825
submitted 1 year ago by LemmyLaLibre@feddit.ch to c/memes@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] okda@lemmy.ml 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Also oil to pay for all og this.

[-] general_kitten@sopuli.xyz 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

usually the happiest country title bounces between the nordics so not always the oil financing things

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago

Oil exports are like 20% of Norway's economy.

[-] Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 year ago

And when Finland or Denmark were the happiest countries, Norway's oil wasn't really that much of a factor.

[-] Poiar@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Finding oil tends to fuck up a nation, making the nation's other industries unable to compete due to the currency being too strong.

That Norway succeed in remaining a stable state after finding oil is a bit amazing, seeing as oil nations tend to become ruled by oligarchies.

I.e., the guy you're responding to makes no sense. Having oil usually means that you become an undemocratic hell hole.

[-] incogtino@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

I'm sure this is a stupid simple take, but could a nation like Norway avoid this (at least for a while) by selling oil in other currencies and maintaining their investments in other currencies?

[-] w2qw@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What currency the selling is done in probably doesn't matter but yes Norway maintains one of the largest sovereign wealth funds.

The issue is in undemocratic countries there's usually a preverse incentive to not educate people to maintain control of the country. Non resource rich countries have to educate their population to improve productive output.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] westyvw@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

They spending is capped at 3% of the fund. A large number for sure, but the investments are meant to be long term so when the oil is gone, they can keep going.

load more comments (21 replies)
[-] hardware26@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 1 year ago

How do they pic the image that is served with the news? Not only that a globe does not seem very relevant, Norway isn't even visible on the globe.

[-] RogueBanana@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago

Probably googled "world" and took the first image

[-] Blapoo@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago

Something something socialism

[-] Robaque@feddit.it 19 points 1 year ago

The nordic model is not socialist, it's a mix of social democracy and corporatism

[-] Blapoo@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Freetheinternet@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

A lot of "loud" generalisations here or whatever here, ignoring the finer bits. I am a bit drunk, but I will tell the story as I've been told.

After WWII, the labour party in Norway took dominance. Their origin were communist-ish, and their sentiment, in broad strokes, were like that: the people should "seize" control, seize the means of production, and use it to create a society which used is resources to benefit the people. Later, the party turned its back on these roots, and turned to a more moderate way: Bernstein, a german thinker, argued that capitalism didn't "collapse", or eat it self up or something like that, as Marx predicted (?), but rather just worked, in a way. So Bernstein, and others, proposed that rather than overthrow the order, (by force) they should try to moderate, and control it, be reform. From that-ish, social democracy was born. The workers should seize power and control the market and society, to better society for all. I mean, why not (it seems self-evident)?

So, the labour party nationalized the oil (when they discovered it, US companies was at the door, and all natural resources, saying it belonged to the people, and thus could never be sold. They wrote it into the constitution. Again, why not? The workers took political power, and used it to control the "flow" and development of society. They set the term, squeezed the capital owners, but just so much that it would still be attractive to do business. And, in addition, we had oil, and fish... well, everyone wanted it - so why give it away? Why not control it to our benefit? If we have "gold", why give it away?

Plus, from our roots, the population was not divided, of one culture, and the communist emerged from the war as saviours and heroes. Even today most people have backgrounds, and remember, their small towns, and their background of families with simple means: People were frugal, from farming background, homespun and all that, so perhaps thay was why no mafia or anything emerged here, when unions and such developed. Everone knows everbody, it's that kind of vibe, a bit exaggerated. Even today the trust in society, and to the state etc., is sky high. I don't even bother to check my tax returns, I trust the civil servants to do it probably. If I pay too much, I even get interest on the stuff I'm owed.

Fast forwaed, the same-ish principle stands. The labour party rules to share and create wealth for everone, equally. Even if they don't have power: Even the "right wing" parties here are for the same thing (if someone proposed otherwise, e.g. "leave the poor to die", they would be seen be all as pariah, like animals, and shunned by all. It's unheard of, such atrocious attitude would make you appear worse then the worst. the right wingers just want to make it happen through private sector, while the leftists are for doing it through public sector, broadly speakers. Could have said more, for example about the three part collaboration etc., but let's leave it at that. Take it all with a few pints worth of salt, it's enough for a start.

But, I would emphasize, us having such a homogenous population, a kind of stable culture were everone shared the same principles, background etc. - I think that played a big part. Even today, most people believe the integrity of politicans etc. to a high degree. Even if we bicker, it's more like family arguing. Heck, even the children of the crown prince attended public school; the king himself rode the tram when oil was in shortage (a very iconic moment in norwegian history - even if he probably rode with his chaffeur 98% of the time, the principle still stands).

inb4 oil bla bla bla, Sweden has the same welfare level (even though, here my knowledge is more very luck limited).

