Caley McKibbin:I'm claiming that oil windfall created the illusion that they have some magical formula.
In a libertarian society, those oil money would be the property of those persons who found it, and not the people of the nation, right?
loweleif: Yet with all your oil money do you have long red hot dogs? That is the question.
Yet with all your oil money do you have long red hot dogs?
That is the question.
I lol'd
Caley McKibbin: I didn't claim that. I'm claiming that oil windfall created the illusion that they have some magical formula. If I found a briefcase on the ground with a million dollars in it I would be called "lucky".
I didn't claim that. I'm claiming that oil windfall created the illusion that they have some magical formula. If I found a briefcase on the ground with a million dollars in it I would be called "lucky".
Canada has a similar situation. We have massive resources we barely refine before selling off.
alimentarius: In a libertarian society, those oil money would be the property of those persons who found it, and not the people of the nation, right?
Right, because there is no such concept of "people of the nation" in a libertarian society.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Which means that Norway would have been a poor country with just a very, veryy rich elite, hadn't it been for their welfare state?
'
Non sequitur.
To darkness I condemn you...
If the Norwegians are rich because of the oil, they would not be that rich if the oil was in the hands of a few people. right?
Why would that be?
their costs of purchasing oil would be cheaper than if the oil did not exist.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Jon Irenicus: Why would that be?
Why would Norwegians benefit more from this oil than any other people, if it was owned by pravate people?
What would give the people within an imaginary zone called "Norway" entitement to it? Why should a person who lives 1 inch from the border not benefit? Why not people in Timbuktu?
They've some sort of entitlement to it? Absent it, they cannot produce wealth? They cannot work in or invest in the oil firms? They will not trade with the now wealthier owners? Do you see why this is silly?
Caley McKibbin: Jacob, what is your point?
Jacob, what is your point?
Simply this: The statistics you're refereing to is rubbish. It doesn't yield any truths whatsoever. Well, it maybe indicate that Venezuela is below Singapore, but the very ranking itself is mere fun and games and not to be taking litterally.
One of the key issues is the lack of weighting the factors. Eventhough I agree that weighing would be maybe even more troublesome, the lack of weighting is minimizing the usefullness of the index severly. And the trouble is, when people start to refer to DK or other countries as being in the top ten or alike, then they basically haven't understood what the index shows, which is WAY less than some people make it out to.
If I recall correctly conscription is in the index as well, but surely no one would claim that conscription vs. non-conscription has an effect on the economy equal to say an index over how easy it is to start a company. As with all the other factors.
Sure, Denmark scores high on economic freedom on various statistics, but don't pretend you know this country, just because you can cite some half-wit table.
And as far is Norway goes... Norway is FAR better off than Sweden and Denmark! They put their oil-money in a fund for future investments. Denmark and Sweden have extreemly expensive systems which are sensitive towards business cycles. Denmark ex. will this year have an enormous budget deficit, which 'no one' saw coming just a year ago, and all the politicians ramble on about is how to prohibit muslim women from wearing a burka.
Nothing would give the people of Norway entitlement to it, I'm simply saying that Norway are good at distributing this wealth. I'm not saying that it's moral, just that it has made the Norwegian people among the most prosperous in the world.
i cant see that any of this has a point ali
alimentarius: Nothing would give the people of Norway entitlement to it, I'm simply saying that Norway are good at distributing this wealth. I'm not saying that it's moral, just that it has made the Norwegian people among the most prosperous in the world.
So you believe that wealth distribution creates wealth thereby making people more prosperous?
alimentarius: I'm simply saying that Norway are good at distributing this wealth. I'm not saying that it's moral, just that it has made the Norwegian people among the most prosperous in the world.
I'm simply saying that Norway are good at distributing this wealth. I'm not saying that it's moral, just that it has made the Norwegian people among the most prosperous in the world.
That is a non-sequitur.
Jacob Hedegaard:So you believe that wealth distribution creates wealth thereby making people more prosperous?
In this case, yes. Or would the Norwegians be just as prosperous if the right to their oill was given to private interests?
Does the Norway gov allow anyone else to explore for oil?
Btw, I don't use Heritage Foundation tables. I use the Fraser Institute version.
That one is based Walter Block's old project, which he explains here.
It isn't "their" oil, and who knows? They might even be more prosperous.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap