How Norway Became So Ridiculously Rich - TEACHER PAUL REACTS 

Norwegians have fallen and have broken the oath of 1814. Our leaders are criminals and people that support them are sheep. I weep for Norway. Norge mitt Norge, dere har foråtdt oss. Jeg ser på nordmenn som fiender nå.

It is not social democracy. At the time, those parties actually went towards everyone getting benefits in the country. They wanted only members of LO (trade union) to have the benefits. It is the bourgeois parties that actually introduced most of the benefits you have today. There is actually not a single party in Norway that wants to remove any of the advantages we have in Norway - or social security - because it is profitable for the national economy.

@@lpdude2005 Political change will seldom manifest inside current political voted leadership. But any positive or negative effects will always be used in any political populism. If you vote blue (conservative) you vote for rich get richer and fast forward climate crisis. If you vote red you protect nature and fight world-ending capitalism.

@@lpdude2005: What you're saying is utter and complete foolishness.

@@jeschinstad What LO did at that time is clearly stated in your own description of history and is seen as one of the stupidest things they had ever proposed - something they also write. But one truth is enough - even if you obviously don't relate to exactly that.

@@andreasandremyrvold Unbelievable that you can write something so stupid. What characterizes the reds? Yes - schooling without any significant grades in logical subjects - such as mathematics, physics or biology. Everyone wants a good environment - but not everyone agrees with the Reds' theories that it is indisputable to believe in something that is decidedly not logically logical. You are allowed to be skeptical and not accept everything you are told - but still we all have the same goals. What is perhaps the biggest difference is that the blue will use the money where you get the most for it - while the red will use the money where it has already been cleaned up over the last 30-40 years and what is left will cost enormously. It is because climate is global - there is not a fence up in the clouds around Scandinavia, Europe or North America

Thatcher SAVED the UK economy as Labour had driven it to the ground with their insane spending. In the case of Norway the left will in the end waste ALL the money saved up in the oil and gas fund, I predict that by 2040 ALL will be gone and they will have to cut hugely on social benefits which will make lots and lots of people extremely miserable.

that is terrifying when you consider population scale 1:70

@@torgrimhanssen5100: Well, it's not terrifying. Norway is completely transparent and everyone can see how we vote and such. It is awe inspiring though. It's a very big responsibility. Right now, the GPFG is 1598,8 billion USD. It was just a few months ago that we hit 1500.

@@jeschinstad I was pointing to US dept though xD

Not quite true, I believe that number is based on the combined GDP with Sweden. Norway's economy got quite squeezed in the early 1800's after Sweden claimed Norway; Sweden was hurting financially after the war and Norway became a convenient sacrificial lamb to prevent unrest at home. The economic consequences for this is why so many Norwegians ended up leaving for America during that century. Norway slowly recovered from the initial squeeze throughout the 1800s, but the full economic turnover didn't really happen until our independence.

@@ShadowTani oh but it is

@@ShadowTani I saw a statistics about GDP per person from the 1920’s, Norway was in top ten in the world in those times, so FAR from poor.

@@ShadowTani And Norwegians emigrations to USA was high but the economy shot up after the Industrial Revolution reached Norway after 1850. The Industrial Revolution freed up many people from farming and that’s why they left for USA. On a typical Norwegian farm in those days only one person, the oldest son, could inherite and run the farm, the other children which was usually many would often leave for USA. Whe standard of living increased and less babies died before the age of 1 the population increased a lot and without good prospects of work the option to leave for USA with promise of free land was a no brainer. Still the average standard of living increased dramatically for the average Norwegian.

@@truxton1000 Please read what I said, "the full economic turnover happened after our independence" and 1920 was after the independence (e.g. 1905), I'm talking about the 1800's when poverty and unemployment was severe, thus many were forced to emigrate to the US at a higher rate than the average (most of Europe experienced the Industrial Revolution as well, but didn't have the same emigration rates, thus that alone wouldn't explain the numbers). Sweden using Norway as a cushion for their economy after the Napoleon war is a matter of fact, which is why in the early 1800's, immediately after being given as a war prize to Sweden, Norway experienced an economic depression. If you've read what I said then I clearly stated that the economy did recover somewhat throughout the 1800's which matches your point about the 1850's, but the standard of living overall didn't really stabilize back to pre-Sweden standards before closer to the 1870's.

Norway has high taxes because the income is so high at around 80-90% higher than USA. USA would also have much higher average tax levels if their people made more money, because they also have a progressive tax system, which you cannot be expected to know because of your stupidity, as demonstrated in your manifest.

It's USD. Right now, it's 2,73 million NOKs, to be precise. The fund is on the verge of becoming self-sustaining, meaning it is growing faster than we can spend. This means that we are no longer financially dependent on oil and gas as long as the financial markets are good.

It’s true what you say. The Norwegian system will in the end eat itself alive, the NAV budget is enormous and continue to grow. I think the budget is well over 500 billion just for NAV, paying out to 2.8 million of the people, the rest, around 2.5 million is squeezed a lot in fees and taxes. So what will happen is that NAV will get so big that it will strangle the whole country. A slow strangle that will not be noticed until it’s too late. Well it’s noticed, but the extreme left politicians choose to ignore it. There is only one political party that can be considered centre in Norway judged on traditional political values and that is FRP.

Well you are correct it will end bad for Norway as it’s controlled by rather extreme left politics. But Norway is of course not “poor” now, and has not really been poor relatively speaking for probably over 2000 years as compared to other countries Norway has been well off in terms of economical output per capita. But I’m 100% sure all this wealth will be wasted rather soon, on insane green politics and insane waste on costly social benefits.

​​​@@truxton1000That's simply not true, Norway's unfortunate geography and miserable climate on the periphery have always prescribed poverty for most Norwegians. Except a minority of vikings, of course. It always had a crude extractivist economy, primarily low-value forestry traded for grain, etc., and disproportionately exploited by a corrupt Hansa elite who expressed the business ethics of vikings. The dire lack of social progress has been well documented as far back as the Greeks and Romans, who both surveyed Norway and concluded the Norse were barbarians of no use, up to its independence in 1906. In the 18th century, Malthus documented great inequity and poverty whilst on his field trips to Norway. Victorian tourists described Norway as completely lacking any organised culture and suggested that if the Norwegians disappeared overnight, no one would ever know they had ever existed. Abject poverty and lack of social development punctuated by a lack of food security and great inequity over 1000 years. There is no credible documented history demonstrating otherwise. The Norwegian struggle to exist competing against nature is well documented in Norway's art history too. And its cuisine. The neo-vikings and Hansa elites - their pathological greed and heroin dealer-like ethics - profiteered grossly from timber and fish exports and shipping at the expense of the rest of Norway. They never invested anything in Norway. Hence Norway's socially impoverished history. And little has changed, in reality. A petrostate accumulating artificial wealth in an oil fund at the expense of its people is pathological greed, not genuine investment in people and their future. It's classic Hansa sleight-of-hand trickery on a national scale pulling off one of the biggest acts of con artistry in European history. That artificial wealth easily evaporates into thin air with an increasingly likely international crisis unfolding. Financial, environmental, war, etc. And it leaves Norway with less than what it had in the late 1970s, after several decades investing in itself; in Norway's onshore economy. Once oil turned handsome profits, the Norway government - and successive governments - stopped investing in Norway. They're less capable of feeding the population today than they were historically; now with even less arable land, a much bigger population and still a dire lack of investment. That's not progress. It's abject failure.

@@johnmcmullan9741 What you claim is contradicted by statistical evidence. I saw a statistical overview from the 1920’s that showed Norway in the top ten richest countries in the world already then, by richest meaning of course GDP per capita, which is the best way to show how rich a country is. So all that writing you did was hard work for nothing. Norwegians did not have a feudal society like most in Europe but mostly independent farmers that of course were much richer and happier than then French, British of German farmers that were living under the heel. This of course reflect the modern society of Norway, a people that want independence from the tyrannical EU. Well at least they try…

@@johnmcmullan9741 But yes, I agree its dismal that Norway does not invest in its own country, it will lead to its downfall.

@@johnmcmullan9741 I think you totally underestimate that Norway started schooling of “normal people” far earlier than other great nations in Europe. Norwegians were literate at a much higher level than for example UK. Many Norwegians excelled in maths, science etc, you just haven’t read about it, so you are ignorant and write about a subject you know very little about.

🤣🤣🤣

It really isn't though. It doesn't contain those that equate other politicians with terrorism, for example. Nothing is perfect, and a lot of what the norwegian government does is disagreeable. . . but anyone thinking that another government, with another party(s) in power would do things differently is quite naive.

Stupidly written. Why do you write like that ?. The fact that you have little control over your own finances is not the same as the fact that Norway is poor.

I think your situation would be 10x worse had you been born in another country. You should count yourself lucky to have been born in Norway in my opinion

The state is saving the money for the future? Well no, they save it so they can waste it on insane green politics and the rest they will just give to the so called poor countries.

🤣🤣🤣

Wow, that was a half empty glass... while the truth is the oposite. It's all a balancing game, you only have so much to spend. And the current ruling parties are not doing a great job at the moment, scaring away capital, but still doing pretty good compared to the rest of the world.

@@wibekesvendsen Hva er problemet? Lite og gjøre i Tromsø?

@@philip4588 🤣🤣🤣

å*@@philip4588