Where is my oil money?

Jegersmart

antrobus wrote: »

I wouldn't say it was unique. Quite a number of oil rich countries have sovereign wealth funds. Like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar....



That would be me.:) But I'm grateful for the confirmation.

Yes, I guess the devil is in the details.....as many hang their very existence on.....so let's clarify what I meant:

There are not many funds that take the "wealth" from a country's national resources and "save" it for the future. Many countries have sovereign wealth funds that will take income from many different sources and mainly taxpayers money of course and are used as investment vehicles (generally speaking) for the gain of the government.

The *spirit* of the Norwegian Oil Fund (Government Pension Fund) I think is quite unique - although unique may be a slightly strong word in this context.

As already stated, as a realist/empiricist I am somewhat skeptical of course as to the future use and benefit of the fund.....;)

J

antrobus

Jegersmart wrote: »

Yes, I guess the devil is in the details.....as many hang their very existence on.....so let's clarify what I meant:

There are not many funds that take the "wealth" from a country's national resources and "save" it for the future. Many countries have sovereign wealth funds that will take income from many different sources and mainly taxpayers money of course and are used as investment vehicles (generally speaking) for the gain of the government.

The *spirit* of the Norwegian Oil Fund (Government Pension Fund) I think is quite unique - although unique may be a slightly strong word in this context.

As already stated, as a realist/empiricist I am somewhat skeptical of course as to the future use and benefit of the fund.....;)

J

I'm not aware of there being any conceptual difference between the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global and say the Kuwait Investment Authority. I suspect that the 'spirit' can be explained by the fact that Norway is a democracy and a lot of the other nations that have sovereign wealth funds either aren't or only pretend to be.

Glen_Clark

antrobus wrote: »

Secondly, why do you thinks it's cheaper to defend an island?

Finally, it hasn't been the EEC since 1993, when it became the EU. Do try and keep up with things.:)

I cannot see anywhere in your link that gives a clue as to Norways military spending, and I cannot see anywhere I said Norway was part of the EEC.
That aside, I will try to answer your question of why it should be cheaper to defend an Island. Its basically the problem of shifting an invading army with hundreds of thousands of tons of essential equipment and supplies across the sea very quickly whilst under attack. A major seaport is essential, but its virtually impossible to capture one intact.
Even when Hitler was at his strongest, and Britain stood alone at its weakest, the combined British and French Armies having been routed out of the continent 6 weeks, Hitler dare not try and cross the channel.

opinions4u

Wilkins wrote: »

On a related issue, what are people's feeling about Britain trying to develop a Sovereign Wealth Fund? The obvious vehicle to start this would be UKFI.

Totally agree that we should.

How you actually do that while national debt continues to increase is beyond logic though.

antrobus

Wilkins wrote: »

On a related issue, what are people's feeling about Britain trying to develop a Sovereign Wealth Fund? The obvious vehicle to start this would be UKFI.

Probably a non-starter, politically, owing to the perceived need to reclaim taxpayer bailout funds, I wonder how this sits with the modern capitalist consensus?

On the one hand the state would be trying to do (long term investment) what, arguably, might be better done by private investors. On the other hand, long term investment income could be used to offset future taxpayer funding of essential state services.

Quite a few countries have a SWF. Here's a list of them, for any one who's interested.
http://www.swfinstitute.org/fund-rankings/

As far as I'm aware, all they all fit quite nicely in the "modern capitalist consensus". At least I don't see the names of North Korea or Cuba listed.

antrobus

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I cannot see anywhere in your link that gives a clue as to Norways military spending...

That's because I made no claims regarding Norway's military spending. I was simply pointing out that a previous poster appeared not to be aware of Norway's involvement in foreign wars.

Glen_Clark wrote: »

.... and I cannot see anywhere I said Norway was part of the EEC....

Of course Norway isn't part of the EEC. No country is part of the EEC. The EEC ceased to exist in 1993 when it became the EU.

Glen_Clark wrote: »

....That aside, I will try to answer your question of why it should be cheaper to defend an Island.....

You've put forward an argument as to why it was difficult to mount an invasion of the UK in the 1940s. On the other hand, in the past, it's been pretty easy. The Normans managed it in 1066, the Danes managed it about 50 years earlier, and before them where the English, not to mention the Romans. It depends what kind of military technology is hanging about at the time I imagine.:)

None of which. of course, has any bearing on the cost involved in trying to stop that happening. I'd have though these days that accidents of geography had little to do with it, (a) on the grounds that any perceived threat is most likely to be of a terrorist nature and (b) because ICBMs are equally comfortable flying over water as they are over land.

puk999

Let's hope lessons have been learned and the vast riches to result from fracking are looked after better.

CLAPTON

puk999 wrote: »

Let's hope lessons have been learned and the vast riches to result from fracking are looked after better.

would you prefer the 'fracking' riches should be invested abroad or should they be used to reduce the deficit and hence the national debt?

Scarpacci

Wilkins wrote: »

On a related issue, what are people's feeling about Britain trying to develop a Sovereign Wealth Fund? The obvious vehicle to start this would be UKFI.

Probably a non-starter, politically, owing to the perceived need to reclaim taxpayer bailout funds, I wonder how this sits with the modern capitalist consensus?

On the one hand the state would be trying to do (long term investment) what, arguably, might be better done by private investors. On the other hand, long term investment income could be used to offset future taxpayer funding of essential state services.

It would be a very useful thing to have, but I don't see it happening. Britain, as a country, is addicted to spending all we have and lots that we don't have. I wouldn't think the political issues would be related to the bailout or a view that private investors can do it better. I think the main issue would be the lack of recognition, by the public and politicians alike, for what money invested today could do for us tomorrow, versus money spent (on government "investment") today.

Even if we managed to get it going, how long until it's raided to pay for the absolutely necessary tax cuts or "investment" in politician's pet projects? Norway restricts itself to spending only 4% of any gains from their fund - unthinkable, I should imagine, in Britain. We'd be forever hearing about how many nurses and teachers, hospital beds and school dinners the money we would invest or the money we have invested could pay for. We'd be dipping in and out of this money non-stop. Every new project or increase in government spending would be viewed more favourably than owning shares in big companies - some of whom could inevitably be viewed badly.

Jegersmart

antrobus wrote: »

I'm not aware of there being any conceptual difference between the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global and say the Kuwait Investment Authority. I suspect that the 'spirit' can be explained by the fact that Norway is a democracy and a lot of the other nations that have sovereign wealth funds either aren't or only pretend to be.

Yes, I see what you mean, the KIA is funded by only 10% of the oil revenue surplus but the "concept" is similar.

I think what I was referring to in terms of the "spirit" is referring to some of the legislation around the government of the fund - but to be honest I am not familiar with the contrasting legislation in relation to the KIA? I am not putting any weight on whether Norway is a democracy or not, as I see politics as an outdated and more importantly corrupt model that masks the fact that it is in fact not a democracy in any meaningful definition of the word. Of course, people can vote for pre-packaged candidates that lead different "parties" which is just another way of dividing the population. Of course Norway has a better "civil rights" record than Kuwait in most people's definition of the word but to be honest when you look at the amount of corruption and enslavery in the so-called "free world" I would suggest that far worse is being perpetrated in the western world than some of the non-democratic countries but it is just much better hidden and less honest....this is of course a different discussion entirely, and one that is probably left well alone.

Suffice to say that in my view the Norwegian model is unique in some respects, but as you rightly point out not in general. I stand corrected within the limited parameters that we are debating here.

ATB
J