How Norway has avoided the 'curse of oil'(bbc.com)
bbc.com
How Norway has avoided the 'curse of oil'
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28882312
145 comments
Australia is basically like many African nations, where foreigners run the resources sector and the locals hope to get a piece of the pie through employment/wages.
However, Norway's resources are completely different to Australia's. Norway knows where the oil is, they just have to dig it up. So, they can just have a state-owned company pump it out of the sea and keep the profits for themselves.
OTOH Australia's minerals are hidden across a barren landscape the size of the continental USA. Projects are very speculative and require huge investments. New discoveries are being made every year all across the continent.
Hancock Prospecting (company now owned heiress Gina Reinhart, one of the richest women in the world) was created when its founder crashed a personal plane somewhere in the outback and discovered resources in the dirt (or something like that).
Even when you do know where the stuff is, tens of billions often need to be invested before anything is produced, like the new LNG wave.
There is no way the 23 million Australian citizens could invest this kind of capital into speculative projects. One failed project would bankrupt the nation. So, foreign investment is required.
But, even with minimal resource taxation/royalties, Australia is becoming uncompetitive for many resource investments, with the AUD and commodity prices where they are. Iron ore at its current price is now unprofitable, basically. As well all know, corporations require a certain ROE to do anything. Nobody is going to risk $10 billion for a possible 1% return. Massive LNG projects are getting shelved left and right.
There's oil hidden all across Australia and her waters, too, but there is very little infrastructure in place such as pipelines to transport the product to terminals/refineries, like there is in the US. If Australia was to nationalize its oil industry, would its people be willing to shell out tens of billions of their own tax dollars to build this infrastructure? All speculatively, knowing that their type of oil production is not profitable at all if oil once again goes below $70 a barrel, which could happen overnight (see Sept-Nov 2008)?
While I could see some sectors of the resource industry being nationalized, broadly it's just not sustainable. With costs where they are, there isn't a ton of room for more royalties.
Best thing would be for policymakers to just move on from relying on mining and start focusing on educating the population and competing where it counts on the global stage.
However, Norway's resources are completely different to Australia's. Norway knows where the oil is, they just have to dig it up. So, they can just have a state-owned company pump it out of the sea and keep the profits for themselves.
OTOH Australia's minerals are hidden across a barren landscape the size of the continental USA. Projects are very speculative and require huge investments. New discoveries are being made every year all across the continent.
Hancock Prospecting (company now owned heiress Gina Reinhart, one of the richest women in the world) was created when its founder crashed a personal plane somewhere in the outback and discovered resources in the dirt (or something like that).
Even when you do know where the stuff is, tens of billions often need to be invested before anything is produced, like the new LNG wave.
There is no way the 23 million Australian citizens could invest this kind of capital into speculative projects. One failed project would bankrupt the nation. So, foreign investment is required.
But, even with minimal resource taxation/royalties, Australia is becoming uncompetitive for many resource investments, with the AUD and commodity prices where they are. Iron ore at its current price is now unprofitable, basically. As well all know, corporations require a certain ROE to do anything. Nobody is going to risk $10 billion for a possible 1% return. Massive LNG projects are getting shelved left and right.
There's oil hidden all across Australia and her waters, too, but there is very little infrastructure in place such as pipelines to transport the product to terminals/refineries, like there is in the US. If Australia was to nationalize its oil industry, would its people be willing to shell out tens of billions of their own tax dollars to build this infrastructure? All speculatively, knowing that their type of oil production is not profitable at all if oil once again goes below $70 a barrel, which could happen overnight (see Sept-Nov 2008)?
While I could see some sectors of the resource industry being nationalized, broadly it's just not sustainable. With costs where they are, there isn't a ton of room for more royalties.
Best thing would be for policymakers to just move on from relying on mining and start focusing on educating the population and competing where it counts on the global stage.
> All speculatively, knowing that their type of oil production is not profitable at all if oil once again goes below $70 a barrel, which could happen overnight (see Sept-Nov 2008)?
Is there an obvious reason they couldn't sell their oil forward (or just sell futures)? You can sell oil forward three years for around $89 a barrel at the moment, as opposed to around $93 a barrel for delivery next month.
That's for WTI, and Brent is currently even more (in fact the Brent curve is in contango at the moment). I don't know what grade Australian oil would be, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's closer to Brent than to WTI.
Is there an obvious reason they couldn't sell their oil forward (or just sell futures)? You can sell oil forward three years for around $89 a barrel at the moment, as opposed to around $93 a barrel for delivery next month.
That's for WTI, and Brent is currently even more (in fact the Brent curve is in contango at the moment). I don't know what grade Australian oil would be, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's closer to Brent than to WTI.
How can prospecting and extraction be both simultaneously unprofitable and also creating incredibly wealthy heiresses? If resource extraction and profit-sharing in Australia is most closely compared to that of African nations, it doesn't seem like the public is benefiting much from allowing their natural resources to be appropriated and sold by multinationals.
> How can prospecting and extraction be both simultaneously unprofitable and also creating incredibly wealthy heiresses?
Not agreeing with OP, but playing the lottery can be both unprofitable, and create a few rich people.
Not agreeing with OP, but playing the lottery can be both unprofitable, and create a few rich people.
There was even discussion around this prior to the disastrous introduction of the mining tax[1][2]. Interestingly there was at least some support on both sides of politics for it.
[1] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/a-n...
[2] http://www.afr.com/p/national/gillard_rejects_call_for_wealt...
[1] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/a-n...
[2] http://www.afr.com/p/national/gillard_rejects_call_for_wealt...
Didn't see that at the time. This could have been a defining, legacy-creating decision for the leader of the time.
I hope the opportunity to capitalise isn't completely lost.
I hope the opportunity to capitalise isn't completely lost.
Having lived in Australia for 3 years, I've been surprised their 3 major areas were mining, tourism and international education. Even Syndey's next big bet is to build a huge casino. They sound ephemeral, like just taking the money where it is. Of course they're richer than Europe, but isn't it better to build industrial sectors (I mean transformation industries with know-how) and research?
as an australian, i m sadden by this. Why isn't there public outrage and change? =(
Because the mining industry is powerful (major share of our exports) and big business dominates the media. They get the public fearful about the loss of jobs.
Further, Labor's infighting put off a lot of people while the Coalition were consistent with their message in opposition.
Further, Labor's infighting put off a lot of people while the Coalition were consistent with their message in opposition.
Mining companies own, or control much of the Australian media. There was only one newspaper who didn't go for the coalition in the last election. It was the Age, which was mostly critical of Labor, but not entirely. There were big legal battles for control of the Age, but the existing board one control in the end, but lost a lot of editorial power.
Out an out corruption basically. The country began because of a miners revolution, and to this day they have more power than they earn.
The large coal mine (by an Indian company) despite declining coal prices, and the state earning more money via tourism, is going ahead because of brilliant control by the mining companies. This company has a terrible record of keeping their mines clean as well. Not only that, but the carbon produced is similar to all planned carbon saving planned by the government proving they lied about reducing carbon themselves. Further more coal kills a million people per year through pollution, and China is reducing their spend on coal, like most other countries. Which means the price of coal is only going to fall.
Out an out corruption basically. The country began because of a miners revolution, and to this day they have more power than they earn.
The large coal mine (by an Indian company) despite declining coal prices, and the state earning more money via tourism, is going ahead because of brilliant control by the mining companies. This company has a terrible record of keeping their mines clean as well. Not only that, but the carbon produced is similar to all planned carbon saving planned by the government proving they lied about reducing carbon themselves. Further more coal kills a million people per year through pollution, and China is reducing their spend on coal, like most other countries. Which means the price of coal is only going to fall.
Bergen is not the center of Norway's oil and gas industries. Stavanger is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stavanger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stavanger
That's what I thought too... But I'm biased, because I've only been to Stavanger and not Bergen.
The reason I assumed for not having super cars around there is because it gets too damn cold. Now the number of high end 4x4's I saw there... that's another story :-)
The reason I assumed for not having super cars around there is because it gets too damn cold. Now the number of high end 4x4's I saw there... that's another story :-)
I'm from Latin America and many countries here have more-than-decent resources to make things happen, but the difference between us and Norwegians is trust, and that changes it all. Take a look at Brazil, for example. There were over 20 megaconstructions planned for the World Cup and one one of them was completed, the Maracana stadium. That's just an insane amount of corruption. So, what happens? Well, since everyone's stealing, I might as well try to get my piece of the cake, and that's when people start to become selfish A-holes for lack generation after generation. We need a new mindset, better governments and trust. Lots of trust.
Venezuela is the great example in South America.
They're, in theory, sitting on the world's largest oil reserves. Meanwhile their production has been falling for 15 years because the government, under Chavez and now, has squandered the opportunity.
They have somewhere between $10 trillion and $30 trillion in proven oil reserves, depending on who you believe (either way it's immense). They should be one of the wealthiest countries in history, right now. That's despite the challenges around extraction and the quality of their heavy oil.
They're, in theory, sitting on the world's largest oil reserves. Meanwhile their production has been falling for 15 years because the government, under Chavez and now, has squandered the opportunity.
They have somewhere between $10 trillion and $30 trillion in proven oil reserves, depending on who you believe (either way it's immense). They should be one of the wealthiest countries in history, right now. That's despite the challenges around extraction and the quality of their heavy oil.
That's a great example, as well. Although it gets even worse when you realize what kind of government they're under. I mean, it's almost a dictatorship. It's all just a big pitty over another.
The story of how Norway's oil industry started is pretty interesting
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144...
Non paywalled link: https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web...
As is the movie Pioneer. Quite horrific experiences. In Norwegian and English, about former fishermen who laid the first North Sea oil pipe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_%28film%29
60+ reported to have died, and diving at that depth has since been disallowed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_%28film%29
60+ reported to have died, and diving at that depth has since been disallowed.
C'mon man. Norway's the #1 importer of Teslas [1]
Otherwise, man I wish Canada would manage our oil money like Norway. But we burned that bridge a long time ago.
[1] look it up
Otherwise, man I wish Canada would manage our oil money like Norway. But we burned that bridge a long time ago.
[1] look it up
The Tesla isn't priced as a luxury car in Norway. Electric vehicles are exempt from taxes and fees, which is mostly where the money goes when you buy a more traditional vehicle. They also don't pay anything when passing toll booths, IIRC. Where I grew up, people now pay ~$10 just to pass toll booths to and from work every day.
There are other benefits as well, like free parking, Tesla's free charging station--and most importantly for many--you get to drive in the lane reserved for buses and taxis instead of dealing with traffic to and from work.
There are other benefits as well, like free parking, Tesla's free charging station--and most importantly for many--you get to drive in the lane reserved for buses and taxis instead of dealing with traffic to and from work.
All of this is indeed correct. People here don't buy Teslas or other electronic cars because of the environment. Most do it for the economical reasons listed above [1]. However there has been a lot of discussion recently about whether these economical advantages are here to stay. Currently the electric cars are clogging up the bus/taxi lanes and the government is losing money as a result of the electric car boom we've seen here recently [2]. It will certainly be interesting to see what removing the advantages will do to the electric car market in Norway.
[1]: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=y&prev...
[2]: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=no&sl=no&tl=en&u=h...
[1]: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=y&prev...
[2]: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=no&sl=no&tl=en&u=h...
The clogging of the bus lanes because of electric cars is mostly wrong. It's been a lot in the news, but no one has proven it. They all just point to the correlation of more electric cars in the lanes. Not the correlation with more traffic in general.
The clogging happens because every car wanting to get on or leave the highway has to cross the bus lane. It's easy to see for yourself.
The clogging happens because every car wanting to get on or leave the highway has to cross the bus lane. It's easy to see for yourself.
I don't live in Oslo so I can't comment on the situation there (or anywhere else for that matter), but in Kristiansand the EVs are a very real issue in the bus lanes. Granted, the bus lanes weave in and out of the general lanes so congestion in the general lanes is the root of the problem for sure.
That's a classic "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario. The electric car benefits are great when only a few are on the road, but when everyone gets one it turns into a problem.
That will become a problem in the US as well, since US highway construction and maintenance is mostly funded from motor fuel taxes.
