bad thing because? They have a social fund worth over a trillion $ and you seem to be painting a picture that it's awful that they have such a thing? Maybe it's just overall negativity but isn't the fact that they have such a thing (and we don't and never will) a good thing?
The green eyed monster is strong on this thread.

It's comical. A country uncompromisingly looks after it's own best interests and puts itself first and "piss piss, whine whine". Whereas a president says "I'm gonna put this country first and make it great....MAGA....shitholes....etc." and sticks two fingers up to the rest of the world and it's lapped up like honey by some and heaven help those whom dare criticise it :)

Can't beat this forum sometimes.
 
Last edited:

Martin Mayers

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
7,612
Likes
919
Points
113
Location
Manchester
#30
I guess all that global warming that funded it is no longer an issue?
Interesting moral dilemma isn't it? They're clearly going to use earnings which some might think are immorally earned to create a better future.

GB sort of did a similar thing. We banned slavery then the Industrial Revolution happened, funded by wealth created from the slave trade.

Countries can be so fickle.
 

Marty Ward

Active Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
10,832
Likes
262
Points
83
Location
Maryland
#31
I'm not getting your point Marty - this is a bad thing because? They have a social fund worth over a trillion $ and you seem to be painting a picture that it's awful that they have such a thing? Maybe it's just overall negativity but isn't the fact that they have such a thing (and we don't and never will) a good thing?
No it's a good thing but it is what they based their whole society on, it pays for a lot of programs. So when they say everyone should stop using oil then it makes no sense since they can't afford to not sell oil without screwing up theiier society.
 

Martin Mayers

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
7,612
Likes
919
Points
113
Location
Manchester
#33
Do you blame the drug user or the drug supplier for the problems caused by drugs?
Neither and/or both and/or lots of other people in the equation (Governments, cartels, peers of the user and others), dependant on a lot of factors.

No idea what the relevance is but I've already stated that Denmark's income from oil sales would be "immoral". But, they're just putting their country first. Which is something that some of you Americans on this forum are fond of in your own personal case. Which is fine. But when other countries do it, then you can't condemn it.
 

Martin Mayers

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
7,612
Likes
919
Points
113
Location
Manchester
#34
No it's a good thing but it is what they based their whole society on, it pays for a lot of programs. So when they say everyone should stop using oil then it makes no sense since they can't afford to not sell oil without screwing up theiier society.
Are they saying everyone should stop using oil. My take is they're saying "we are going to stop using oil".

Like, some of the Japanese and German car companies are committed to selling cars within the EU with very low emissions by a certain point because the EU have a view on the impact of such emissions on the environment. Doesn't mean they aren't going to keep selling big pickups and noisy 7 Series' outside the EU.

Is it hypocritical. Probably. Welcome to the world of business and nation states looking after number 1.
 

Marty Ward

Active Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
10,832
Likes
262
Points
83
Location
Maryland
#36
Are they saying everyone should stop using oil. My take is they're saying "we are going to stop using oil".
No what I'm saying is that the government of Norway has said it needs to stop being used while they continue to sell it to fund their society. Sort of like the bar owner telling the drunk to get off the hootch as he slides another shot to him!
 

Martin Mayers

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
7,612
Likes
919
Points
113
Location
Manchester
#38
No what I'm saying is that the government of Norway has said it needs to stop being used while they continue to sell it to fund their society. Sort of like the bar owner telling the drunk to get off the hootch as he slides another shot to him!
Isn't the County they brew Jack Daniels in legally a dry county? It's a bit like that I guess.

I don't disagree with you actually. But, their attitude is clearly "fuck it, we'll look after number 1". As I've insinuated if it were Trump doing this you'd be jumping up and down and showing "WOOOOOO.....MURICAA"
 

zgrose

Active Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,497
Likes
317
Points
83
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
#39
Is it hypocritical. Probably. Welcome to the world of business and nation states looking after number 1.
It's not hypocritical to lead by example. Nor is it hypocritical to fall short of a goal that one is attempting to achieve. Clean energy, democracy, human rights, poverty, cultural hegemony are all continuums. The characterization that seems most apt in this sub-thread would be 'cynicism.'
 

Marty Ward

Active Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
10,832
Likes
262
Points
83
Location
Maryland
#40
It's not hypocritical to lead by example. Nor is it hypocritical to fall short of a goal that one is attempting to achieve. Clean energy, democracy, human rights, poverty, cultural hegemony are all continuums. The characterization that seems most apt in this sub-thread would be 'cynicism.'
Attempting to achieve a goal? So drug dealers really don't want people using their product? That's why they sell them?