Why The UK Lost Its Oil Wealth (And Why Norway Didn't)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- ✪ Get 2 Months of Skillshare Pro (Free!) ► www.skillshare...
⭑ Don’t forget to subscribe!
Enjoyed the vid? Hit the like button!
📚 If you enjoyed this video and want to learn even more, we recommend you read the book "The Official History of North Sea Oil and Gas" by Alex Kemp 👉 amzn.to/2TKDEoZ
(note: as an Amazon Associate, Business Casual earns from qualifying purchases).
Your support makes our content possible! ❤️
Follow us on:
► Twitter → x.com/@CasualD...
► Instagram → / businesscasual.io
► Facebook → / business.casual.yt
► LinkedIn → / businesscasual
► Reddit → / businesscasual
► Medium → / bc
⬇️ Exclusive Sponsor Offers (Only For BC Fans) ⬇️
✪ Sign-up for Acorns! 👉 acorns.com
✪ Skillshare (get 2 months free) 👉www.skillshare...
✪ Try DollarShaveClub (just $5!) 👉dollarshaveclu...
✪ Try Blinkist free for 7 days! 👉www.blinkist.c...
#UK #Oil #History
Greece should have done the same and created an olive oil fund.
or feta fund
lol. nice
😂😂😂
happydurians because the income is extremely low and taxes extremly high. How a company can survive when it pays current years tax, and needs to pay an additional 50% of this years tax for the next year in advance. In addition to that, the state don't give back at the end of the year the VAT expenses of the company, as it should. And I will not comment about the taxes that ordinary people pay at the end of the year, nor about the taxes that they pay through their electricity bills and grocery. Greeks cannot pay taxes, because they are extremly high and incomes are extremely low. A greek individual needs to work 7-9 months in order to pay his taxes. This is insane!
Is this a sarcasm or a joke. Lmao
You should have mentioned the budget rule, which states that no more than 3 % of the capital gains of the fund can be used in the yearly governmental budget.
Thats so fucking stupid, thats huge amount of capital can be used for the people.
@@ZenizhivGreen exactly, but we don't need that money right now.
When the financial crises hit the world about ten years ago Norway was the nation that was the least affected by it. Why? Because when that happened the Norwegian government was able to stimulate the economy, saving many both smal and big companies and in the process save thousands of jobs for it citizens.
History shows that every society and civilization is hit by a crises from time to time. The oil fund is Norways get out of jail card when the rest of the world is struggling.
@Fjellreven oh wait, i was confused, I thought it was britain
Norway fund will help to fund all the refugees majority in Europe.
Norway ppl really think long term.
Strange you say that because last year (2017) roughly 2600 refugees came to Norway.
Between 1990 and 2015 it came 10-12 000 every year. For the first half of 2018 the number had gone down by 20% compared to the first six months of 2017, as I already mentioned that year saw a record low numbers of refugees arriving to Norway. By the way this trend started already in 2016. Maybe, just maybe check other websites than www.Ibeliveinnonsesandtrumpspropaganda.fakenews....
Very proud of the way the money was handeled. The people of Norway and our children to come will have a safer future thanks to this, owning more than 1% of the total stock market.
Investing in the future instead of short term, politically inclined investements, thats the thing. Politicians aren’t always douchbags.
I wish Canada could be more like this. Granted, Norway produces more than 3 times the oil per person that Canada does and Canadians, based on my experience, are less likely than Norwegians to understand that government budget surpluses are not a bad thing. Paying off government debt and saving for the future are good things to do.
“Our children to come” please have kids before your population starts declining like in other European nations. 😂
shhhhh,them murican and them "Ukans" gonna call you guys socialist to scare people.
You mean your childern to come (Muslim adult males and Africans by millions)?
najib?
It's ok, British. At least you did it better than Venezuela.
You're absolutely right *Britain
retxeD ienniB Please don't. I really don't want Trump's grabby hands near my oil funds, free healthcare or general economy.
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs You are a very weird person. Of 2 comments I have seen both are wrong and slightly strange.