That will become a problem in the US as well, since US highway construction and maintenance is mostly funded from motor fuel taxes.
Highway maintenance is already a problem in the US, but not because of electric vehicles, it's from increasing efficiency of fossil fuel vehicles and the political refusal to raise fuel taxes to balance the maintenance costs with the tax revenue from fuel. If electric vehicles do become a significant proportion of vehicles on the road, the pragmatic thing to do would be to charge for mileage based on the odometer and vehicle weight.
How is the odometer data supposed to be collected? Weight is easy, though. I guess you could let the car phone home a couple of times per year, but the consumer still owns the car and can do a lot of shady stuff with the odometer, I imagine. Better to just use a flat annual fee with modifiers for weight. Trucks and other business vehicles can be assumed to travel a lot, so higher taxes for them.
I think the car-to-car variation in annual mileage traveled is too wide to fairly assess an annual fee. A secured odometer box checked during periodic vehicle inspections would be enough to reasonably raise the bar on mileage, but unfortunately more invasive solutions always seem to get suggested - e.g. GPS monitoring of mileage, or pervasive license plate tracking etc...
The last benefit actually is starting to become a problem, since so many people have gotten Teslas. There's a lot of traffic in the bus lane, as electric cars, buses and taxis fight for the same spaces.
I suppose it will eventually be taken away. It's a nice temporary incentive but it obviously cannot scale.
Just like California is issuing very few carpool stickers for hybrid cars. It's like a lottery that bumps the value of your cars 5 grand up.
True, it's an economy car for well-off people here really. In Bergen it's now easier to spot Tesla than a Ford Focus.
With incentives like /that/ I too would buy a Tesla.
Well, it's not really Canada that has oil, it's more like just Alberta isn't it? Norway is a unitary state while Canada is very federal.
Mostly Alberta, but also other places, especially given that many provinces have smallish populations, so it doesn't take a lot of oil to be a large part of the economy. British Columbia, for example, has 4.6 million people and produces 20k barrels/day of oil, which is more per capita than Texas (even after the recent jump in Texas's production). But it's not as economy-dominating as in Alaska, Norway, or Alberta.
Alberta has almost as much oil as Saudi Arabia, but the rest of Canada has more moderate reserves similar to those in the US.
There's also the Hibernia field with the largest oil platform in the world.
There's also the Hibernia field with the largest oil platform in the world.
The rise of these sovereign wealth funds has been pretty extraordinary- if corruption is kept under control those resources are politically "out of bounds" for spending.
This list ranks SWFs by size- notice there are several US states on the list: www.swfinstitute.org/fund-rankings/
This list ranks SWFs by size- notice there are several US states on the list: www.swfinstitute.org/fund-rankings/
The steps of building infrastructure and investing outside the country, are pretty much exactly the same as was suggested for Scotland in the McCrone report in 1974.
Unfortunately, that report was classified as "secret" at the time, as it was felt the conclusions would boost support for Scottish independence. It wasn't released until 2005.
Link: http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccronereport.pdf
Unfortunately, that report was classified as "secret" at the time, as it was felt the conclusions would boost support for Scottish independence. It wasn't released until 2005.
Link: http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccronereport.pdf
I am jealous of Norway. Social relations in most other countries, even the "first world" ones, seem uncivilized by comparison. I always wonder how they arrived at this point - this looks like they have some magic ingredient that made their Prisoner's Dilemma converge on 'cooperate'. It must be the fjords.
Simple. I grew up in the US, but am in Norway now. I have Norwegian ancestry that comes from my grandparents. Doesn't matter whether here or there. Mix Lutheran-piety (even if Norway is quite secular) and a bit of boredom does help in the cooperation department. I am not applying this to everyone, but that is how it is.
None of this is a culture shock for me. Probably someone else has something deeper to say about it, but I knew what I was coming to when moving to Norway, in this regard.
None of this is a culture shock for me. Probably someone else has something deeper to say about it, but I knew what I was coming to when moving to Norway, in this regard.
I have Norwegian ancestry as well. I would love to visit, but I don't think I could live there. Also, The language looks absolutely terrifying.
Look at Norway's demographics and immigration policy for a clue or two.
i want to go there so bad :(
Well, make it happen. University is one option:
http://www.studyinnorway.no/Tuition-Scholarships
I say this not to be glib, but as someone who yearned to move abroad and found out that it wasn't as hard as I thought.
http://www.studyinnorway.no/Tuition-Scholarships
I say this not to be glib, but as someone who yearned to move abroad and found out that it wasn't as hard as I thought.
This. Brazilian here, lived in Californa for a year, and could have stayed longer with relative ease at the time. There's really NOTHING stopping you from living somewhere else if you really wanted.
Well, apart from paperwork, study of the country/state/city you want to go to. If that's too boring and you want the "no questions asked, come work here" treatment, I guess there is something stopping you after all.
Well, apart from paperwork, study of the country/state/city you want to go to. If that's too boring and you want the "no questions asked, come work here" treatment, I guess there is something stopping you after all.
"However, you should take into consideration that living expenses in Norway are higher than in many other countries."
I don't have a job right now, no savings, 29 years old, and paperwork bore me. There are dozens of those "programs", and I don't want to spend one entire week sorting it out to discover I can't afford to just live over there.
I want to go there no question asked, to work, not to study.
I don't have a job right now, no savings, 29 years old, and paperwork bore me. There are dozens of those "programs", and I don't want to spend one entire week sorting it out to discover I can't afford to just live over there.
I want to go there no question asked, to work, not to study.
Wait, you're French? As in, you're an EU citizen??? Go there. Find a hackerspace. Meet people. Show off your skills. You should be OK. If not, you can go back to France. I would have killed to have your ability to just go anywhere in the EU a few years ago; even now I'm ecstatic just being able to work in Ireland.
Sometimes life involves tasks that are very slightly unpleasant, like paperwork. You might find that learning a tolerance for this minimal degree of inconvenience will yield benefits down the road.
Sometimes life involves tasks that are very slightly unpleasant, like paperwork. You might find that learning a tolerance for this minimal degree of inconvenience will yield benefits down the road.
