Sounds like a bunch of rubbish to me? This is the only thing that sounds alarming to me. But it seems like that's because their government has a generous home lending program and people are only...
Exemplary
Sounds like a bunch of rubbish to me?
Average household debt is 250% of annual income, the highest in Europe.
This is the only thing that sounds alarming to me. But it seems like that's because their government has a generous home lending program and people are only working as much as they want.
Nearly one in ten Norwegians in their 20s are unemployed
I heard a saying recently: if work was good for you, the rich wouldn't let us have any left.
Norway’s rate of secondary-school and university drop-outs is among the highest in Europe. The higher-education system offers as many degrees as you want free of charge, plus generous loans for students. This encourages people to delay their degrees, switch them and extend their time in school. That makes for an accomplished population: more than 70% of unskilled service workers (think baristas and call-centre staff) born in Norway have masters degrees.
So when people aren't fed into a books-for-jobs involution mill they drop out and come back for masters unrelated to survival? How's this a bad thing?
Doesn't the whole article sound stupid trying to measure a post scarcity society with scarcity metrics?
And whenever I think about Norway's sovereignty fund I think about the tragedy of Alberta's conservative mismanagement.
(Edit, adding another point)
Politicians are more accountable if they must ask voters for money in taxes.
[Insert meme of Noah, from Invincible: that's the neat part, they don't ask]
No, they're more accountable when the population has the education and free time to hold them accountable, and when citizen survival doesn't depend on them never taking time off for general strike.
Keep in mind that this is an Economist article. The magazine has an admitted center-right neoliberal bias, with a hefty helping of Anglosphere academic groupthink. You're not going to hear much...
Keep in mind that this is an Economist article. The magazine has an admitted center-right neoliberal bias, with a hefty helping of Anglosphere academic groupthink. You're not going to hear much about the positives of a generous social welfare system here.
Sounds like a good life in a nice country. I’m sorry but unregulated capitalism with an attached betting market is the silliest way to organize an economy that I can think of short of using ducks...
Sounds like a good life in a nice country. I’m sorry but unregulated capitalism with an attached betting market is the silliest way to organize an economy that I can think of short of using ducks as currency.
You think unregulated capitalism and a stock market are silly because maybe you have a goal of maximizing benefit for the most people without harming anyone. Such a system doesn’t make sense to...
You think unregulated capitalism and a stock market are silly because maybe you have a goal of maximizing benefit for the most people without harming anyone. Such a system doesn’t make sense to greedy nihilists who usually end up in charge of everything and rig the rules to funnel value to themselves.
I'm sorry but what's the angle here? The only thing from an economic perspective is that your exports become severely hampered. For oil, this is no issue since that is paid for in dollars and is...
I'm sorry but what's the angle here? The only thing from an economic perspective is that your exports become severely hampered. For oil, this is no issue since that is paid for in dollars and is set globally.
You can look the at the national debt but, honestly, nothing out of the ordinary. Their national savings fund is insanely large due to their natural resources.
Can a country get too rich? Maybe? Can a billionaire get too rich? Maybe. As long as you have decent people leading your country I don't necessarily see anything wrong with it. Help out others, take care of your citizens, address issues decisively and with clarity.
I may be well off the mark here, but it seems to me that exports being hampered by country wealth is a self limiting problem; if you are that wealthy you don't need to earn from export, and if...
I may be well off the mark here, but it seems to me that exports being hampered by country wealth is a self limiting problem; if you are that wealthy you don't need to earn from export, and if your wealth starts to drop because of a lack of exporting your exports will get less hampered?
The article talks about inefficiency in terms of wasted money. The question is what are the real-world impacts of that? It might be increased environmental impact or wasting people's time on...
The article talks about inefficiency in terms of wasted money. The question is what are the real-world impacts of that? It might be increased environmental impact or wasting people's time on "bullshit jobs" compared to a more efficient system.
A more in-depth investigation would answer questions like that.
Sounds like a bunch of rubbish to me?
This is the only thing that sounds alarming to me. But it seems like that's because their government has a generous home lending program and people are only working as much as they want.
I heard a saying recently: if work was good for you, the rich wouldn't let us have any left.
So when people aren't fed into a books-for-jobs involution mill they drop out and come back for masters unrelated to survival? How's this a bad thing?
Doesn't the whole article sound stupid trying to measure a post scarcity society with scarcity metrics?
And whenever I think about Norway's sovereignty fund I think about the tragedy of Alberta's conservative mismanagement.
(Edit, adding another point)
[Insert meme of Noah, from Invincible: that's the neat part, they don't ask]
No, they're more accountable when the population has the education and free time to hold them accountable, and when citizen survival doesn't depend on them never taking time off for general strike.
Keep in mind that this is an Economist article. The magazine has an admitted center-right neoliberal bias, with a hefty helping of Anglosphere academic groupthink. You're not going to hear much about the positives of a generous social welfare system here.
Thanks, I have a hard time keeping track of bias and leaning of different sources. Sounds par for the course for centre right neoliberal nonsense
Is this article an ad for moving to Norway?
Sounds like a good life in a nice country. I’m sorry but unregulated capitalism with an attached betting market is the silliest way to organize an economy that I can think of short of using ducks as currency.
You think unregulated capitalism and a stock market are silly because maybe you have a goal of maximizing benefit for the most people without harming anyone. Such a system doesn’t make sense to greedy nihilists who usually end up in charge of everything and rig the rules to funnel value to themselves.
Rookie mistake honestly.
I'm sorry but what's the angle here? The only thing from an economic perspective is that your exports become severely hampered. For oil, this is no issue since that is paid for in dollars and is set globally.
You can look the at the national debt but, honestly, nothing out of the ordinary. Their national savings fund is insanely large due to their natural resources.
Can a country get too rich? Maybe? Can a billionaire get too rich? Maybe. As long as you have decent people leading your country I don't necessarily see anything wrong with it. Help out others, take care of your citizens, address issues decisively and with clarity.
I may be well off the mark here, but it seems to me that exports being hampered by country wealth is a self limiting problem; if you are that wealthy you don't need to earn from export, and if your wealth starts to drop because of a lack of exporting your exports will get less hampered?
The article talks about inefficiency in terms of wasted money. The question is what are the real-world impacts of that? It might be increased environmental impact or wasting people's time on "bullshit jobs" compared to a more efficient system.
A more in-depth investigation would answer questions like that.
Paywall?
This is an archive.ph link.