Sponsored by Blinkist: Use my special link to start your free 7 day trial with Blinkist and get 25% off of a Premium membership: www.blinkist.com/casualscholar
Nicolás Maduro was democratically elected as the President of Venezuela. Granted, he’s nowhere near as good of a leader as Hugo Chávez, but he is not a dictator. If he appears to be a strongman, it’s because Venezuela has been under assault from the USA for decades. A sudden drop in oil prices caused by Saudi Arabia increasing production at the behest of America, and a revolt against the government by Venezuela’s capitalist class destabilized the country, and the government did not have adequate financial reserves to fight back because it was spending most oil revenue to rectify income inequality for a decade. When social unrest caused by inflation shook Venezuelan society to the core, the USA attempted to install Juan Guaidó as puppet dictator of Venezuela. Despite Maduro’s shortcomings, Venezuelans completely rejected Guaidó, and he was never able to seize power, even after the USA made an assassination attempt on Maduro using a helicopter drone carrying a bomb, and sent a small mercenary force to invade Venezuela by sea. Of course, the USA would not dare to attempt such violent interventions in Norway for several reasons, obviously including race. Norway is in Europe surrounded by great powers, while Venezuela is in Latin America, so it is targeted by the Monroe Doctrine. Norway is a member of NATO, while Venezuela is not. If you look into other oil-rich nations, you will see a similar situation. The USA or another western imperialist country has intervened to attempt a takeover. If the local leaders cooperate with the USA, then the people have peace but no freedom. If the local leaders do not cooperate, then the people have freedom but no peace.
I realize youre just reading his assesment but you should have adressed the claim of "little to no" education point in late 18th century. There was established some mandatory education already in 1739, and even prior to that had an estimated literacy rate of at least 90%. By comparison california *today* is at 76%.
If you like the authors of The Narrow Corridor, you'd probably like their work "Why Nations Fail". I don't agree with some of their points but it's pretty good.
I'm a Brit and lived in Norway for a year. Despite only having a basic unskilled job and only kind-of speaking the language, I felt more financially secure there than I ever have in the UK.
I did the same but i stayed, and have been here for a decade now. It's the social democratic system that is the golden ticket, the oil is really kept at arms length from the rest of the economy. The UK had a system similar to it in the 1970s and it was the most income equal county in Europe.
@@ThisGuyAd. I would have happily stayed there for the rest of my life, but I got friendly with a woman back here in England who wasn't keen on Norway's colder climate, so I moved back for her.
@@Pining_for_the_fjords I totally get that, it's early July and has pissed it down all week. The government here has been trying to break strikes recently. I will be emigrating again if Norway goes the way of the UK in the 1980s. I can live somewhere hot and have my rights stripped from me.
@@ThisGuyAd. We were in Oslo recently to visit, and we noticed there were no trains running, but there were bus replacements, then a few weeks later we had mass rail strikes in the UK. I guess everywhere is experiencing financial hardship and anywhere with strong unions will be prone to strikes. Personally I fell in love with Norway for its nature, being close to the mountains and fjords, the living in the north close to Tromsø seeing the aurora in the winter and midnight sun in the summer. I would have still wanted to live there if it was a poor country. Norway's current economic success was just a bonus for me.
I am from India and living in Norway for 15 + yrs(now a Norwegian citizen). Norwegians are so inclusive and strong believes of equality and mostly don't care about religion or god. I think this is their strength. Feel so lucky and proud to live here.Jeg elsker dette landet🇳🇴🇳🇴🇳🇴🇳🇴.
Well as a Norwegian with family in Brazil, my conclusion is that the low levels of corruption in Norway is the main driver behind its success. What people often forget is that corruption is much more than brown envelopes with cash going from corporate executives to polititicans. Corruption is for example hiring a friend for a vacancy instead of hiring the best qualified candidate. Part of Norways success can be atributed to our cultural heritage in where we are not relationship focused in our business relationships. We focus on the deal and the results, the relationships are important, but secondary. Foreigners can often regard us as "cold" or "distanced" due to this, but in fact we are not.
@@Ale-ft4re No - that is not it. Norway has never been like the rural areas of France and Germany. Look at the video again. Norway was democratic, organized and industrialized at its independence in 1905. At that point Norway was not a poor country at all. Norway has been amongst the "first world countries" since 1905. As for Brazil, big cities is not the problem. Brazils problems is for another video, but they are related to "o jeitinho brasileiro", not the size of it cities. In Brazil everybody tries to be smarter than the one he or she is dealing with and therfore nobody trusts eachother. In Norway the level of trust is very high and we can leave a shop open an unattended with a box in the middle where people leave their money for what they buy. Trust your neighbour and you will have a wealthy country!
Congrat for your amazing nation! I'm from Brazil, moved to Norway recently, and it seems like a paradise to me. "O jeitinho brasileiro" is really wracking my beloved country.
Norway also did the smart thing in setting aside some of their oil royalties for a rainy day situation when crude oil futures are low, reinvested some of these royalties into a sovereign wealth fund to prepare for life after oil, and that's how they became rich while other major oil producers did not.
Norway is a good country, but it is not unique. Most countries in the western world, not all western countries, but most have a similar system. Compared to the second and third world, the West has relatively low social differences, but the USA and the UK have large differences Norway is often glorified and seen as the best of the best, which I think is completely wrong Although our country is rich in resources, the population is not rich, not poor either, just working class. The majority are working class. The middle class, the upper class and the poor are a minority, as in most Western countries The amount of income in Norway is high, but people abroad who dream of living in Norway do not check living costs against income. Norway is among the most expensive countries in the West, the cost of living is insanely high, therefore the high amount of income is not relevant to wealth I know a married couple where the husband is Spanish, the wife is Norwegian. They have lived in both Norway and Spain, now they live in Spain. Spain is not as rich in resources as we are, but the people who live there are neither richer nor poorer than Norwegians Measured in amount, they earn 35% less in Spain for similar occupations than in Norway, in return the cost of living is 35% lower, which makes this match, therefore the standard of living is the same. Rights in healthcare are also the same Poor, middle class and rich are a minority in Spain, and it is a minority in Norway. The level of corruption is low compared to the second and third world in Spain, and the level of corruption is low in Norway compared to the second and third world Norwegians are no better off than most other western countries, this is a big misunderstanding Yes, we earn more, but we also have a higher cost of living Something that is also misunderstood is that healthcare is free in Norway, this is not true. When you are admitted to hospital, you pay nothing, and the treatment you receive while you are admitted is free, but for all outpatient treatment you pay a deductible. The healthcare system is partially subsidized by the state, but not free, only admission to a public hospital is free In the last year, Norway has gone downhill. I would call it a financial crisis, something all countries go through once in a while. Interest rates have exploded, electricity is 10 times more expensive than a year ago, the currency has lost a lot of value, and recently food also became much more expensive. Despite all this, there is no index adjustment in the income. The amount of income is still the same now as it was two years ago, we have a much higher cost of living, money is in inflation, interest rates have exploded, but after all this the amount of salary is exactly the same Poverty rate went from 7% of Norway's population to 10% of the population. It is still a minority on the scale, but I still think it is tragic and unfair that it should be like this I also have to mention dental health. One would think that the teeth are not part of the body in Norway, because dental health is not covered by the ordinary healthcare system. Public healthcare is partially subsidized, you pay a deductible, the state pays the rest, dental health is not subsidized, after you turn 18, the state pays 0% of the dental health, so at the dentist you pay 100% of the price yourself Higher education in the public sector is not free either, you pay a compulsory fee each semester. You have to buy your own laptop, you have to buy your own textbooks, and if you don't live near the university, you have to rent a dormitory, which is very expensive, and you also have to pay for electricity and food, and to afford this you have to apply for a student loan, and you have debt for years after you graduate When Norwegians buy houses or flats in working-class standard, they have mortgages for 25 to 35 years on average This post is not intended as a complaint, but as a detailed explanation that Norway is nothing extraordinary, Norway is nothing unique. Money is not everything, and I have no goal of becoming rich, but it is not fun that people think we are so rich when it is not the case, nor is it nice that people think Norway is utopia when it is not the case The rare times I afford a holiday, and the locals ask where I'm from, and I say Norway, then I can't be left alone, then people will sell me the most expensive things they have, restaurants will sell me lobster, if I am in a taxi and they ask where I'm from, then they'll drive me everywhere and give me a long sightseeing trip and show me all possible sights, because they think I'm insanely rich when they hear the word "Norway". I am also told that I am lucky, but what do they really know about my life? How do they know I'm lucky? That and being lucky are to a far greater extent personal experiences than which country you live in. I've always had what I need, but I'm still not lucky, I've been exposed to a lot of bad experiences in life. That's why it's not fun that people think I'm rich and lucky! I consider myself neither lucky nor unlucky, it's subjective, I currently have a job I like with good colleagues, and a few good friends, and good relatives. I earn less in this job than in the previous one, but I enjoy myself better, therefore I feel luckier with this job. But behind me in life I have been treated terribly by many people, I have been exposed to a lot of pain, and I have also been in two car accidents. So even though I live in Norway, I am not immune from experiencing a bad life. It is to a small extent one country that determines whether you are lucky or not, as long as you are not living in war, or starving to death
If that's the case then Switzerland is like someone worked hard their whole life and still got farther than the lottery winner. At least that's my experience as a Norwegian after experiencing Switzerland
Its a pity that India is going the non democratic direction and run by a Strong Man, If that keeps on going it will lead to a Kleptocracy and not like Norway.
Even before the discovery of oil, Norway was a country that encouraged others to find their differences between each other and try to reduce them. India was big, turned in on itself, but tried to be a bastion of neutrality.
My cousin Jeris married Topan Bagchi. Her kids are Norwegian Indian. Her kids are brilliant and have offers from Yale , Harvard and Princeton. Not religious.
Dude your videos are insanely good. Well-sourced, well-based, well-paced. I've read and seen documentaries about several of these topics for years and I was surprised about how many new things I've learned by watching your videos.
Being Australian, I wonder how much better my country might be if our government took the same approach towards natural resources. We have a population of only 25 million and we have a significant percentage of the entire words ores and minerals. Unfortunately, we followed the American model and we let multi-national corporations take ownership over our resources and take all the profit.
In Chile they have a lot of free enterprise, but the government monopolies certain raw materials and sells them for super cheap to everyone. So if you are Manuel the landscaper buying a wheelbarrow full of gravel, or a multinational building a new HQ, you pay the same low rate for the gravel either way.
As i recall, Norway's doctrine for spending the newfound oil money was to do exactly the opposite of what the Netherlands did. The Netherlands' economy suffered greatly after excessive spending of their oil money, which was aptly named "The Dutch Desease". This happened a few years before Norway discovered its oil in the North sea, and after witnessing this cationary tale first hand, Norway would adopt a very careful approach to its spending. Instead, most of the surplus oil money would be stored in a fund to act as an insurance for when the oil reserves would eventually run out.
What a proud nation they must be for having leadership that thought of its people and country, Well done Norway and also for keeping your feet on the ground and head out of the clouds with ego etc. Bravo to its government
In the rest of the world, how do we promote politicians that put the well being of their country before themselves? That is what really needs to be answered.
@@SD-tq7ug Not sure if their way of governance is viable for the rest of the world though. For example Norway with a population of 5 million, the USA with a population of 340 million. A lot of the Scandinavian countries built their economy and wealth first, then transitioned over to socialist policies. It is not exactly an easy task for a large country to do the same, especially one with a lot of federal debt. The population of the USA is just too big, and the government too wasteful. Same thing with most other large countries.
My great grandfather left Norway for America in 1906. My family in Norway was really poor, every extra dollar my great grandpa had was shipped back to Norway to support the family that stayed. In fact shipments of money, clothing and even candy was shipped to Norway in support of the family until the 1960’s at that point my great grandfather realized they weren’t so poor anymore after a visit.
I overheard a conversation between a customer and a guy working in my local grocery store in Oslo. The grocery store worker had just come back from holiday, and had spent two weeks traveling the French riviera. I've spent most of my adult life living in the US and the UK so I still find it really striking how people working those types of jobs can still afford relative luxuries like that.
It’s because whatever job u have they are trying to make people’s payments around the same % of what taxes they get! So it’s not may super rich and a lot of poor people! (Sorry for my bad English)
@@More_Rowany labor skill will get you a job here. Something this video barely glossed is wages in Norway and how it benefits the system. Unions are very strong and have made the minimum wage very high. There's also lots of laws on salary. If you do physical work, you're entitled to more pay. If you have a particular skill like carpentry (as opposed to grocery store worker), you're entitled to more pay. You make more in thr afternoon, even more in the evening. Weekends net 50% and 100% more. All of this by law. And companies will rarely offer minimum wage. They generally offer more. Even grocery stores. This keeps everybody in work, and taxes are high. Taxes go to free education. Which produces higher skilled workers and entrepreneurs. Which produces more work places. It's a healthy circle. Harald Eia has a TED talk on this and why the high taxes and high minimum wage is the reason Norway has the most millionaires per capita.
I worked in Norway on and off for 5 years, and I was told about this. At first I was sceptical about it. A country with no corporate or political corruption stripping its people of their assets, surely not? But as your excellent video explains, Norway got it right.
From all of this, I think the best thing that happened to Norway was that it already had good governance, politically literate population, and a healthy dose of nationalism (idk the exact term but basically it's how politicians think for their country first and for themselves second), the things that many countries could only dream of.
There's a lot of bad things not mentioned in this video. It's not all good and glorious. Extreme government spending, globalization (immigration issues), death of the nuclear family (typical western problem), spoiled lazy population and so on. He highlights all the good stuff, but forgets to mention the downside to all the riches. The nationalism you mentioned is dying out rather quickly I'm afraid. I blame that on the politicians, not the money itself. I was born here, so I'm not making shit up.
@@fred6907 Im also from Norway and you're kinda just making shit up. The nucelear family consept has never really existed in Norway to begin with so how can it be dying? Also a lot of studies show that norwegians on avarage are harder workers than most other countries, Norway also have very few immigration issues due to its focus on integration. Globalisation is a problem doe since we dont produce enough food in our country to feed the population so if the borders ever close we're screwed
@@stenhansenmaling1281 Birth rates and marriages are rapidly declining due to post modern feminism (which hates the nuclear family btw). We work fewer hours than most Europeans, only beaten by a few countries. Ethnical Norwegian will be a minority in the not so distant future, immigration will outnumber birthrates very soon too. Just because our major news outlets don't report it, it still exists. Then again, most Norwegians have their head stuck up their ass...so we kinda deserve it.
@@stenhansenmaling1281 Thats not whats the most troublesome about the globalization. The main issue is the bureaucracy and politics that come with globalization. Over the last couple of decades, Norway has been losing its political power over themselves, with EU, WEF and other global companies/organizations deciding more and more. The biggest issue with this is that rules the EU decide on, almost every european country has to agree to, even though the decision isn’t necessarily healthy for the given country. The power distribution is way too bureaucratic, with a few people controlling way too much. Elections matter less and less, as the represants in the global organizations make the important decisions of a given country, instead of the elected politicians of that country.
They had Genuinely Distributed Democracy. Checks and balances. Most of us have corrupt swines that deserve to be imprison charged with some form of treason against their own people and communities.
Norway is insanely rich because: 1. Norwegian culture frowns upon flaunting wealth. Thus rich people avoid driving Bentleys and Rolls Royce like in Gulf states. 2. A lot of Norwegian wealth is simply saved. E.g. Norway has a higher GDP per capita than the US, but Norway is saving a large chunk of generated wealth each year. 3. The rich simply are not as rich in Norway as in other comparably rich countries because the wealth is more evenly distributed. 4. Norway spend a lot of money on maintaining a spread population and maintaining its own agriculture. This is costly, but also means e.g. that food is very safe in Norway.
@@MaxSMoke777 Nope, #3 is wholly accurate. The video you are referring to applies to different macroeconomic circumstances. In Norway, plumbers and surgeons make about the same. And plumbers in Norway are richer than financial analysts in Greece and most other Western countries.
One of the only videos that focuses on the groundwork before the oil boom. GDP before 1967 was similar to many other european counties that the time. Fishing and the shipping fleet were massive providers. Another important person is Farok al-kasim, a geologist that moved from Irak, and became on of the loudest speakers warning the government to not allow private companies to just pump and dump the sector. He was actually knightet by the king in 2012 for his efforts back then.