> go there
I don't have money to throw away at a round trip to Norway, not to mention a place to stay for 1 week or two. What do you mean "show off your skills" ? I'm not an entertainer... I have no skills in PR and selling myself.
> hackerspace
Is a hackerspace going to get me a job ?
> Sometimes life involves tasks that are very slightly unpleasant, like paperwork.
The task of getting a job in norway is going to be paved with a lot of obstacles. I'm ready to move out, go there and do interviews, but if nobody can promise me to hire me before I actually have a place to stay, I won't move there to not find a job and come back with debt.
How do I really promote my project of seeking work in norway all by myself, while I live in france ? I already speak english, so that's a plus...
note: I have no job experience.
I don't have money to throw away at a round trip to Norway, not to mention a place to stay for 1 week or two. What do you mean "show off your skills" ? I'm not an entertainer... I have no skills in PR and selling myself.
> hackerspace
Is a hackerspace going to get me a job ?
> Sometimes life involves tasks that are very slightly unpleasant, like paperwork.
The task of getting a job in norway is going to be paved with a lot of obstacles. I'm ready to move out, go there and do interviews, but if nobody can promise me to hire me before I actually have a place to stay, I won't move there to not find a job and come back with debt.
How do I really promote my project of seeking work in norway all by myself, while I live in france ? I already speak english, so that's a plus...
note: I have no job experience.
Well, your current approach is "give up". I suggest a different tack. It would be easy to say you're just trolling but I suspect you're possibly just depressed. Going to a hackerspace and meeting people in the industry and showing you have a genuine interest in the field quite often WILL get you a job, actually, or even better it will give you something to work on and make your own business, if you care about it. I wish I had your citizenship; I'd love to start my own business (brewery, probably) but my current visa forbids it.
Nobody is going to promise you a job in Norway. You have to go make it effing happen. I don't mean to be vulgar, but to express that if you want it badly, if it damn near hurts not to have it, you'll make it happen. At this point you don't seem to know what you want. Even if you have no job experience, you could at least have project experience. Show off what you've done with Arduino, or open source, or painting, or skateboarding, or radio, or whatever. (This is a tech focused forum but hey, skills and drive come in many shapes)
Nobody is going to promise you a job in Norway. You have to go make it effing happen. I don't mean to be vulgar, but to express that if you want it badly, if it damn near hurts not to have it, you'll make it happen. At this point you don't seem to know what you want. Even if you have no job experience, you could at least have project experience. Show off what you've done with Arduino, or open source, or painting, or skateboarding, or radio, or whatever. (This is a tech focused forum but hey, skills and drive come in many shapes)
Really, you want to go live and work legally on a different nation, but you don't want to spend some days on paperwork, you just want someone to call you and say 'you're brilliant! Come over we got everything sorted out!'
I hope you really are brilliant. Hmmm... since this is HN and I've seen this before, let me ask: did you win the Putnam?
> you just want someone to call you and say 'you're brilliant! Come over we got everything sorted out!'
Where did you read I said that ? getting hired doesn't mean I'm a genius. I means they need me and are ready to hire me and maybe help me move there. stop with the misconceptions, I'm not narcissistic. I'm just saying I don't have savings, so I can't put myself in debt and risk going there and not getting a job.
Where did you read I said that ? getting hired doesn't mean I'm a genius. I means they need me and are ready to hire me and maybe help me move there. stop with the misconceptions, I'm not narcissistic. I'm just saying I don't have savings, so I can't put myself in debt and risk going there and not getting a job.
As you can imagine, "we want to let anyone from anywhere who can't be bothered to do a bit of paperwork come here and work, no questions asked" is not a policy that resonates with voters.
Try Stockholm, it has a huge tech sector and you can go there to work as an EU citizen, no questions asked. You can't afford to live in stockholm either without a job of course, but programmers get jobs quite easily if they speak English, and salaries are decent.
Actually, I think it's just as easy to get into Norway as an EU citizen because Norway is in the EEC. It's confusing, I know, but the freedom of movement thing is applicable here as well.
I'd think so too, but not sure about exact terms and amounts of paperwork. Oslo has higher rents and prices but also higher wages and lower taxes. I think he size of the tech/programming job market is probably quite a bit larger in Stockholm though. So if the advice is for developers only, I'd recommend Stockholm over Oslo. For many other jobs it would be the other way around.
How much is 'decent'? And how much is rent?
As everywhere salaries vary wildly (as they should), but an uneducated "scriptkid" without experience probably makes EUR2500/mo, a 5yr exp collage educated developer makes EUR3500-5500 and top devs of course make much more than that in some industries. It all depends. "Rent" is pretty much unheard of since getting an apartment to rent in central stockholm is impossible due to rent control, so if you move to stockholm to work in tech you most likely sublet someone's apartment at EUR750-2000/mo depending on size and location. A single bedroom apt in central Stockholm is ~1000.
Since we're talking about how awesome Norway is, this [0] should be mentioned.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Norway
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Norway
Scotland also has similar "right to roam" legislation (as listed on that page you linked to) - which given the ways that large landowners often acquired land here seems rather just to me.
It's an awesome right.
As a Finn I always find it really weird when visiting places outside Nordic Countries that for them most of the country is unaccessible.
As a Finn I always find it really weird when visiting places outside Nordic Countries that for them most of the country is unaccessible.
In Germany we don't got this right, but seldom I have been prohibited from "roaming" the landside. But we aren't allowed to put a tent anywhere and sleep in it, which is rather sad.
A friend of mine went on a hiking holiday in Scotland and he told me, he just walked till he was tired, put his tent up on the next green spot and slept there.
A friend of mine went on a hiking holiday in Scotland and he told me, he just walked till he was tired, put his tent up on the next green spot and slept there.
As an aside, here in Scotland you quite often don't even need to put up a tent - there are houses/huts in a lot of wild locations, known as bothies, that are completely free to use:
http://www.mountainbothies.org.uk/
http://www.mountainbothies.org.uk/
we aren't allowed to put a tent anywhere and sleep in it, which is rather sad
Probably connected to the risk that squatter's rights poses to the land owner... not that pitching a tent for a night is a serious risk, but squatter's rights really encourages that kind of culture.