Thanks for reading, it rocks here (economically speaking; socially, it's as dry as bones, we are probably worse than the finns). Love you all, Cheers!

[-] vodka@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Nearly a month paid vacation time by law"

I've always thought about our 5 work weeks of vacation as over a month, but I just realised 25 days is indeed less than a month.

[-] ReakDuck@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

But if you don't include the weekends, you will have a month.

[-] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago

Wrong its Finland and thats because the sad people just commit suicide...

[-] Perkele@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Remember; sad people off themselves in Norway too. Finland and Norway are very similar in so many ways. Visiting people in Finland and it's just like visiting people in Norway. Even their coffee tastes the same, which means it's light roasted coffee made in a Moccamaster and drunk from Moomin mugs with cake on the side. Imo Finns are just Norwegians with a cooler language.

You are just provoking a war..

[-] Perkele@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 3 points 1 year ago

Provoking a war by telling the truth?

They are very different, as you can see by the way it is.

[-] Perkele@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 3 points 1 year ago

I'm Norwegian with Finnish relatives and I don't see much difference imo. Finland has better candy though, and they have easier access to the sauna. Norway have plenty of mountains and bad weather, and Norwegians are probably more conservative than Finns, atleast that's my impression knowing both sides.

From my understanding its like Austria, Lichtenstein, Switzerland and Germany up there. They are pretty much the same but if you say that they kill you.

[-] Perkele@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 3 points 1 year ago

It is very much the same and we know it. Still though we're quite elitist and Norwegians will obviously think we're better than the Finns (and everyone else for that matter). And likewise with a Finn, they know that they're the best there is.

For obvious reasons none of the Nordics can be the best.

[-] Perkele@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 3 points 1 year ago

⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠛⠛⠛⠋⠉⠈⠉⠉⠉⠉⠛⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⢏⣴⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣟⣾⣿⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⢢⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⠀⡴⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⠟⠻⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠶⢴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣁⡀⠀⠀⢰⢠⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⣴⣶⣿⡄⣿ ⣿⡋⠀⠀⠀⠎⢸⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠗⢘⣿⣟⠛⠿⣼ ⣿⣿⠋⢀⡌⢰⣿⡿⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⢸⣿⣿⣧⢀⣼ ⣿⣿⣷⢻⠄⠘⠛⠋⠛⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣧⠈⠉⠙⠛⠋⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣧⠀⠈⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢃⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⡿⠀⠴⢗⣠⣤⣴⡶⠶⠖⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡸⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⡀⢠⣾⣿⠏⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠉⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣧⠈⢹⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣄⣀⣀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠙⣿⣿⡟⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠁⠀⠀⠹⣿⠃⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠉⠁⠀⢻⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠈⣿⣿⡿⠉⠛⠛⠛⠉⠉ ⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⢀⣀⣠⡴⣸⣿⣇⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡿⠄⠙⠛⠀⣀⣠⣤⣤⠄⠄

[-] Mangoholic@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

The secret is having free hydro energy supply, while 50% of their gdp is fossil exports. But also includes making those smart decisions with these riches. Norway should stop selling carbon tho.

[-] Shatur@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

Always wondered how it works. Anyone know what is the difference between social democracy and classic capitalism aside good social programs and taxes?

[-] GuilhermePelayo@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago
[-] Shatur@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

But in both cases capitalists run the government. Why with social democracy they still have good social programs while in capitalism they tend to reduce them? I doubt that with social democracy they have more generous capitalist, it's should be something else.

[-] GuilhermePelayo@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

Social Democratic countries tend to take a lot of money from taxes and invest into public services and infrastructure. If you want to look at it in an optimistic light it's a middle term to reach true socialism. I agree with it's problems, I don't identify as a social Democrate mostly because I feel it's an ideology with the mere goal of trying to slow capitalism and that's a goal too small for my liking.

[-] Shatur@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

That's how I understand it, but why rich people may want to pay huge taxes?

Usually they try to avoid them as much as possible. I mean if capitalists run the country they could reduce them.

[-] GuilhermePelayo@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

I think that's part of the issue. Social democracies tend to be far more run by the people. They tend to be highly influenced by capital power but not directly and that's a huge difference. Most countries where this exists don't have a gigantic money moving machine from corporations to politicians like the USA it's subtle by way of capital flight.

[-] Gleddified@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

The secret is using your natural reaources to responsibly build a sovereign wealth fund rather than fritter it away for short term political gain.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
825 points (98.2% liked)

Memes

45743 readers
1545 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS