An Iraqi who saved Norway from oil (2009) (opens in new tab)

> still a backwards monarchy that installs a king as head of state

Our royal family is there mostly just for show. Lots of us walk past the castle on our constitution day and wave to the king and the rest of his family and they wave back. Over the remainder of the year they hold some speeches, attend some openings and other events.

We are a democracy, and the power that is given to our king in the Norwegian constitution of 1814, has actually been managed by the government instead for a long time since then.

The function of our monarchy is largely one of ceremonial nature these days.

There was a vote in stortinget a couple of years ago over whether to disband or retain the monarchy. 36 representatives vote for disbanding the monarchy, and 130 representatives voted for keeping it. I think this is reflective of the overall attitude that we have of our monarchy; some are against it but the majority wants to keep it.

Norway handled their oil way better than any of the Gulf monarchies did.

Alberta's sovereign wealth fund is worth $18B according to the video, IIRC, whereas Norway's is worth $1.45T.

Canada and Norway are constitutional monarchies and can not be compared to countries where the monarchs have real power.

Is doing well be a bar against doing better? The wealthy have no hangups about taking profit so why should the rest of us?

Mining activity is 10% of Australia's GDP. Mineral land rights in Australia are property of the government so why do overseas and private-domestic operators get to make all the profit? When Norway's example shows us that a publicly funded and owned industry was possible!

Too late now though - the last attempt to extract more value out of a booming industry led to the downfall of the government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerals_Resource_Rent_Tax.

> For instance Australia has a lot more private wealth saved up than Norway. At a lower GINI coefficient as well!

This is demonstrably false: https://data.oecd.org/chart/6tTs

Australia's superannuation system is a disaster.

Compared to Norway's SWF:

- Fees are 20x larger as a proportion of AUM ($30 billion a year, nearly as much as the military budget, and 2x what the country spends on electricity)

- The assets are overwhelmingly owned by people who are already rich (Norway's SWF shares the wealth equally)

- Super has totally failed to prevent retirement poverty (elderly single women are the most impoverished demographic in Australia).

Another part of the story is to compare the public mindedness of Farouk Al-Kasim with Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer.

I think it's meant to convey grief that Australia has allowed itself to be exploited by foreign miners, and waste the wealth that its natural resources could have generated.

Australia like Britain, did not use Oil royalties to establish abiding sovereign funds to persist after the oil ran out. Instead, the royalty stream has been used to draw down debt, and to replace taxation as an income stream in the present, but oftentimes has led to wasted spend on vanity projects, or on build out of infrastructure purely for extractive industry (mining, oil, gas) which in turn is hoped to generate revenue, but alas, not until a very long time in the future. Displaced costs in forward income estimates, much as in the movie industry, mean some mines and oilwells basically never pay tax, but generate collossal revenue which disappears into company consolidated debt. Its a huge rort of the model. There are royalties, but they are 'subverted' out of the picture.

"its scotland's oil" was about Maggie Thatcher, and how the revenue was spent. Now scotland has independent tax raising powers, the border with england for sea resources was carefully restruck to favour england (look on a map to the boundaries, they aren't what you might think)

Australia has soverign wealth funds. Just, not made with revenue from this kind of industry. This kind of industry dominates the political landscape and has impeded the uptake of solar and wind, and replacement of coal for power generation. I don't mean silently: this is a quite overt distortion, active, such that major corporates actually have withdrawn from the australian mining and minerals council because its like the NRA, single-issue distorting of the polity.

In the early 2000s an Australian labor government tried to raise a tax analogous to a petrol royalties and revenue tax, and was pretty much de-elected by sectional interests on the strength of industry opposition. (the PRRT exists. the MRRT was voted down)

Mining employs around 40,000 people in a nation of 25 million. Solar and Wind and Tourism would probably employ more people. But, the voting effects of mining establish a lock on our senate (and sometimes, lower house) which make it next to impossible to see change. The industry is running the government, at one remove.

I don't believe for a minute Norway is all peaches and cream, but it probably has a better sense of cohesion around its role in the world, and the benefits of the sovereign fund, and future money, and de-carbonising the economy. Norway was an extremely poor, -to the extent of massive nutritional death in winter-poor economy. It's moved the dial to a different place, and done it quite carefully, economically speaking. (Norwegian settlers in the USA and Canada came because of a potato famine)

We're envious. (well, the Australians who don't derive income directly from mining, oil or gas)

> The post is about a person who has foresignt and self-determination, what is Australia meant to do about it?

Australia has done the opposite with their (our? I'm an ex-pat) natural resources.

While you're absolutely correct that Australia hasn't had a recession in that time, this hides the fact that there have been periods when GDP _per-capita_ has declined. Or to put it another way: Australia's recessions have been hidden by immigration-driven growth.

Of course, immigration-driven growth is great! But for people on the ground, what matters is GDP per capita, not total GDP.

  Australia hasn't had a recession since the early 90s and you are complaining?

The point that was being attempted was this: Yes, Australia has done well. But it could have done much better if it didn't squander its mineral wealth and hadn't removed an actually-beneficial-to-society mining tax.

Just look at Norway as the example of how much better we could have done.

In turn, we wouldn't be lumbered with egregious mining billionaires like Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart, who - among other monstrosities - heavily back climate-disruption denial.

He was telling everyone who would listen that Norway would find oil, and needed to prepare itself.

> His was a lonely, contrarian voice. After examining exploration results, he wrote a report that warned Norway was sleeping, that even though no one had found oil yet, it was only a question of time. And time was short: the country’s leaders needed to prepare Norway to become an oil nation, but they were doing nothing. “I was a constant reminder that they were doing everything wrong,” al-Kasim says pointedly. Only his closest colleagues would listen.

> Canada? Brazil? Heck the US for that matter?

Yes to all three. How could you have forgotten the colonisation of North America?

> is colonized?

It’s almost as if you’re being intentionally obtuse. The established term (that I used) is “modern” colonialism - it doesn’t necessarily involve physical colonization, rather systematic external control.

Russia has been tussling with the West for a prolonged period now. Regardless, they are the second largest exporter of oil to the USA. (1)

Canada is an American, Western country. Not sure why they would fall under my reasoning, which was specifically about non-Western countries. The USA is the one usually leading this oil-hungry warring - it’s even a meme at this point.

Brazil has various issues, most stemming from external influences corrupting the local political powers. Oil is just one of them, they are also coerced to deforest their country for European exports. (2)

(1) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-24/russia-oi...

(2) https://e360.yale.edu/digest/major-portion-of-brazils-export...

The idea that strong currency, due to oil exports, kills a manufacturing sector is named the "Dutch Disease" after the Netherlands experience post 1977.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease

So a country without colonial intervention was still severely harmed. I'd argue similar dynamics apply to resource intensive US states - e.g. West Virginia. The article is largely about how an Iraqi helped Norway avoid the same fate which is really cool.

Certainly over-throwing the Iranian government was terrible. But the key point is that the core economic problem of a resource sector 'crowding out' productive investment is a completely separate issue that occurs frequently in western countries that feature near zero political interference.

Saudi Arabia also nationalized its oil with only positive consequences. How you do it is important. Seizure within weeks vs acquisition over years.

Exactly !

The obvious difference is that Norway fairly compensated the very few assets on the ground owned by foreign parties at the time. Whereas Iran had massive assets on the ground mostly owned by foreign parties, that were ‘compensated’ at fire sale prices?