Probably connected to the risk that squatter's rights poses to the land owner... not that pitching a tent for a night is a serious risk, but squatter's rights really encourages that kind of culture.
Not knowing anything about squatter's rights (or law in general), shouldn't it be possible to just create a law putting whatever limits we want on camping WITHOUT the need for it to be completely forbidden?
I am just now in a place where free camping is not allowed, but the local authorities interpret the law as: "no tents between dawn and dusk". I wish that was put into a written law.
I am just now in a place where free camping is not allowed, but the local authorities interpret the law as: "no tents between dawn and dusk". I wish that was put into a written law.
The key item of squatter's rights is that if a squatter occupies land with the land-owner's knowledge for a number of years, the land now legally belongs to the squatter.
One night of camping is not years, but squatter's rights certainly encourages land-owners to be ever-strict about visitors to their land.
One night of camping is not years, but squatter's rights certainly encourages land-owners to be ever-strict about visitors to their land.
Yes, owning land is a big problem in all countries.
Only 7% of the land in Finland and Sweden is Agricultural land, compared to 70% in the UK, so it's no wonder that the countryside is much more inaccessible.
That being said, there's a lot more that could be done, such as allowing kayaks into rivers and lakes without so many unreasonable limitations and/or paperwork.
That being said, there's a lot more that could be done, such as allowing kayaks into rivers and lakes without so many unreasonable limitations and/or paperwork.
Driving across the US west, you can’t help but notice how every bit of land is cordoned off with barbed wire or fences. Doesn’t matter if it’s in the middle of emply plains or uninhabited mountains. "Private property" and "no trespassing" signs abound.
Hardly "every bit". The federal government owns more than half of the land west of the Rockies [0], and most of that (e.g. US Forest Service and BLM land) is free to roam over. Much of it you can camp anywhere you want, too.
[0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/10/15/al...
[0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/10/15/al...
You do have to ask permission of the landowner to hike/camp on their property. But with the size of some of the cattle on the land (I'm thinking of Texas Longhorns) and the presence of common predators/pests like feral hogs and coyotes, it's not always safe to just wander around.
There's also the water issue. If you run out of water in the west while on your hike/tramp, you're in life-threatening trouble. And there's often no cellular service.
There's also the water issue. If you run out of water in the west while on your hike/tramp, you're in life-threatening trouble. And there's often no cellular service.
Yeah, so awesome. 729 whales so far, tell me again how awesome they are.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norway-kills-...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norway-kills-...
What is the problem? These whales are not near extinction like some whales outside Japan. The allowed quota for whales each year is strictly regulated by Norway which is one of the most environmental states in the world (yes we have lots of oil feel free to point out the double standard there). The killing itself is in most cases instant. If you care about how animals are treated you should be much more disgusted at how chicken are raised and their living conditions. The whale lives a happy life until it is killed.
Oh and whale meat is delicious.
Oh and whale meat is delicious.
That's just sensationalist clickbait. The whale species hunted are not endangered and there is no ban on hunting these whales. There are many species of creatures which actually are and which you should spend more time caring about though. These whales are not among them.
So Norway isn't violating a whaling ban?
There is no law which bans it. Just an agreement among several countries which Norway isn't a part of as far as I know.
Yep, just like the Kyoto Protocol. (no sarcasm, just pointing out that he's right, and that most people also think every nation is bound by the Kyoto Protocol)
Yes. They are. However, the IWC resolution to ban whaling is not binding. It's advisory and in my opinion not based on facts but feelings.
[deleted](3)
[deleted]
The economics of mining are complicated, but there are some similarities to the startup/VC complex. A big part of developing mines is exploration. Finding minerals can be hard, especially in the north sea. The oceans are big. The difficulty is why there are still new deposits being discovered.
Exploration usually happens when the company doing it can hope to make money off of a successful discovery. They might even pay for the privilege. Imagine a scenario where a company finds a motherload of oil after a low probability exploration. Their exploration contracts (being signed before the deposits were known) guarantees them a huge profit. Unseemly, even. They are earning that because they took a risk. Now they get their 100X. Try explaining that in an election year.
New technologies are constantly being invented that improve exploration, surveying & mining. This means that there are new possibilities every year impacting which mine/well is profitable (minerals can be extracted at a profit. These all change underlying economic realities. A $1bn per year mine can only make a slim profit in years where commodity prices are high. It employs many people. The next year commodity prices change or some new mining or processing technique (fracking is a huge gamechanger) mean that some complicated contract is now worth a whole lot of money. The $1bn goes from a 2% margin ($20m) to a 30% margin ($300m) and everyone want a piece of it.
Meanwhile government departments, unions, armies, etc are salivating over the prospect of this wealth. The National University's long impoverished Oceanography faculty has their eye on a fleet of research vessels. Academics are starting companies offering to do (mandated) environmental impact studies. There is a lot of pressure for money now, from industry, politicians, constituents.
Politicians definitely don't want to be investing during their term for the benefit of politicians 10 years from now. The world can be cynical, but not always.
Norway has done well. I'm not sure if any one thing can be learned from them. Have smart people running things. Meanwhile Norway have their own political traditions, values, and probably pathologies.
Exploration usually happens when the company doing it can hope to make money off of a successful discovery. They might even pay for the privilege. Imagine a scenario where a company finds a motherload of oil after a low probability exploration. Their exploration contracts (being signed before the deposits were known) guarantees them a huge profit. Unseemly, even. They are earning that because they took a risk. Now they get their 100X. Try explaining that in an election year.
New technologies are constantly being invented that improve exploration, surveying & mining. This means that there are new possibilities every year impacting which mine/well is profitable (minerals can be extracted at a profit. These all change underlying economic realities. A $1bn per year mine can only make a slim profit in years where commodity prices are high. It employs many people. The next year commodity prices change or some new mining or processing technique (fracking is a huge gamechanger) mean that some complicated contract is now worth a whole lot of money. The $1bn goes from a 2% margin ($20m) to a 30% margin ($300m) and everyone want a piece of it.
Meanwhile government departments, unions, armies, etc are salivating over the prospect of this wealth. The National University's long impoverished Oceanography faculty has their eye on a fleet of research vessels. Academics are starting companies offering to do (mandated) environmental impact studies. There is a lot of pressure for money now, from industry, politicians, constituents.
Politicians definitely don't want to be investing during their term for the benefit of politicians 10 years from now. The world can be cynical, but not always.
Norway has done well. I'm not sure if any one thing can be learned from them. Have smart people running things. Meanwhile Norway have their own political traditions, values, and probably pathologies.
> Politicians definitely don't want to be investing during their term for the benefit of politicians 10 years from now.
you've hit the nail - short term gains vs long term losses. What you need is some mechanism to make it so that the long term benefits align with the benefits of the politician - for example, the project(s) you start stays with you, even after you're term is over.
you've hit the nail - short term gains vs long term losses. What you need is some mechanism to make it so that the long term benefits align with the benefits of the politician - for example, the project(s) you start stays with you, even after you're term is over.
One nail perhaps.
There are a lot of forces at play and real-politic cynicism is one of them, not always one of the biggest.
There are a lot of forces at play and real-politic cynicism is one of them, not always one of the biggest.
Probably one of the best examples of how natural resource wealth has been preserved and invested for the whole nation, instead of being lost to the pockets of few through privatisation, corruption or mismanagement of funds.
I think the magic ingredients (aside from being lucky with natural resources in the first place) are egalitarian society, high level of trust, very low level of corruption, a functioning democratic government and highly skilled fund managers.
I think the magic ingredients (aside from being lucky with natural resources in the first place) are egalitarian society, high level of trust, very low level of corruption, a functioning democratic government and highly skilled fund managers.
Another Norwegian here. I think you are right. The high level of education also helps. But it was actually an Iraqian immigrant named Farouk al-Kasim that proposed the laws to protect Norways natural oil and gas resources.
Further reading: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabd...
Further reading: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabd...
Finnish, not Norwegian - I think you guys have done great.
Read the story of Farouk al-Kasim a few months ago, fascinating. It does seem like a stroke of luck that the right people were there in the beginning. His nationality is both ironic and sad considering where Iraq is today
Read the story of Farouk al-Kasim a few months ago, fascinating. It does seem like a stroke of luck that the right people were there in the beginning. His nationality is both ironic and sad considering where Iraq is today
Could it be the same one: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/nature-and-technology/iraqi-... ?
Yep, same guy
Planet Money did a story on Norway and the oil curse: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/09/06/140110346/how-to-a...
Further listening: NPR Planet Money Podcast: "Norway Has Advice For Libya"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/08/26/139972557/the-frid...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/08/26/139972557/the-frid...
This must really be upsetting for the extreme liberals of the country.
"Public resources being invested sensibly! Horrifying! You can tell that this is an awful idea by looking at how miserable the people of Norway are, and how badly their businesses are doing.
You should liberate yourselves by giving all of it to private interests. That's the definition of freedom!" /end sarcasm
"Public resources being invested sensibly! Horrifying! You can tell that this is an awful idea by looking at how miserable the people of Norway are, and how badly their businesses are doing.
You should liberate yourselves by giving all of it to private interests. That's the definition of freedom!" /end sarcasm
'Liberal' parties in much of Europe lean toward socialism, pushing for higher taxes and better public services. Over here, the people you describe as liberals would be considered extremist conservative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism
Different definitions. The current American political ones aren't universal by any means.
Different definitions. The current American political ones aren't universal by any means.
I think you were downvoted because in the U.S. the term 'liberal' has a different meaning than in different parts of the world.
Kinda ironic having the picture of the current finance minister, Siv Jensen, there, as she is so opposed to us saving this money. She is mainly elected on promises on lower immigration, cheaper alcohol, cheaper fuel and lower taxes. Planning to achieve that by using the fund's money.
Were she around in 60s/70s, she'd likely have banned al-Kasim, the geologist who discovered Norwegian oil, from moving in.
Oh look at the socialist everybody. I don't vote for FrP (party of the finance minister) but these tabloid political personal views doesn't bring anything to this discussion. But yes she does want to increase spending from the "oil fund".
I've often said the Nordic countries in general are as close to a Star Trek style civilisation as we've ever gotten.
As someone who lives in America Lite (the UK) your policies on just about everything strike me as insanely reasonable.
I pretty much feel shame whenever I think about our last two governments.
As someone who lives in America Lite (the UK) your policies on just about everything strike me as insanely reasonable.
I pretty much feel shame whenever I think about our last two governments.
Who knows, Scotland might be able to follow that model soon?
If it's of any consolation, your healthcare is still better.
For now.
The current government seems determined to paint the NHS as failing in a pretty blatant attempt to privatise large chunks of it, the bastards.
I used to be pretty neutral towards the major parties, tending to look at what they did rather than what they said but quite frankly the conservatives can go and fuck themselves.
The current government seems determined to paint the NHS as failing in a pretty blatant attempt to privatise large chunks of it, the bastards.
I used to be pretty neutral towards the major parties, tending to look at what they did rather than what they said but quite frankly the conservatives can go and fuck themselves.
The first step to understanding politics is understanding that speech is a type of action.
Is there freedom of movement for UK citizens into Nordic countries? If not, is the migration process hard or easy?
If it's simple, why not move there yourself?
If it's simple, why not move there yourself?
Yee, the proces is very simple. You can simply arrive and you have six months to look for work. Once you get a job you just need to register with the police (you make an appt a couple months in advance and then he visit takes 5 min) and get your tax card (same visit, takes another minute). AFAIK all EU citizens can do this, no special work visa required.
I've considered it a few times but there where and are reasons why for now I need to stay in the UK (til recently partner with health problems) and my mother is ill.
It's something at the back of my mind for one day though.
It's something at the back of my mind for one day though.
There is also the related concept of "Dutch Disease" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease) which is what I expected this would be about. The idea is that once a country discovers it has reserves of a valuable natural resource, it tends to exploit and build its economy around that resource, at the expense of its more complex sectors like manufacturing. Norway seems to have handled that decently well so far, and part of the lack of spending probably comes from the fact that they realize their oil's a short term freebie boost not an economic strategy.
Norway do suffer from a mild form of Dutch disease unfortunately.
The oil industry dominate new investment. Although a lot of that is high tech solutions and can probably be used in other sectors, especially in related areas such as marine and shipping solutions, but they do not invest very well in any other area.
Some new companies are successful (Fast,Trolltech,Kongsberg,etc) but it is more in spite of the investment available. The VC, general investment and interest is barren if you compare the buoyant start up market in Denmark, Sweden and Finland.
I am worried about the state of affairs in 20-30 years if they not e.g. follow Finland's post Nokia incubation assistance etc. (IMHO as a Norwegian living in the UK).
The oil industry dominate new investment. Although a lot of that is high tech solutions and can probably be used in other sectors, especially in related areas such as marine and shipping solutions, but they do not invest very well in any other area.
Some new companies are successful (Fast,Trolltech,Kongsberg,etc) but it is more in spite of the investment available. The VC, general investment and interest is barren if you compare the buoyant start up market in Denmark, Sweden and Finland.
I am worried about the state of affairs in 20-30 years if they not e.g. follow Finland's post Nokia incubation assistance etc. (IMHO as a Norwegian living in the UK).
I know a lot of people talk up Norway, but I'm not aware of anything that Norway does economically that matters outside of energy production.
What great technology, companies, etc. have they produced in the last 40 years? What big innovations come out of Norway? Do they have the top universities in the world?
They've only won two nobel prizes since oil became the center of their economy, and they became rich. They won four in the 1920s, and four between 1968 and 1973. The oil wealth sure doesn't seem to have spurred great knowledge acquisition.
What great technology, companies, etc. have they produced in the last 40 years? What big innovations come out of Norway? Do they have the top universities in the world?
They've only won two nobel prizes since oil became the center of their economy, and they became rich. They won four in the 1920s, and four between 1968 and 1973. The oil wealth sure doesn't seem to have spurred great knowledge acquisition.
The Cheese Slicer and Black Metal ofc! :)
On a more serious note, we're only like 5 mill people, and while we don't rock the nobel prices I think the oil has pushed us more towards engineering than theoretical research (for better or worse..). Agree our Universities should be better than they are - it's apparently hard to get funding for something that isn't directly applicable to oil, subsea or salmon.
But you probably use lots of stuff designed/invented in Norway without knowing. Example: Do you use a GSM phone? GSM was invented at a Norwegian University.
Lots of research for subsea-technology, oh, and we're pretty good at ship design stuff - dating back from the viking age until now (x-bow). Techy stuff: Energy Micro, Nordic Semiconductors, some parts of Atmel, Opera, FAST, etc.
Most of the oil welfare fund is invested abroad - all over the world (reduces risk and avoids inflation), these days heavily geared towards green technologies / energy.
On a more serious note, we're only like 5 mill people, and while we don't rock the nobel prices I think the oil has pushed us more towards engineering than theoretical research (for better or worse..). Agree our Universities should be better than they are - it's apparently hard to get funding for something that isn't directly applicable to oil, subsea or salmon.
But you probably use lots of stuff designed/invented in Norway without knowing. Example: Do you use a GSM phone? GSM was invented at a Norwegian University.
Lots of research for subsea-technology, oh, and we're pretty good at ship design stuff - dating back from the viking age until now (x-bow). Techy stuff: Energy Micro, Nordic Semiconductors, some parts of Atmel, Opera, FAST, etc.
Most of the oil welfare fund is invested abroad - all over the world (reduces risk and avoids inflation), these days heavily geared towards green technologies / energy.
Definitely fair points.
It's interesting to read about the debate on who deserves credit for inventing GSM, with Switzerland, Finland, and France all claiming various credit.
And of course Norway re:
http://www.ntnu.no/gemini/2005-01e/gsm.htm
It's interesting to read about the debate on who deserves credit for inventing GSM, with Switzerland, Finland, and France all claiming various credit.
And of course Norway re:
http://www.ntnu.no/gemini/2005-01e/gsm.htm
Didn't know GSM was controversial, that's very interesting, wonder what happened there.
But still, I bet you interact with gadgets powered by tech from Norway on a daily basis, even if we remove GSM from the equation: the Atmel AVR micros, radios and micros from Nordic Semiconductor, Energy Micro and Chipcon, etc. Maybe you also touch a UI built on QT (Trolltech), even though the QT phones never became a success. :)
But still, I bet you interact with gadgets powered by tech from Norway on a daily basis, even if we remove GSM from the equation: the Atmel AVR micros, radios and micros from Nordic Semiconductor, Energy Micro and Chipcon, etc. Maybe you also touch a UI built on QT (Trolltech), even though the QT phones never became a success. :)
The country only has 4.5 million people. It's like saying that greater Phoenix doesn't matter because it's only produced two Nobel winners.
Norway has five million people, but I would assume outsized results given the claims about the quality of the country courtesy of the immaculate welfare state and the money available for education. Being entirely serious.
My primary comparison is that, since the oil boom, their results have fallen off in nobel prizes, not significantly increased. And those two prizes they won in the last 40 years were for economics (they were winning them for chemistry and physics in the '60s / '70s).
Ireland has won five since 1974, they only have 4.5 million people, and no grand oil boom, and have only recently become well-off.
Denmark has 5.5 million people and have won four nobel prizes in those 40 years, for chemistry, physics, and physiology.
My point is: where are the results outside of energy production? We should be seeing amazing innovations, great technology, and big technology exports, incredible global contributions to science and break-throughs in medicine. I should be using phones designed by Norway, and software designed in Norway.
So where is it? There is absolutely no question Norway has created a high quality of life courtesy of the money from the oil boom, but what else have they done with it other than provide lots of money to live well (ie what do you have to show for it if the oil is gone in ten years)?
My primary comparison is that, since the oil boom, their results have fallen off in nobel prizes, not significantly increased. And those two prizes they won in the last 40 years were for economics (they were winning them for chemistry and physics in the '60s / '70s).
Ireland has won five since 1974, they only have 4.5 million people, and no grand oil boom, and have only recently become well-off.
Denmark has 5.5 million people and have won four nobel prizes in those 40 years, for chemistry, physics, and physiology.
My point is: where are the results outside of energy production? We should be seeing amazing innovations, great technology, and big technology exports, incredible global contributions to science and break-throughs in medicine. I should be using phones designed by Norway, and software designed in Norway.
