Norway seems to be doing swell.

WalterBright an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It's nice to live on top of an ocean of oil to cover the deficits.

	▲	srean 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Indeed. It has rarely (if at all) worked out for any other country though. One or the other super power will make sure that does not happen. US scuttling Iran's nationalisation of their oil being one example. Geopolitical meddling aside, landfall wealth discovery of natural resources is frightfully difficult to manage well. Your currency strengthens, your other industry loses out the on the price war. In general it has been a curse than a boon.

▲

crossbody an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Well, if Norway managed to pull it off, we can just ignore all the countless counter examples

▲

srean an hour ago | parent [-]

Another way is to learn from what Norway is doing right and see what can be replicated. Norway is not a sole example though, just a prominent one.

▲

crossbody an hour ago | parent [-]

Can we? Do we even know the counterfactual? Perhaps Norway would have been 2x richer (incl. their poorest people) if they implemented ultra aggressive libertarian policies.

The best we can do is learn from natural expriments like Finland and Estonia being about as rich before ww2, then by 90s the gap got massive since one was forced adopt more redistributive policies. Same with North / South Korea. Here we have at least some hope of extracting causality

▲

srean an hour ago | parent [-]

Counterfactuals no, but one can make good-faith scientific attempts. We don't because we are locked by ideologies.

▲

crossbody an hour ago | parent [-]

Exactly, and thankfully those have been made based on natural experiments like the ones I shared. And the consensus among serious modern economists (not those making money on selling popular books) is that redistribution negatively affects economic growth with all else being equal

▲

srean 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

I would agree with your statement regarding politics that rests solely on wealth distribution of the populist kind. Wealth needs to be created so that one has something to add to everyone's bag.

▲

crossbody 28 minutes ago | parent [-]

And I agree that _some_ redistribution is necessary for a healthy society. But the cost of slowing growth must be weighted agaist it. And populist calls for "no billionaires" etc are going to be bad for all, including the poor, in the end

▲

srean 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

Almost in violent agreement.

Disagree about the billionaire bit. Accumulates too much power too narrowly. Then one can subvert the market and rule of law. It seems the line lies somewhere between a hundred million and billion dollars at the current value of a dollar.

I am happy and eager to make exceptions on a case by case basis if that billion dollars have been made in exchange of tangible goods and services.

	▲	crossbody 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I just see political influence as separate issue. Make sure they cannot lobby/donate (prison if they do) and problem solved. Why being tangiable so important? E.g. a billionare made it on physical music CD cs one made it on music streaming? As long as it's legal, why prioritize physical form?