But GDP is an awful measure for social welfare. As is the state owning everything and running it for profit rather than public services. And it was the discovery of oil - the curse I'd oil - that ended Norway's brief journey of progress post WWII. Now their schools are falling down and their children get a Micky mouse education with no career prospects, unless they leave Norway. The unavoidable curse of geography for Norway.
@@johnmcmullan9741 umm Norway is consistently ranking in top spots. including HDI, press freedom, anti-corruption and education. what are you on about?
My dad once said "noway is so filled with hills, mountains, and valleys that if you'd somehow manage to flatten all that surface area like you do with a crumpled paper they would be one of the largest countries on earth"
And I'm pretty sure that your father was spot on in that statement. What I don't understand is that we have the second longest national coastline in the world after Canada. WTF! How is that possible??
Going the long way round from Oslo to Nordkapp is a very long way. Just a straight line from Kristiansand to Nordkapp is 1 600 km. And then to quote Slartibartfast there are all those 'crinkly edges', the fjords! @@hugornne3556
The beginning of this video paint the totally wrong picture on the economics in Norway in the 1800's. The industrial revolution started in Norway in around 1850, and Norway was never "poor" in relations to other European countries, and certainly not in relation to the rest of the world. Education was pretty good and had started already in the 1700's, most people were literate, literacy in Norway was in the 1800's among the best in the world. In terms of Norway's economy in the late 1800's it was around middle in Europe, of course behind highly industrial nations like UK, Germany and France, but not as poor as south and east European countries. For example Norway had in the 1800's one of the largest shipping fleets in the world.These are the facts, not sure how these videos just take these "truths" out of thin air or from quoting someone that once said something, which obviously was wrong. The fact is that Norway would have been a rich country even without the oil, as the oil industries would of course had been replaced with other kind of industry, not as profitable as pumping oil and gas but still.
@@blakeedwards5570 The future fund still exists....it was designed to cover federal superannuation pension liabilities. The real scandal is that the gas exporting industries got a deal whereby they were only to be taxed on their profits. Well, they never made a profit...and right now they are sitting on a $ 200 billion tax loss....for ever! So Australia will never get a single cent from our gas resources! And both Labor and Libs are to blame for that!!!! The smart and clever country we are......with our C grade politicians.
I was thinking that, as an Aussie. We have a big country but it just means we have a longer run up to decline when we run out, having sold all our resources for the benefit of a greedy few.
We had a decade of massive revenues that the Howard government blew on… tax cuts for the rich? The hand outs in the second half of his eleven years were so profligate you need a different word.
@@andyl8055 You are spot on. Both, Gina Rinehart and Andrew Forest are now our 2 richest people. Why? They inherited some Australia iron ore deposits from their fathers and turned them into mines. Not their fault....good luck to them. As good old Allen Bond once said: Australia is a great country, ...you discover a huge gold field.... fill in a form...and it's all yours....tax free😂😂😂 Cheers from Cairns
Building wealth involves developing good habits like regularly putting money away in intervals for solid investments. Financial management is a crucial topic that most tend to shy away from, and ends up haunting them in the near future. Putting our time and effort in activities and investments that will yield a profitable return in the future is what we should be aiming for. Success depends on the actions or steps you take to achieve it. "You're not going to remember those expensive shoes you bought ten years ago, but you will remember every single morning when you look at your bank account that extra 0 in there. I promise, that's going to be way more fun to look at everyday", I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life
You're absolutely right, to be a successful in life required not only hard work but awareness and sometime opportunity at the moment, investment remains the best way to start.
@@stephenadiela-xi6ndI agree with you. Investment is the key to sustaining your financial longevity. And not just any investment but an investment with guaranteed return.
yeah investment is the key to sustaining your financial longevity but venturing into any legit investment or business without a proper guidance of an expert can lead to great loss too.
@@rahmatumustaph1609 Obviously talking about been successful, I know I am blessed if not I wouldn't have met someone who is as spectacular as Debra Barton
This really goes to show how the framework must be laid before another country can realistically utilize the format that Norway has in structuring itself for strong safety nets (in other words, how it's impossible in general to do so entirely); it has actively pursued such at every level, and has the financial backing to do so properly, thanks to its particular exploitation of many factors; something that politicians in many other places would and do revile, because it means that it doesn't get that power and money into THEIR hands, specifically.
Pretty much a case from Why Nations Fail book. Leaders obviously have all the access and resources to the gigantic amount of good governances and economic advises. ALL involves trade-offs and some can't see anything but black and white or the trade offs are obviously not in their favor. I personally don't believe in geographic inequality, but rather the willful ignorance of leaderships. (Remember, bastions of civilization constantly shift around in world's history, it's not that Africa or Middle East countries are always poor, they were once powerful empires.)
I would be interested in you explaining how Norway avoided political corruption. I know you liked to quite “democracy” a lot, but a lot of countries have that claim too, and most democracies are so tired with the upper classes and corruption. I am wondering if you could expound on what makes Norway different.
@@adrianbalboa5353 fair point. But many claim to have democracy when corruption and under table deals are rampant. So what makes Norway the exception to that? That’s what I want to know. (Or even if it is true they are free from corruption, and don’t nearly hide it)
@@adrianbalboa5353 Isn't that a bit of a chicken and egg problem though? In order to build free and transparent institutions you need democracy - policy makers accountable to the people and who would sculpt the institutions - but in order to not have politicians co opted by powerful interests, you need free and transparent institutions to keep politicians in check.
@@novigradian1284 You're right.. Transparancy is just a part of the puzzle. You need a climate where politicians do whats best for the country. That i honestly believe derive from our strong unity and trust in eachother. Though we recently have seen episodes of corrupt prominent politicians. Furtunately media dont collab with politicians and they show no mercy for them either..
This video contains several of the typical errors about Norwegian history. Two important points: 1. Norway was doing quite well economically long time before the oil, at least from the early 1900s (just look up any youtube video about GDP development of European countries). It is often forgotten that Norway also have had abundant cheap electricity from hydropower, which started what is in Norway referred to as the 2nd industrial revolution in the early 1900s. 2. Video say the population was poorly educated. However, literacy in Norway was very good compared to most countries in Europe. This was because after 1736 it was not possible for a person to be confirmed in church without being able to read. This is an important explanation for a thriving civil society and well functioning democracy.
thank you my forefathers on my mother's side were well read individuals and more than one was bilingual in sweed/Norwegian and English and couldn't fully speak-french&Latin but other than that was considered fluent i on the other hand struggling with just English 😢 as it means i can't really read anything about them ect. without having help
The video straight up mentions hydroelectric power and Norway's early industrial revolution but notes it was still middle of the pack relative to the rest of Europe. Did you even watch the video?
@@Gilthwixt1 Yes and - it says almost 75% of the wealth from hydro power was taken by other countries. Inequality was reduced rapidly over time compared to other countries.
I still don't get why people think Scandinavia was poor and uneducated in the past, but in that period even in Central Europe things like literacy wasn't something for granted at all, not to mention anywhere outside that.
@@Janshevik Literacy perhaps was good but Sweden as well as Norway , not to mention the Grand duchy of Finland was really poor compared to most other European states if you look at the period before the industrial revolution and even beyond that. Norway GDP Per capita was lower than the other Scandinavian countries historically and only caught up in the early 1980's and then took on a trajectory on its own by strength of oil income.
Norway's nationalistic philosophy towards their resources literally started an avalanche of economic growth and prosperity for its nationals. In my country, Ghana, and other mineral rich african nations, foreign multinationals take advantage of the greed of our politicians and lobby for legislations that make them the sole owners of firms that exploit these natural resources whiles paying little to no tax through tax exemptions. I am a small business owner, and I pay more tax (25% + extra levies) than foreign mining companies who only pay 5% on total revenue earned from mining activities as royalties. The West and China have currently caught us in a chokehold of debt, with our current debt to gdp ratio in excess of 80% and more than 50% of new loans being used to service previous debt at the expense of investments into education, healthcare and infrastructure. Neocolonization is in full play in Africa
It's interesting to hear this from a Ghanaian. Norway's first industrialization came from hydro power. And Ghana also built a huge hydro electric plant. But Norway passed a law of escheat, declaring that hydro power plants return to government ownership after a certain number of years. To my knowledge, in Ghana, the government took up a huge loan to build the dam, and was then forced to agree to a contract selling the majority of the power cheaply to the company that gave the loan. So these two countries COULD have been quite similar. But the politicians made different choices. In Norway, the oil companies pay an ADDITIONAL 50% tax on their profits. This is in addition to the normal company tax of 28%, totaling 78% tax for oil companies. In Ghana, the government allow companies to exploit the natural resources, and paying very little back. The Norwegian model might not be perfect for the world. But it might be perfect for some other resource rich countries. If they have the needed democratic traditions to make it work.
USA owes 30 trl$ on a 20 tril$ economy and Japan has also massive debt and an aging population but both are still prosperous .PATRIOTIC LEADERSHIP IS WHAT COUNTS!
@@Tjalve70 You couldn't have put this any better. I am very confident that Ghana could have achieved the needed democratic traditions to make this work, but, unfortunately, our democracy is not, and has never been, devoid external influences. Our young democracy was caught in the throes of the Cold war where democratically elected leaders were overthrown because of a mere suspicion of being biased towards either side of the warring parties (Russia and USA). The CIA has recently declassified documents which explicate their involvement and motives for many of the coup d'etats that plagued Ghana and several other African countries in the past. The instabilities created an obvious opportunity for western corporations. Whiles there were inconsistencies in our democracies over those years, mineral exploitation however did not suffer any breakages. The situation is very complex in this part of the world. Perhaps we the younger generations can do somethings different. But we are still heavily dependent on foreign aid though, just as we were when our democracy was in the cradle stages. And so long as that remains the case they are going to have strong indirect influence in how my country is governed.
@@michaelfroelich9560 Great question, Michael. Fortunately my generation is smarter, but unfortunately our state is still heavily dependent on foreign aid which gives foreign nations strong, indirect influence on our policy direction. If I were President I would implement policies which would focus more on the benefits for Ghanaians. I'd clearly learn from the blueprints of countries such as Norway, UAE etc., but I would also factor in measures that may be unique since the variables in Africa are not exactly same as in the other countries I mentioned. But Ultimately I believe that our total liberation would come only when there is true independence. So long as other nations (The west, France, China) still hold a strong indirect grip on the governments in Africa, It is going to be extremely difficult for even the most well meaning Presidents to cause drastic transformation.
Norway beeing "very poor" in the 18th and 19th century is not really accurate. Everywhere was poor, but compared to most other countries, Norway was doing fine. A bit below some of the richest Western European countries, but not comparatively poorer than most other places. This is basically an old myth, it's been thoroughly debunked several times. And in the late 19th century Norway was growing rapidly already
They were poor enough to immigrate to the US, and be at the bottom. They did well, and Norwegian communities prospered. But yes, the immigrants were poor.
@@amariner5 That is incorrect, most of the immigrants from 1870 and onwards were just looking for a quick buck, and 40% of the ones emigrating after 1870 came back to Norway, several went over several times. I live in a town in Norway where 75% of all students in the middle school is American citizens, most of them have never been in the USA (but they may use American English as their home language). This is because their parents of grandparents went over to (mostly) Brooklyn and worked as floor layers, in the 1950's and 1960's, and stayed there for some years, got US citizenship, and then returned home. Som children were born in the US, others were born in Norway, and because their father or mother were US citizens that did not matter. And some of these had children that also became US citizens through a parent (that might never had been in the US)
@@amariner5 just because there are people migrating does not mean the country is poor, which countries did not have many poor people in 1860? Norway was not as rich as Denmark or Sweden, but they had also occupied Norway for many hundred years, so no wonder it took some time to catch up, but there were also Danes and Swedes who migrated to the USA, both because they were poor, but mostly because of the dream of trying your luck in the USA.
You forgot our public tax records. Anyone in Norway can check how much another citizen is paying in tax. Therefor living in luxury with illegal money is almost impossible in Norway. Our health care is awesome yes. But we also have an INSANE extra tax on products that may harm you. Like a 20pk of cigarettes is close to 20$. Same goes for alcohol. We even have a higher tax on candy. These kind of things makes it a lot easier for our government to pay for medical bills. Essentially you're paying for your own medical bills, you just never see it. Same with oil. We have one of the most expensive fuel prices in the world. Not because oil is expensive, simply because the tax is. As always, Brain>Muscles
So, you can't have fun via usual routes like over-eating, drinking, driving, but you can by being nosey about your neighbour's taxes! Just kidding, honestly, Norway should give lessons in democracy worldwide.
just FYI the rate of tax you pay on cigarettes is comparable to what people living in cities in the US pay & high price has had little effect on consumption rates. Are new smokers smoking less than they otherwise might have? maybe, but existing smokers are just putting more money in the company's pockets ($ here from tobacco sale DOES NOT go to healthcare--there is medical attention available as a retail service, but no *healthcare system* in the US)
@@TDeclinator If anyone is to check taxes, you have to log in with your personal ID and the person you are looking up, is able to see whos been checking their record But the newspaper might often have some public lists of the wealthiest people in their regional area though.
I am literally writing my Master Thesis about this specific difference of outcomes between Norway and Venezuela, contrasting both caes with the development theories out there. I think that in the end of this video there is a very valuable statement: A strong democracy must be in place before the arrival of such income. Because a strong democracy implies strong institutions, and strong institutions make it harder (yet not impossible) for corruption to spread (although cases have been seen), it is a variable that should be considered in the analysis. Good work here, cheers.
In your thesis you might consider that countries do not live in an isolated bubble. Consider how Norway would be if a superpower European country constantly interfered in Norway affairs and was currently trying to destroy Norway with punitive sanctions. That would be an interesting thesis.
The US would never allow Venezuela to have a proper democracy and they would never allow them to become a developed country. Why? Well, isn't it obvious? You have a country with a large amount of oil and the potential to become the wealthiest in South America and possible North America too. Why would the US want competition in either North or South America. Can you imagine a superpower in South America?
On the other hand, there is the US. I wonder if they they have some special tax for their oil- or gas companies? If not, the taxpayer even has to pay for them because of the negative consequences to the nature.
I'd like to hear your idea about the crucial topic not explained in this video: how did Norway form its political atmosphere? You cannot attribute it all to Norwegains' luck to have "good" politicians. I believe that there must be some more profound and fundamental factors.
Here's my take on it. It has a lot to do with how politics evolved in Denmark and Sweden as well because Norway was first controlled by Denmark and then Sweden before becoming independent only relatively recently in 1905, by which point it had many of the democratic institutions in place that were similar to its neighbours. And both Danish and Swedish society often reflected each other since they competed with each other (they were, for example, much earlier to industrialise compared to the other nordic countries). The region also then witnessed Sweden's meteoric growth in the decades following WW2 and its social democratic movement, which influenced political thought in all the Nordic countries (they have all in some regard surpassed Sweden now). The history of the region as a whole is important to understand. Norway may be very rich today but all its Nordic neighbours are also relatively rich and very successful democracies with relatively similar governments. A lot has to do with decentralisation of power within the society early on. Even before democracy, the aristocracy (between the people and the government/king) in Scandinavia never concentrated as much power within itself as it did in other parts of Europe and the world (this is often seen as a less evolved society in some contexts). This meant that common people held relatively more say in public matters compared to their other European counterparts. Culturally, social good and sharing resources have always been important in these societies. This loosely evolved into strong labour unions which further gained a central position in society in the 1930's allowing high wags, low exploitation, and a productive economy. With a weak aristocracy and a strong working class making way for social policies (most importantly an importance placed on free education and healthcare), the societies were able to develop a skilled workforce with relatively low income inequalities, but high living standards across the board (which is somewhat true to this day). Now of course it is important to factor in the natural resources these countries had at their disposal pre-industrialisation (in which regard, pre-oil in Norway, Denmark with its food industry, and Sweden with timber and iron ore, were able to come out ahead) and strong trade relations with other European countries that allowed the governments to fund all this. This is an oversimplification of course and there are several other factors that went to making these countries what they are today. But the point I'm trying to make is that it is a confluence of cultural, structural and economic factors unique to these countries that allowed them to develop their strong, socially-responsible democracies. Sweden in some ways has always been the more experimental Scandinavian sibling, at least politically speaking (it has many firsts to its name, most famously, introducing right to information in the 18th century, almost 150 years before most other western counties did in the 20th century). And that inclination I think reflects in Sweden being the first to sway farthest away from the now-famous Nordic model, with sweeping privatisation (although it has also happened to a lesser extent in all its neighbours) and growing capitalist inclination in recent decades due to not being able to sustain its social welfare schemes for its large (in Scandinavian terms) population through taxation alone. Norway is able to avoid this thanks to its well managed and highly lucrative oil resource.
Overall every Norway national system (political, economical, laboral, educational, industrial, exterior) seems to behave in the most humble, smart and observant kind of ways. Literally a "I watch and learn, and take careful decisions, for I am not immortal, but my future could be"
Fantastic! I've never saw things in that perspective.😊 May I ask the orgine of that last quotation? It surely can't be you that took it from the top of your own head?..or could it?🤔
Between 1905-1920, Norway took the great leap towards becoming an industrial society. The country had as much economic growth as the United States in those years. Norway's gross domestic product increased by 60 per cent, accounting for the highest growth in Western Europe in these fifteen years. It was the waterfall power or electricity that emerged as the major driving force. Norway had easy access to hydropower, and many e-plants came up in different parts of the country. Thus, the country had taken care of an energy source that followed the most modern industry of the time. The electric motor led to an increase in productivity in many different industries. This did not only apply to sawmills, planing mills, wood pulp production, the shipbuilding industry and mining. Electricity came in handy in the furniture, canning, clothing and printing industries. It drove the motorization of shipping, and laid the foundation for extensive whaling and tanking. In 1918, Norway had over twenty different smelters and electrochemical factories. Hafslund started the power station in Sarpsfossen in 1898-1899, and most of the power went to producing the chemical product carbide. In 1908, Norway got its first two aluminum plants. The company Hydro came to rise high above other Norwegian companies. Hydro, which was founded by the founder Sam Eyde in 1905, received a patent for producing nitrogen, and built two fertilizer factories in Notodden and Rjukan. The power station at Vemork became the world's largest. In 1920, Norway was the most electrified country in the world. Two out of three households had electricity. At the same time, it was only a third in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Sweden.
@@sergiomardinefraulob9803 That’s right, it was a lot of it, and it was cheap as chips. Heavy industries in Norway had a major advantage. But now all this has changed. As the corrupt and stupid politicians had signed a deal with the EU and UK it has been built several cables that can export this cheap electricity for high prices in other European countries. The result of this is that prices for electricity in Norway has increased ALOT the last few years in Norway. So private people and companies are being shafted. So the days of cheap electricity in Norway is over. People are seriously angry about this.
@@truxton1000 The days of cheap electricity is over? I'm looking at my own electricity bills for the last few months: In July I had two apartments (busy moving from one to the other) Electricity bills for both combined: NOK 604.16 (slightly less than 60 USD) August: NOK 337.37 (33 USD) September: NOK 227.73 (22 USD) October so far (with three days left): NOK 512 (50 USD) Both my new and my old apartment are modern, more than big enough for me, heated with electricity only and located in the parts of Norway with the highest electricity prices. I wouldn't call that expensive. I do try to save on electricity but I'm not too frantic about it. I use a space heater rather than the floor heating, keep the room temperatur at 20C rather than 21, switch off the lights in rooms I don't use, don't run the dishwasher or washing machine until they're full, don't spend more time than necessary in the shower... Nothing more extreme than that. --- That being said, electricity for households is subsidised at the moment so those numbers aren't the actual prices, it's what I had to pay myself. Small and medium sized businesses do not get any subsidies and many of them are really struggling.
@@tessjuel Well electricity in Norway will never return to what it used to be but forever be connected with continental prices. For now I understand there is some subsidies but for sure these will disappear slowly but surely. And I’m sure you don’t own a cabin in Norway as anyone owning one will for sure disagreeing with you, as I’m sure you know that people with a cabin pay much more than for a house. And companies will for sure go bankrupt in Norway this winter as they get no support from the socialist government.
Get what ure saying but 1/3rd of united states population is still 10x more than 2/3rds of norways at the time. Sweden historically had twice the population of Norway, big difference supporting and sustaining 2m people compared to 5m ish even if u add the factor of 2/3rds instead of 1/3rd, it would basically even out to the same ratio more or less.
Great video. This really shows why good governance is so important to build a healthy state, it doesn't matter if your neck deep in money if you don't know how to spend it correctly. Also congratulations on 100k subscribers!
You could have the smartest politicians on the planet and still end up with a poor economy. It's not a lack of knowledge it's the politicians willingness spend it "properly"
If you look back to the past and see nations in very similar situations to you and see what they did to get to a better a situation. You can copy that to get out of your own situation. Depending on your Geography and resources and population. This also depends on what's happening in the future too. And what your goals for the future are too.
@@Hectico2257 I know that. Looking to the future you can't go down the oil path, because of Climate Change. I'm trying to say a lot of the options in the past aren't options anymore because or how the world has changed. Though a lot of new options have come into view, because of how things have changed. Though delaying getting rid of older options like relying so much on oil is a thing because we're still in a transition from it.
@@CoreyANeal2000 Dubai is a great example of this. They rushed the use of the oil money, built a huge city, and in 40 years they'll be empty and forced to live on tourists and other incomes.
finally someone who did his homework, and included the powerful effects of the shipping/hydropower democratic and scarcity lessons that enabled Norway to deal with the oil in this way. mostly you seem to get people who think Norway was established in 1978.. ..
well said, the number of "socialists" in the UK asking why we don't have a sovereign wealth fund should take a look at this. Small population, Marshall plan money, more energy produced than required by HEP, country doing great and THEN oil n gas.
@@richardjones2006 One big difference between Norway and UK, is that Norway had such a small population, and such a small economy when we found oil, that we COULDN*T spend all of the money on our own economy, or the economy would be totally broken. And our politicians realized this. While UK had such a large population, and large economy, that you COULD spend all of the money on your economy. And so you did it.
Creo que estoy bendecido porque si no, no habría conocido a alguien tan espectacular como la experta Sra. Philips. Creo que es la mejor corredora que he visto
As a Canadian, I'd like to see more of our natural resources refined and developed into usable products, instead of liquidated and sold to the highest bidder.
ive been saying this for years, we've been building pipelines to texas to refine our oil, and its all being done by amrican companies, when we should have been investing money in our own refineries.. same goes for most of our other natural resources.
@@nikoneko798 ya know what's completely dumb is that we(USA) export and import oil??? Why? Like Canada just keep it in the country and take care of our citizens first
@@nickkraw1 The National Energy Program by Trudeau was trying to do exactly what Norway did. Alberta shot it into oblivion. We only have ourselves to blame as we left the oil to be given away free by the provincial government. They based their fund on ours and Conservative's squandered it.
The oil curse is also known as Dutch Disease, but there's no informational RU-vidrs who do videos on the Netherlands and the effects the Groningen gas fields had on them and why it's called Dutch Disease. Most videos on this topic are about Norway, Venezuela or Middle Eastern countries
@@bramdekleer2824 There's an English wikipedia entry entitled "dutch disease". Basically the effect is one industry starts to boom, the local currency starts to appreciate in value, imports become cheaper for the local population but exports in other sectors become uncompetitive because of exchange rates. Also a "non tradable" service sector (services like healthcare, construction, hairdressing) starts to grow, which leads to a degree of deindustrialisation.
I went to work from Finland to Norway to a fish produce factory. Was basically gutting fish with zero experience, and got way more money back then than i do now as an engineer. Never have i made such a salary again.
As Venezuelan i’ve for long time thought of oil as the worst thing that ever happened to Venezuela. We had so much riches beyond oil, instead of pushing forward all sectors of economy, we became single dependent of oil and those our doom. I believe that have we not slept on the fruits of late 70s early 80s rich country “fame”, we would have made other sectors of the economy thrive… agriculture (coffee, cacao, fruits, everything you can think of, could be grown in this country + meat and fish too boot), tourism (with the most beautiful Caribbean sites and islands, the amazon, the Andes…), other natural resources as iron ore, coal, bauxite, gold, nickel and diamonds could have been developed to more profiting levels…. such a rich country, and it breaks my heart that it has never reached its full potential and probably will never. Too much damaged has already been done, relaying on the miracles of Oil.