So where is it? There is absolutely no question Norway has created a high quality of life courtesy of the money from the oil boom, but what else have they done with it other than provide lots of money to live well (ie what do you have to show for it if the oil is gone in ten years)?
Norway could have let its own citizens decide how to spend their share of the money. That would probably result in some spending more than others, resulting in inequality and an overall worse quality of life, even for the wealthier.
Instead they decided on a mandatory saving of the money. This might have been good for them, but it creates a giant State which wouldn't fly in other cultures.
Instead they decided on a mandatory saving of the money. This might have been good for them, but it creates a giant State which wouldn't fly in other cultures.
Not really. It's a bunch of traders sitting in an office. They don't really make the state any bigger.
I think the key is that Norway was organized, coherent and educated before they discovered oil.
It seems to me that the high levels of trust necessary for this to work also imply a high level of social cohesion (possibly homogeneity). In a society with less internal agreement, I don't see how you could get this much alignment over what is the right management strategy, let alone trust that it's being followed.
Don't forget SIZE. Norway is a tiny country, and so the distance between people and government is small.
Norway's success is a strong case for localism.
Norway's success is a strong case for localism.
Reading this, I realize that almost everything is a case for localism, since we now have nuclear weapons and international instantaneous communications that mean trying to invade a small country is much less reasonable (unless you are Russia).
I mean, that is (in part) why the Greek model failed. Small countries are vulnerable to conquest. But today that is not much of a problem, so I hope the natural social pressure to minimize can overcome the entrenched imperialistic powers that hold a lot of the larger nations together. It just makes more sense to me to, say, have 50 countries and a EU in the US instead of one massively overbearing federal that has authority over a land area competing with continental Europe.
I mean, that is (in part) why the Greek model failed. Small countries are vulnerable to conquest. But today that is not much of a problem, so I hope the natural social pressure to minimize can overcome the entrenched imperialistic powers that hold a lot of the larger nations together. It just makes more sense to me to, say, have 50 countries and a EU in the US instead of one massively overbearing federal that has authority over a land area competing with continental Europe.
They say as much in the article. This just plain wouldn't work for a society that cannot describe itself as homogeneous, as Norway can and does.
The oil curse is a silly notion. The US and Canada have both avoided any 'curse.' China is the world's 5th largest oil producer, it too is certainly not cursed by oil.
Norway however has a huge problem coming, soon. Their oil production is running out rapidly: http://i.imgur.com/UlR1B0a.jpg
It has fallen about 40% in a decade +/-.
Even with their large sovereign fund, they will exhaust that quickly if the oil production doesn't stop falling soon. At the rate it's falling, in another decade Norway is going to be in the midst of a crisis economically.
I know some people in Norway are paying attention to this and trying to think ahead. Being conservative about the sovereign fund certainly seems like the very wise thing to do.
Norway however has a huge problem coming, soon. Their oil production is running out rapidly: http://i.imgur.com/UlR1B0a.jpg
It has fallen about 40% in a decade +/-.
Even with their large sovereign fund, they will exhaust that quickly if the oil production doesn't stop falling soon. At the rate it's falling, in another decade Norway is going to be in the midst of a crisis economically.
I know some people in Norway are paying attention to this and trying to think ahead. Being conservative about the sovereign fund certainly seems like the very wise thing to do.
The US and Canada have both avoided any 'curse'.
Erm, consider the massive amount of environmental and policy issues that we've had due specifically to oil. Had we not had so much of it in the early 20th century, we probably wouldn't have had the automobile boom of today and the long-term sabotage of public transportation.
There's a curse, all right.
Erm, consider the massive amount of environmental and policy issues that we've had due specifically to oil. Had we not had so much of it in the early 20th century, we probably wouldn't have had the automobile boom of today and the long-term sabotage of public transportation.
There's a curse, all right.
Perhaps, but then again America would not have participated very fully in the industrial revolution if not for oil, and would not have fielded a strong military during WW2 without oil.
It's likely America would have not have been able to afford a vast, high quality public transportation system had the economic foundations not been built up in the first place. Especially considering the spread out population base, and geographic size of the country.
It's likely America would have not have been able to afford a vast, high quality public transportation system had the economic foundations not been built up in the first place. Especially considering the spread out population base, and geographic size of the country.
The US and Canada didn't fall prey to the oil curse because neither nation had an entire economy built on oil production. Both were well diversified long before Colonel Drake poked a straw in the ground in Pennsylvania.
Fascinating contrast to this Backstory Podcast episode about America's relationship with oil: http://backstoryradio.org/shows/black-gold-2/
Common resources should be treated as public assets. There's multiple ways you could accomplish that, besides just nationalizing oil fields.
Land value taxation and severance taxes can help recapture the value of our Commons, and allow us to reduce taxes on labor or investment.
Land value taxation and severance taxes can help recapture the value of our Commons, and allow us to reduce taxes on labor or investment.
So are they saving because they're afraid of overheating the economy or that they will run out of oil?
TL;DR
"Fairly homogenous country of 5 Million people total" coupled with some good decision making.
For reference NY alone has a population of about 8 Million.
For reference NY alone has a population of about 8 Million.
Named and outlined better, our "mining tax" could have been this. It could have protected against capital flight and essentially built national strength for all at the expense of those (especially foreign interests) looking to dig up serious swathes of our ground.
Instead, we had a predictable response from the mining magnates and Coalition, an easily duped and panicked public, and a flailing government at the time who named the concept terribly and defended it poorly. And when challenged on the whole "it's barely made any money" front, caved instead of noting that it'd been potentially hampered for political reasons.
What's an easier sell to the public? "Mining tax" or "Future Fund; funded by giant, mostly foreign mining companies."
Look at the Coalition's "$20b" medical research fund. So many people think that's a current $20b fund, rather than a far smaller fund to be built up to $20b over a number of years, and then to fund research only from the earnings of the fund and not from the fund's base value. Labor should have framed the MRRT much more like this and it would've made for a better sell. Avoid the word tax, outline the goal with a specific value range and target date, and name the beneficiaries of the earnings - technology research, medical research, etc.
I can't see how this wasn't a big missed opportunity for Australia.