JohnG@lt wrote:
Without the natural resources it wouldn't be able to sustain most of its social programs. Same goes for Norway and its oil fields. Or Canada and its mining/oil/timber. The US does not have the natural resources that those nations possess and thus it would not work. Unless you have exportable commodities the system falls flat on its face, and if you do have those commodities the system lasts as long as they do. You're mortgaging the future for today.
It's a fair point, especially considering that 30% of Norway's budget comes from oil reserves, but it's worth noting that we on average spend 4% of the fund pr. year, which is basically the profits and interests rates from investments done by the fund. Ie, in theory, it doesn't ever have to end.
However, there are other reasons as to why it works. The fact that the government provides health care means that the company isn't expected to (and these can get amazingly huge, at times), which means employing skilled workers is surprisingly cheap. I know my Dad's company paid more for his services when we lived in the US than in Norway, for doing the same job. Thus Norway manages to stay competitive internationally, albeit at the expense of non-skilled labour (which is natural, anyway). We export more and more of good requiring skilled-labour (e.g. software, see Opera and Tandberg) and are thus becoming less and less dependent on out trees, fish and oil (Not that they're not important industries anymore, but the tendencies are there)
Secondly, Norwegians are generally happy with paying taxes, as they see it as an investment for themselves and their family, rather than the government stealing their money and lumping it over to the slackers or wasting it elsewhere. We don't have private schools, which means the public schools are good, for example, so investing in these public schools feels like a good idea. As for the "what about people without kids" argument, those people have been through the system already, and are often ready and willing to give something back. Tax payers are happy with the product they are buying.
I could go on, but anyways, this can be done much cheaper in other countries, I think, without oil reserves. Geographically, Norway really isn't ideal to function perfectly when it comes to infrastructure. We have a massive amount of land, with only five million people spread across the entire country, and a government determined (rightfully so) to keep everything together. This means countless kilometers of road through remote areas, massive ammounts of railroad tracks, airports and of course supporting airlines who fly there (as they wouldn't bother, otherwise).
Being spread out also means that you need to supply health care and the like in so many parts of the country, and can't really centralize them. Costs everywhere.
Furthermore, there is a church in every single little rural area with more than 20 people. A quick google shows that there are almost 3000 churches in this country, all owned by the government (as far as I know, anyway). There are currently 3 million members of this church, and if you are a member, a percentage (2%, I think) of your taxes go to the church (So, it is by choice). I can't be bothered to look it up now, but that would mean that roughly 1.2% of tax revenue is spent on the church. Suffice to say, it'd be cheaper to be Atheist.
Anyways, I don't think the Norwegian system as it is is perfect, far from it - there are many faults. Norway needs that oil reserve to function the way it does, but that has a lot to do with an awkward geography. The Norwegian government still has a lot to improve when it comes to effectively supplying these services, and should be able to shrink the use of oil-money as the government figures it out (as there is no absolute theory, things have to be tried).
I'm not saying that this is the way for the US or whatever, but I'm not convinced that you need a massive amount of natural resources (e.g. oil) to lead a socialist economy. It'd be interesting to see a report and how much cheaper it would be to run the Norwegian system in a place with a much greater population density.