As a not so old Venezuelan, the country I knew was one to laugh its way out of everything. Everything was handled as a joke first and barely addressed later. I know this isn't the reality everywhere and I'm sure there was a pretty aware class somewhere, but it was very hard to find and I feel that we didn't take seriously what we should have. I'm not talking about the highly educated minority, but everyone else, which were the ones to accept corruption as the default and allowed the megalomaniacs to get to power after. Looking back at history, we had all the signs at plain sight but yet they were dismissed.
@A R Dude, quit the narrative. I am Venezuelan, the local government did this to themselves. They stole everything there was to steal, deviated public funding to personal accounts and infrastructure got frozen in time. Stole entire companies from private owners and then sent them to bankruptcy due to mismanagement. With no production came no exports and poor foreign investments. The US only started to apply sanctions back on 2017 when all this damage was already done.
@A R Why do you people keep pushing for this "agenda" when its simply not true? Every single Venezuelan (specially abroad) will tell you the gringos had nothign to do with our downfall. They HELPED us by buying our OIL for more than 40 years. How do you think we got SO rich? lol. I remember in 2001, when half the fucking mountain came down on the people of the state of Vargas, and killed 200.000 people. The US offered to send troops to our aid, and by God, we needed them. Chavez refused and FOR WHAT? He never helped those people, he never picked up the bodies, the rubble....He was more interested in his stupid ideology than helping us. Him, Maduro and ALL that supported them are to blame. Hope they all burn in hell.
@Prkau telek and the Norwegians are a Lutheran culture, where people are more serious, especially with the climate they have do deal with. You have to run a tight ship in that climate, otherwise you starve. In Venezuela it's growing season all the time, people are bound to be more chill.
@@gullfeber that's arguable. In the 18th century, its GDP was close to the World's average and Russia, being 2-3 times lower than for UK or Netherlands. In the 19th century, Norwegian GDP was already similar to that of most Western European countries including the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands. After becoming independent and the start of socialist reforms Norway started to catch up in the 1920s and overcome the UK in the 1930s. Numbers from Bairoch and Maddison may disagree. Nevertheless, it is impossible to refer to Norway with similar GDP per capita to the UK or the Netherlands in 19-20 centuries as a "poor" country. Norwegian GDP after 1920s was always with +-20% of Swedish or Danish, after or before oil was discovered in 1970s. Shame that the video is spreading obvious misinformation.
@@geoffreycharles6330 probably no simple answer here. Both nominal GDP of the Russian Empire and USSR were around half of Western European for a long time, so it's not only Communism's fault. But after the 1990s Russian growth became even worse, so it's a question towards the current political system. The big differences between Norway and Russia are (at least) strong working unions, educational reforms and no imperialism.
*I've always wanted to try something but I'm scared that it will end badly. I feel like an idiot coming over here, but I was inspired by this post and I don't care what anyone says. I need some ideas on how to go about growing my money*
There are a variety of investments to engage in, but without solid knowledge or skills, I would advise you to work with an investment advisor who can help you understand and also recommend a suitable investment that you can engage in to get good returns without losing your money. Personally, I work with *Hamilton Phoebe Zoe* and my experience with her so far has been the best.
I’m surprised to see Hamilton Phoebe Zoe's name here as she works privately. In a CNBC post I read a testimonial on Hamilton Phoebe Zoe. I ran a research with her name and being impressed with her page , I reached out to her. In my experience , Hamilton Phoebe Zoe is amongst the few honest investment advisors who care about her clients rather than their money. I picked up many skills which helps me win from my investments from her.
It’s not all about watching investment videos but also putting them into good use. Working with an expert helps navigate some difficulties and avoid you risking your money. You know they saying “if you want to go fast walk alone but if you want to go far walk with a group”. Having an investment adviser is a wise financial decision to achieve a good investment with much returns.
It's going to be very interesting to see how we transition away from oil, we have a golden opportunity to maintain a technology advantage or develop strong energy technology
I think you'll be just fine. In terms of infrastructure, the society is well positioned for post-oil productivity. Education is high and good quality. There are alternative sectors of the economy that are strong too. I suspect Norway will need to join the EU after oil. And will probably end up more in line with other Scandinavian neighbours in terms of wealth, which is now inflated due to oil. But that's not so bad considering Sweden and Denmark are doing pretty well for themselves also.
Norway's "oil" industry has been earning way more from providing services than pulling oil out of the ground for some time now. Services which are equally applicable to the renewable energy sectors. Maritime services and technologies are also equally applicable to other transport sectors including space. Norway will do just fine in a post-oil world.
@@-_James_- The factor that will affect all those sectors that doesn't affect oil is demand and competition. The competence for these technologies is also being built in several other countries, meaning less demand and more competition.. Oil however, not everyone has but needs. Norway will still be fine, but in all likeliness its economy will shrink a bit and be more in line with other Northern European countries.
@@REDnBLACKnRED Without oil we will have a huge problem. The national budget is in a HUGE deficit without oil subsidies, increasing every year. And I wouldn't use Sweden/Denmark as rolemodels. They are looking more like middle eastern countries nowadays. Joining EU will only make it even worse, with all their crazy immigration policies.
The last line in this video is a gem. Economics being about managing scarcity and how luck is a scarcity. Very enlightening overall - I had never heard the term oil curse before and this is a good explanation.
Oil accounts for around 15% of the Norwegian GDP last time I checked. Denmark, a neighboring country without oil, is also doing well. I think this video puts too much emphasis on oil.
Another key factor in Norways development is the strong influence the labor movement has had on the politics, especially after WW2. The ties between the trade unions and the ruling labor party has been strong, and they still are.
Norway has a massive labour union movement and participation. The industrialists are forced to deal with its labour force because they have collective power that can not be denied.
@@francismarion6400 No, that's a positive. Without workers unionized (Educated or uneducated...), unfavorable conditions are produced. The social democracy they have today is because of strong reforms that work AGAINST the profit-oriented drive of capitalism. Without those social reforms, you have capitalism unrestrained (i.e. see America as an example, which is a country devoid of affordable healthcare/education/etc, but has a majority of world's richest people). But, sure, it's a positive if you're an aristocrat who wants to hoard your wealth.
I'm Venezuelan, and seen what it's like to live in such a corrupted state. My family emigrated years ago, and every time my parents hear politicians wanting to create a better safety net or ensure no one ever goes broke from paying a hospital bill, they assume that these so-called "socialist" and "leftist" ideas would turn the US into another Venezuela. Especially since the dictators call themselves socialist, when really all they are is greedy. Venezuela Does have state-sponsored healthcare and other stuff, but the government isn't giving it nearly enough, especially now
@@stoicazoo7845 How does it matter that Greece allegedly invented democracy? It's not an indication of its current democratic health. Norway had an exceptionally strong and practically effective legal framework in relation to transparency and accountability before and during the time of the exploration of oil
This is actually a very good summary, well done. I studied economics history. Especially the comment about oil being the turbocharger. Without oil we would still do well. Somewhere in the area of how Island, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are doing. Like other nations that invest in education and has a good framework of political stability, industry and law. (Oh, and we were not poor, we did above average in Europe the whole time, where else did you think that huge fleet of ships came from🤷🏼♂️) But your points still remains👍
Well said! I am also here to learn how to invest after listening to a lady on tv talk about the importance of investing and how she made 7 figure in 3 month, somehow the video taught me nothing and left me even more confused, I'm a newbie and I'm open to ideas on how to invest for retirement
@@ericalorraine7943Think long term, personally i ventured into the market so i won’t be stranded after i retire. A colleague of mine introduced me to CFA " Priscilla Dearmin-Turner " who drew out retirement plans and they all aligned with what i wanted and had to pick one plan and with her exit and entry strategies on commodities , securities and digital assets, my portfolio has really been diversified with good ROI. I am really impressed by how much i have achieved
What always missing in these videos is how the economic framework restricts politicians. Below the society is a set of strict rules that controls everything from public spending and budgeting, to formation of salaries. Norway developed advanced macro economic models after WW2, eliminating politicians opportunity to "believe" that something will be smart, e.g huge tax reliefs. As our current PM said, the Labour Party would work for social reforms "within the framework of the economy". It's the economic model that is the real reason for success.
Most of us Norwegians aren't so well off. Currently gas, food and electricity prices are tough for many people here. Politicians care only for themselves and make calls based on their own wallet and situation.
Norway didn't suffer the western political aggression from their oil. Norway is not a fanatic nation bent on ancient religions. Norway has decent leadership.
I feel like more than being lucky because of having "Trillion of dollars" in oil, i think that Norway is lucky because being europeans no one will invade them over that oil reserve.
@@sethp26 Not really. We have systems made for high population not one or two individuals so saying "they are more educated because they have less people" is nonsensical. Richest country on Earth US for example has more then enough resources to have extremely well educated populace, but they chose not too since they in need of workers not leaders. Less question you asks in those Capicorupt countries the better is for the owner class and so education made bad on purpose.
Very well done video and easy to understand. Clearly, having leadership think more ‘long-term’ is key to this type of success story. Not many think beyond the N10 years and Norway set the benchmark!
The rule of law is a byproduct of a balance of powers/distributed power. Law itself is a sentence in a piece of paper. So yes, but you'll have to dig deeper for the cause. I lean on Jared Diamond's angle. Geography > demographics > economy > power dynamics.
@@Untilitpases False. The rule of law is not only a by-product but something educated individuals, civil servants and other institutions actively uphold. It's also not a sentence on a piece of paper. That's the vast minority of law (at least in common law jurisdictions). And Jared Diamond's angle is grossly inaccurate. The correlation between geography and power is highly contested. But the rule of law is absolutely an important factor. Without it, Norway wouldn't have retained and grown its wealth.
@A R no, Chavez nationalised it as a public policy. He campaigned on that. This is on him. The US is importing Venezuelan oil to this day ...it isn't their fault.
@@Thats_quite_cool I assume you're Dutch? I wouldn't buy more than a beer or two at bar/resturant prices haha. Go to the supermarket or vinmonopolet if you're looking for (more) reasonable prices. You can always drink a bit before heading to the bar to save some money! FYI: shops can't sell alcohol after 20:00 on weekdays and 18:00 on saturday. Vinmonopolet closes even earlier on most days.
@@hasselnttper3730 I am Dutch indeed. The weird thing is that even the supermarket prices were what we pay at bars here. You’ve got a beautiful country but damn those prices XD.
@@Thats_quite_cool Yeah, prices are totally insane. A beer that costs 30 NOK in the supermarket would only cost 13 NOK without all the alcohol and sales taxes. Bars are forced to charge north of 80 NOK for a beer. Politicians on the left were discussing raising fuel prices by €1.3/liter before the prices shot up due to Russia & Ukraine. They love making life as expensive as possible. I love the Netherlands, but it's a bit flat for Norwegians like myself. That being said, I've only been to Amsterdam, which is seen more like a tourist attraction by the Dutch people I've spoken to. I also went to Antwerp in Belgium, but I prefer Amsterdam. Ohh, and your beer is far superior at a lower price!
Interesting Fact: The picture you see at 7:21 was taken around the date of 20th of April which was the date that city was bombed and burned. The city is Namsos which is my home town and currently where I am. The city was bombed so badly British Prime Minister Winston Churchill used the Term "Namsosed" as a way to describe mass desturction, after the bombing there was pretty much nothing left except a few chimneys. After the defenders realised there was nothing left to defend they fled by sea in what would be known as Norways Dunkirk.
How I wish African leaders and Citizens can pick a leaf(actually whole branch) from Norway. We have all the resources but corruption, greed, poor economic and financial systems and incompetent education systems cant allow us to develop. I hope that one day will come🙂
It’s mostly the people that hold back Africa tbh. That’s the cold hard truth. “If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders.” - George Carlin
@@jonathanjohnson9611 I don't think the citizens are inherently worse than anywhere else, but the fact that people have to scrabble around to survive shapes the culture and mindset, its exactly the same in poor European and US neighbourhoods, the issue is always that there aren't checks and balances to control corruption. Once corruption was under control it'd probably take a generation or two to get out of the mindset of just living for today.
Botswana though is a good example of an African country not falling into the hands of oligarchs even with the presence of a single natural resource (diamonds in Botswana's case)
You can retire at a young age if you invest wisely on time, Most times it amaze me greatly the way I moved from an average lifestyle to earning over $63k per month, utter shock is the word. I have understood a lot in the past few years to doubt that opportunities are bound in the financial markets, The only thing is to know where to focus.
@@susanhaynes679 That won't bother you if you trade with a professional like Mr Tony Alin berker my coach, you may have come across him on interviews relating to bitcoin. He trades, manage trading account and offer mentorship program for clients who wish to become professional investors.
Wow I can't believe you guys are discussing about Mr Tony Alin berker, I once met him at a conference in California 2019, just before the pandemic. I can testify that is very good in trading..Highly recommended.
@@dulcedeleche5804 Yes i do, I've known him for couple of years , I'm still using his services , His management team is quite impressive so far.... with my $15,000 deposit, I made over $288,000 US Dollars profit with just 10% charge.
It should be added that the brain behind the governance of Norways oil wealth was an Iraqi engineer who barely got an accept from Iraqi government to move to norway to treat his sick daughter. So it was a nearly perfect coincidence and luck that this man stumbled into the government institution to try his luck for work just as the oil rush was happening here in Norway.
@@gullfeber What no? Farouk had a lot of expertise in the field and he helped create and organise the whole structure for the oil industry in Norway on a govermental level, it was not a matter of time, it was a matter of Farouk.
It's important to point out that other Nordic countries share many of the same social, political and economic features even though they don't have oil or the extreme wealth it generates. The standard of living is generally high, inequality lower and these countries top the charts for a number of social metrics. In other words, oil didn't make Norway the kind of country it is today but it did give Norway an enormous boost in terms of overall standard of living, infrastructure and security. The key question going forward is whether Norway can wean itself off of oil and gas revenue in a controlled way on its own terms while investing in new industries.
Norway need not worry about loss of fossil fuel revenue. The economic utility of fossil fuel is simply too valuable to a society to eliminate. Enforced scarcity will only lead to higher producer revenues.
What makes the Nordic countries differ from everywhere else, is thinking 2 steps ahead and making plans for future progress and backsets, while other countries tend to get surprised, on the back foot, overwhelmed and having no actual plan when a problem arrive and disaster strikes. So they often make panic solutions, instead of being prepared to deal with the problem at hand and also prepare for the next step ahead like the Nordic countries would do.
@@lawrenceralph7481 .. I'm from Denmark and we were among the founding members of NATO, so please keep your lack of knowledge to yourself, the Nordic countries are also among the bigger supporters of Ukraine, with Denmark also providing pre-war training of Ukrainian military since 2016 (Operation Orbital) and still ongoing, while Sweden have been Part of Operation Unifier since 2018, also providing training for Ukrainian soldiers. Here is the aid Ukraine have received from the Nordic countries so far : Military and humanitarian aid : around $750 million worth (more if you also count aid donated through UN and the Red Cross ) Anti tank weapons : An unspecified secret number of Carl Gustaf M3 and M4 anti-tank weapons (donated by Denmark and Sweden) 11,500 AT4 light anti-tank weapons. 8,200 M72 LAW EC (Enhanced Capacity) anti-tank weapons Missiles and heavy weaponry : 1 or 2 Mobile Land Based Harpoon missile systems (with 2 harpoon missile firing platforms each) including an unspecified number of RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles 22 M109A3GN 155mm self-propelled howitzers 3 M270 MLRS self-propelled rocked launcers 300 upgraded FIM-92 Stinger anti-aircraft missile systems 100 French-produced Mistral anti-aircraft missiles and undisclosed number of launchers An unspecified secret number of Robot 17 (Swedish anti-ship version of AGM-114 Hellfire) other weaponry : 50 upgraded M113 armored personnel carriers. 25 Sky-Watch tactical drones for reconnaissance and information gathering 2,500 assault rifles with 150,000 cartridges An unspecified number of Barrett M82 rifles, with munitions. An unspecified number of support-weapons (which some sources state are machineguns). An unspecified number of anti-tank mines, 120mm M/10 mortars and thousands of mortar shells other equipment : 12,000 helmets. 10,500 bulletproof vests 1,000 gas masks 220,000 field rations An unspecified amount and type of mine-clearance equipment. 1 fully equipped mobile field hospital 100 stretchers, and equipment for two emergency medical care stations 1,700 treatments against tetanus/lockjaw (requested via WHO) 700 first-aid field kits 2,000 sleeping bags 10,000 sleeping pads 40,000 liters of milk requested by the Ukrainian embassy in Oslo
I love how you whites think. So detailed about the self interest of your own clans. Other races should adopt the idea and model it to there own cultural backgrounds. Spark another renaissance for another race.
All countries should focus on equality sadly my country Peru is not focus on it but I love Norway because it does focus on equality helping all of it's people for the better
Most times it amazes me greatly the way I moved from an average lifestyle to earning over 63k per month, utter shock is the word. I have understood a lot in the past few years to doubt that opportunities abound in the financial markets, The only thing is to know where to focus.
I make huge profits on my procurement since I started trading with Stephanie Renee Anderson, her trading strategies are top notch coupled with the little commission she charges on her trade.
After centuries of pillaging + Being neutral against the Nazis ... they grew a conscience. Norways luck is in many ways tied to it's geography. Arable land = population&riches concentration = political uneveness. Also arable &unbroken land = easy for armies to control.
@@Untilitpases Norway was conquered in ww2 by Nazi Germany, there were some interesting sea battles going on at that time. I think you meant Sweden when you opened your mouth.
Ethical? Not if you know any history. Lots of looting and wars. Its only when they got rich is when they started to grow a conscience. Now they are getting complacent, since its so easy, is when you should be really concerned. That's the path to stagnation (like the US).
@@RealErk They were neutral during both world wars. Dante once quipped: The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.
If Scotland was independent, its government would not necessarily have used oil revenues any better than the UK government has done. The set of circumstances that have made Norway rich are unique to Norway.
@@exsandgrounder Not exactly. The rest of Scandinavia operates roughly the same way. Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway all have strong institutions, high transparency, relatively equal distributions of power, and high trust in government.
@@exsandgrounder Looking at Scotland's government id say yes they would have made it for the people. Scotland's government officials are much more educated and experienced the Britain's ones that's for sure. I mean didn't Britain's just had 45 resignations in 24 hours from their parliament.
It's also worth mentioning that Norway knows that oil will run out. So they put a lot of emphasis and incentives on clean energy. There're a lot of Teslas and electric vehicles in Norway.
@@JaKingScomez they don't those raw materials for electric vehicles like Tesla are came from the minerals in the Congo which are poor and there are many Congolese people are working on an inhumane conditions to their country's mines.
Eh, no, our politicians are making no plans for the end of oil, and they are not planning to end oil either. We are still actively searching for new oil fields. Norway is only "green" because we export a lot of our pollution to the 2nd and 3rd world.
The old «Norway was poor before the oil» myth again. Norway was the 4th richest country in the world 120 years ago. The reason Norway is rich is Natural resources, shipping and The nordic model of equality and job security. The oil is merely the icing on the cake and the money goes into a fund rather than being injected directly into the economy. Of course things took a hit with the war, but recovered nicely(as the video does mention) The point being that as an explanation as to why Norway had succeeded, oil is a side track. More like a billionaire winning the lottery
he sad that in the late 18 century, norway was vary illiterate. but at the time Denmark was one of the most literate countries. so i don't know why a danish ruled norway would not also be at lest somwhat literate
Norway wasn't opposed when it, in essence, nationalized its oil industry. Venezuela was. Venezuela had been set up for failure by colonizers, was situated in a volatile part of the world under US imperialism, and was without a strong working class. Latin American nations were turned by the brutal invaders into feudal patchworks, the land divided amongst the wealthy and it remained that way for a long time. This created intense upper class and lower class divides that were often rooted in race, the more Spanish or Portuguese one's blood was... the more likely you owned land given to you back in the early days. But this upper class would dominate society and created that volitility that defined the history of South and Central American history. The workers were hopelessly poor and oppressed, while the wealthy and powerful waged war on one another for land, to which the economy was directly tied. The economies of Latin American countries, pre and post-independence, were fueled by natural resources almost exclusively, and the natures of those industries meant that no middle class really formed and the continent was left behind by industrialization, viewed by Europe as some place to buy rubber (until synthetic rubber was created), sugar, meat, fuit, etc etc etc. That leads us to oil... and oil became just like those other resources to the government of Venezuela, which tried to do socialism from the top rather than the bottom and failed miserably, a way to make money. As was tradition with Latin American economies, natural resources, usually only one or two, were relied upon in order to keep the government afloat. The government was almost always some military dictatorship... and you didn't govern very long if you didn't have the capital/land-owning elites who owned the natural resource production on your side. Hence the corruption. Chávez was an idealist who made some positive changes, but he didn't reverse this system and therefore, it all crumbled. With the help of both potentially and proven American-backed coups and political instability (1948 especially, 2002 (probably just Chávez whining), and most recently during the Trump presidency), lots of embargoes and sanctions, negative media coverage, etc. Chávez was by no means a great leader, much of his policy was rotten, corruption was rampant, and he solved very few of his nation's problems... and Maduro is probably worse. Norway and Venezuela are night and day when it comes to the situations both countries were in to deal with their oil... and comparing the two without acknowledging Norway being benefitted by being... European... and Venezuela being damaged by being an under-developed colony dominated by a natural resource dependent, volatile, and inflexible economy. And I haven't even mentioned the other oil-producing countries destroyed by foreign interference, particularly American, British, and French influence......
@@andreistoriei2050 Venezuela had one of the largest middle classes on Earth which is how they slipped and allowed Marxism to creep into education selling the youth the dumb idea of collective salvation.
@@lpdude2005 US don’t need oil, it was never about needing oil, it was about selling oil in USD currency. Which have been the case of them invading Libya, Iraq and Venezuela. They don’t necessarily care about oil, but what value it brings to them. If Libya sold oil in gold, Iraq and Venezuela in euros, USA couldn’t print as much USD as they have. That’s USAs mindset: what can this do for me, how can I exploit this without any consequences. You also never do face the consequences of your war crimes and extortion. Decade after decade. When will you pay these poor people back? You have destroyed their home, for what?
Fun fact. Norways power is no longer for Norwegians. It's sold to many other countries. And now the Norwegian people suffer because of sky high energy prices.
Well, It's not correct that Norway was poor before the dicovery of oil, and it's not correct that we were poorly educated. This is all a myth. Norway implemented public schools for everyone as early as the early 18 century and we were not poor. I like videos like this, but please, please do your research..
@@midnightfairycase2145of course they were doing ok.. they had heaps of Gold, ships, shields, Valhalla halls and women with mead and big gold breast plates
Absolutely not having fun on Venezuela's bill, I'll tell you that much. As for me I have nothing to speak of, quite content that way too, nobody can take what I don't have = Nothing to get worked up/depressed about.
Australian raised in norway here!👋 Just wanted to say thanks for teaching me more than 12 years of history classes in this country has ever taught me about norway’s history.
Important to keep in mind that when oil was found, Norway was an integral member of NATO/ poviding significant surveillance and intelligence on the Sovjet Union and a staging area for intelligence operations into Sovjet as well naval surveillance. Norway was deeply integrated with US and UK security interests and had a very long and intimate history with those countries. Norway is the only country mentioned in the video to have this kind of relationship. If Norway didn`t, then UK/US would likely have forced agreements upon Norway and simply take what they wanted. The Norwegian government was smart and did alot of right things, but US oil corporations were also partly held in check by a US government that saw technology exchange and a strong norwegian state/government (bordering on the sovjet union) as an important asset. Venezuela never meant shit to anyone.
1) Natural resources in your country, do not belong to any company!!! It belongs to the people. That is the core and the beginning of the philosophy here. 2) Do not spend (all) the money in Norway, but invest abroad. 3) Use in the state budget only 3% of the RETURN from foreign investments. 4) Key words: reinvestment Bingo! 😎👍
I like that this video shows how important "nation building" is. Nations that have robust bureaucracies, like we in Norway had, can weather changes better than others, mostly because bureaucracy abhors change, and so decisions become deliberate and long-term
Bureaucracies stagnate. Their inability to handle change is usually their downfall. Seems to be a fundamental flaw in humans, when things get too easy is when you should be concerned. Look at the US, it got too easy, now no one does anything and its coming apart.