O .W I make cognizant point. Whether Norway or Britain saves all the oil money in the world won’t matter a shred if Norwegens or British have no children to inherit that. Brits and Norwegens are neunt replaced by non Whites. It is their children that will benefit. Non white immigration has created an unprecedented welfare and crime zone in Britain and Norway. All the good work in Norway has been Undine by its autogenocidal immigration policies.
Lol
I agree Norway has handled it's oil riches well.
But is is very different to manage a crumbling empire and a population ten times as many as Norway.. For sure tehUK had many major issues Norway did not have.
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs Prove it
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs No it's the unnatural and bad borders of the middle east
Because the UK neglected their "hard", advanced manufacturing indusries.
In the 1st half of 20th century, they were among the leaders in ship building, car making, advanced tech & equipment manufacturing etc.
Now they only have Dyson, BAE, ARM & a few others.
Compare that to the industry giants & hidden champions from Germany & Japan!
freebeerfordworkers
Asad will not be overthrown because isreal made it clear they want both sides the opposition & Asad to be weak , and not overthrow him . Asad is both a criminal and responsible for the Syrian refugee crises, he prevents Sunni Syrians from returning to Syria as noted by the Vatican and Europen officials, most Syrian are Sunnis and Asad from the day he took power tried to destroy them by trying to change their religion and now by ethnically cleansing them . Asad wants a mosaic Syria were there is no majority so his sect ( who are not Muslims by the way can rule supreme ) . Saudi & Isreal main problem with Assad is his support for Iran .
agree with than one , Norway five mill+ people is just a little city compare to the rest of the world , i think we just had luck with where we at long shore line and a lot of sea
A pretty misleading analysis. The Norwegian oil and gas reserves were larger than the UK's and Norway had a far smaller population, the result is that there was literally more oil revenue than the government could spend and investing it was the only option. Conversely the UK was in a state of economic turmoil in the 1970s even seeking financial aid from the IMF, the oil revenue was needed to prop up an economy which had not seen significant change since the 1930s and was totally unprepared for the modern age. The result is, yes, the UK does not have a sovereign wealth fund, although even if we did it would be far less valuable per person than Norway's, but we do have a globally competitive developed economy thanks to the reforms of the 1980s.
You could possibly say that the UK's wealth fund was invested in it's people rather than numbers in a ledger.
D B
The UK economy was shattered by the 1970-74 Tory government with Heath/Barber creating _stagflation._ The subsequent government spent most of the time getting the economy right after Barber and the Arab oil crisis. In the 1970s the standard of living rose like a kite for the vast majority of ordinary Britons, compared to any other decade in history. The truth is that most ordinary families in 1970s Britain were better off than ever. Many had their own homes for the first time, brand new colour TVs, Continental holidays and new cars. *For most ordinary people, they enjoyed a lifestyle their parents and grandparents could barely have imagined.* By 1979 about 11-12 million were taking holidays abroad. Even working-class families, holidays were in Malta and Majorca, not Margate.
In 1979, when Thatcher came to power, the country's economy was very sound indeed. Bernard Nossiter, a Washington Post journalist, argued in his 1978 book _Britain - the Future that Works,_ that Britain, unlike the US, had created a contented society that had managed to get the balance right between work, leisure and remuneration.
Gene wrote:
_"You could possibly say that the UK's wealth fund was invested in it's people rather than numbers in a ledger."_
You could say, but it would be totally wrong.
The roots of the 1970s stagflation were far deeper than the policy decisions of a single government, though certainly the Heath government mismanged the situation. After WW2 governments of all stripes failed to create the conditions to adequately develop the British economy for the modern age, and it could be argued that the economy never fully recovered from the effects of WW1. Certainly living standards experienced a continued and ongoing improvement from the 1950s onwards, but your claim a significant acceleration in the 1970s is certainly something I have not seen before and have seen no support for. Consider that until the 1980s we were still a nation of home renters, most didn't have central heating and sizeable number of people didn't even have a telephone, not to mention the difficulty of arguing for increasing living standards in a country with rolling blackouts and economic stagnation. Yes more people had package holidays in 1979 than 1970, however the same could be said of 1970 and 1965, it was not a seismic shift. Your comment also doesn't actually disagree that the UK economy was in a state of turmoil in the 70s, so I don't really see what your argument is.
D B
Again... _" In the 1970s the standard of living rose like a kite for the vast majority of ordinary Britons,_ *_compared to any other decade in history."_*
The early 1970s were a period of rapid economic growth. Deliberately so. The mortgage market was deregulated - meaning High Street Banks could now lend mortgages, not just local building societies. In 1971 private banks could print money out of thin air. This fuelled a rise in house prices and consumerism. The Barber Boom was a dash for growth - with large tax cuts against a backdrop of high economic growth. The 1970s was the first mass use of credit. Credit cards came about. A consumer bubble was created. The idea was to create a boom just before the election to be re-elected. Bubbles always bust. Artificially created booms always bust. The Maulding boom of 1963-64, Barber of the early 1970s, Thatcher using North Sea oil/gas. Brown knew that busts always follow booms, so would not create one for election purposes. He always stated _"no booms and busts"._ He never created one, but one came in, in a tidal wave from America and hit the whole world, which was not of his creation.
The inflationary budget of 1972 artificially created growth in credit and consumer spending. Inflation was the result at *20%.*
The Tories idea of economics is to ensure the ruling strata have an exceptionally high standard of living. If the rest benefit that is their good luck. All facts show that when the Tories got into power the economy was sound and each they have left it has been in a shambles.
Getting rid of an 83% tax bracket seems pretty reasonable to me. It sounds like Britain saved a sinking ship while Norway upgraded an already good ship. In that case, both approaches were logical.
@Andreas Sagen The only explanation I can think of is very bad tax spending repeatedly patched with a tax hike. In other words: pathetic polititians who think the 1% is a bottomless well.
+Andreas Sagen The is kinda what happens when you spend the better part of 6 years fighting to resist the wartime industrial might of an entire occupied continent set on trying to invade you only to then have to rebuild practically every city in your country as they are largely in ruins. The fact is that while we might well have liberated the continent accelerated by some American aid towards the end we got the s**t kicked out of us in the process and then on top of that still had to pay the crippling debts to the United States for all the lend lease supplies they provided prior to their official entry into the war all while trying to rebuild the country. Paying off debts large enough to turn the creditor into a new global superpower while trying to rebuild your own country tends to require a lot of money.
Fact is that the UK was still practically bankrupt from the war at that point.
Truth
depends on what marginal. Over $10 million seems fair to me
@@seraphina985 Sadly, based on this experience, most political and economic strategists recommend not fighting if the same thing happened again...
Nonsense. Norway has roughly double the UK's oil reserves (more than double according to Wikipedia), and 1/12 of the population. So the economic impact per person is 25x greater or more. The math is not difficult.
Well with a 25th of the impact, it should still be 10 000 USD per capita, and that is a respectable start of a UK wealth fund.
So according to your math where is 1/2 a trillion dollar?
Yet with good investments, that would still leave you with an oil fortune. Yeah, it wouldn't be the same, but it should still exist
Why is that relevant in regards of saving most of the money, putting it into a fund and only extracting 3% of interest every year? UK could've done the same and got a perpetual boost to their budget every year indefinitely.
Plus, Britain by investing in companies (which is a key part of what tax cuts do) - have built up expertise in many areas. E.g. We design the key chips in the iPhone, make most the world's satellites, do much of the special effects in movies, are leaders in AI (deep mind). Develop computer games and software products. Our consultants help build the new China - and are still in demand there: business advisers, architecture etc. The list is endless. The Norwegians have some cash in the bank, but no assets that provide a revenue stream like the UK's expertise in its many service industries. Including experts in finanical services. The UK HAS invested in a much longer-term manor than Norway - who merely cashed it. In fact, Norway HELPED to give the UK all of these skills (intangible) assets - as much of their investments were in the UK. The UK's GDP is now VERY high despite being a low population. Remember, Norway only put the money in the bank (i.e. an investment fund). The UK built up an economy. That makes the UK much better prepared going into the future. The technical term is intangible assets. This YT piece was of poor quality to not consider that .
How did Thatcher "spend the money on privatizing companies". Privatizing is selling. That would be like saying someone "spent their inheritance on selling a house". Privatizing brings in money, it doesn't usually cost money. Norway has more money from the same amount of oil because it had 55 million fewer people to spend it on.
Keep in mind I said she "used the extra money to reform the economy". Privatization, like you say, is selling; however, without the extra oil revenue Thatcher would likely not have been able to push through her privatization effort. The reason is simple: privatization gets rid of valuable assets which would've continued bringing in revenue for the government. Thanks to the North Sea oil, Thatcher could say "look at this new revenue source, we can do mass privatization without worrying about the budget later on." So yes, while the oil revenue wasn't "used" in the privatization, it was a big factor in allowing it to happen, which is why I phrased that sentence in a roundabout way.
Sol Invictus he never stated that the private sector is more inefficient but that the private sector concern is more about the shareholders rather than the public. The Norwegian fund is owned by the government which means the average joe in Norway has a bigger say on how that money is spent and they usually focus on its own citizens rather than a private company which is own by a smaller group of people who main concern is profits for themselves rather than to help their country.
Also, the fund puts capital into investments in the private sector so yes the government used the money efficiently. Some governments are can be efficient and stable others can fail like Venezuela versus Qatar or Norway in this case which is a democracy.
Sol Invictus Norway was not neutral. It started out in late 1939 and early 1940 as a formally neutral but slightly Allied-aligned country, and then from early 1940 until early 1945 it was a German-occupied country.
Sol Invictus This is false.
*I'M A LIBERTARIAN HERE TO SCREAM THAT ALL PUBLIC SECTOR IS BAD AND ALL PRIVATE SECTOR IS GOOD PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING COMPLETELY AND CUT ALL FUNDING THIS IS NOT SATIRE I BELIEVE THIS AND YOU SHOULD TOO*
The UK had to spend it and Norway could save it. The UK had high debts due to fighting two world wars and lost revenues because it lost its empire.
The UK chose to spend the money by cutting taxes for companies and privatising state held companies. So you could say they just invested it differently
Hang on a second. The two economies could not have been more different, the UK population is much larger too. Its GDP is over £1tn per year. The UK went bankrupt in 1975 and needed the IMF. Its nationalised industries were heavily loss-making, inefficient and over-staffed. The government used the oil money instead of taxes to reform the economy. The privatised industries restructured and became profitable. Now, the UK created the most dominant services industry in Europe, its financial centre is the largest in the world and through reform & tax cuts created a 3x real-terms increase for everyone from 1979 to 1990. The UK did not squander its oil money, it went to the private sector where the investment multipliers created millions of new jobs and new industries. Lastly, the UK still has not extracted the deep-gas pockets and that is larger than the oil found in the North Sea.
@Andreas Sagen thanks to global warming it's getting easier every year!
With brexit you will loose all your service industry!
I feel like I just watched two videos for the price of one!
Hang on a second. The entire 1980s was categorised with some of the highest unemployment levels due to stagflation. And while cutting down some nationalised industries ended up being more relief on our national budget, it didn't allowed for more money to be spent on healthcare and social security as it should have been - nor was it used to invest and develop the economy. While the potential additional income could have helped improve other areas of the country, it was instead put into tax cuts, not just for businesses (which makes sense, you do have jobs being created after all) but for the rich. So, wasted.
Also rail subsidies have never been higher now, then they were during the 70s - the state's ended up proping up loads of privatised industries due to a lack of profit - as a result of increased rail fares, in a bid to make profit.
While nationalisation is great short term, unless you do something with your excess money - relying on the private sector to do everything for you is limiting and not enough.
I think it is time to attack Norway.
Norway wouldn't be able to handle even an attack by Srilanka I guess.
Best way will be to burn Norwegian oil fields and force them to surrender. Only US could save them. But I doubt Trump will intervene.
You forgot the most important factor. The most important treaty was signed between the UK and Norway in 1965 using the median line. It gave Norway access to most part of the wells
Canada should do the same and have a maple syrup fund.
Btc the predominant cryptocurrency hits $100k by Dec.Cryptocurrencies they're a huge help down the road when it comes to earning investment opportunity.
I think this video could be at least an hour long and still only scratch the surface of the reasons behind the difference.
Fun fact; an Iraqi man named Farouk Al-Kasim was the one who saved Norway from the oil. It was his experience from working in iraq that taught Norwegians how the petroleum companies could take advantage of a country.
Yeah he's knighted in Norway. Also fun fact, when the oil became profitable, emmissaries from the Gulf states came and advised us to invent in hotels and luxury products. xD I'm glad we went with more reasonable people like Mr Kassims suggestions.
Why have I never heard this.
Ahah Nice, It's like "The 13th Warrior" movie (kinda)
Should have told his own people that trying to drop the petrodollar got you a whole can of whoop ass, sorry freedom opened up on you
Multiculturalism lie
Also a detail worth pointing out. Norwegian authorities insisted on 40% recovery rate of oil when the industry standard was 20%. It costs more to do that up front. You need to invest more in technology. But over time it means to make more money and recover more oil. That means Norwegian oil reserves lasts twice as long.
I work in the Norwegian oil industry and my colleagues working elsewhere e.g. in the US remark on this. E.g. they remark that in American oil industry it is much more short sighted. They aim for much lower up front costs but it means much lower recovery rate and the fields dry up faster. E.g. we put in flow meters and measure all history of our oil extraction to model and simulate the development of the field over time so we can project its future output. Apparently that is much less common in the US.
I think there is an important lesson there. Private business left to their own devices will aim for the quick buck and not think fo the long term future. You need government as an active partner with private enterprise to set goals that will benefit your country over long term. Don't just leave all the thinking and decisions to the private enterprise. They naturally think in short terms.
The care Norwegian petroleum engineers are taking is actually somewhat ludicrous considering that the beneficiaries of all of that money will mainly go to Africans and the third worlders. Not really all that forsighted.
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs idiot
ekofisk field was expected to produce for a year or so, still going strong in 2021 thanks to this foresight :-)
Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, SpaceX (especially SpaceX), Samsung, General Motors. At&T, BMW, Mercedez, Volkswagen, can disagreee I guess. I cannot name one well known Norwegian company. And weve seen when space exploration is left to governments, stagnation happens, and then companies such as SpaceX( and Blue Origin, but less prominentely) came and made a revolution. Also, Amazon is WEEEEELL KNOWN that their CEO thinks not just in long-terms but in loooooooooooong-terms.
@@haripetrov1289 You cannot name any well known Norwegian company because Norwegian companies are rarely selling consumer products. Pretty much every company you listed is in consumer products. Norwegian has many metal producers, fertilizer, fish companies, engineering, oil services, arms manufacturing, energy. But you might have heard about Norwegian Air-shuttle. They fly mainly in Europe but they have routes to the US.
I hope my country Indonesia, can learn good lessons from these
topkek
Weii indonesia juga
best transex country
learn? u funny
It won't learn anything. You'll just destroy yourselves because of corruption.
You forgot to mention that the UK has like 12 times the population (and does not have 12 times the amount of oil, these amounts are comparable).
That is why the UK now has a sovereign wealth fund at the 1/12 the value of Norway's? Oh no right they don't because your excuse is BS.
That is why the impact on the British economy was less noticeable than that on the Norwegian economy. Norway can afford to use this money to improve its economy and save a bunch of the money, Britain wouldn't notice either saving the money or spending it all together. Whether you put a cake in the fridge or eat it all at once, you will get more of it alone than in a family of 12. A sovereign wealth fund of a trillion would be barely noticeable in an economy that has thrice as much in GDP.
The UK economy is six times the size and generates more wealth per year than Norway. The UK would need a wealth fund of 12tn to have the same effect and own 12% of all the world's stock. Why is it that Socialists do not have a clue about economics.
@@TheSaltyAdmiral well norway was lucky that's it. U can't compare it with uk that has 12 times more population
Michael Thomas Still though, 6 times larger economy with 12 times more people.
As a Norwegian I think it is worth pointing out that things could have ended very different for us. The Norwegian conservatives pushed hard against all these policies. The Norwegian political right wanted to do exactly like Thatcher. They wanted to use the money to give big tax breaks. They did not want to build any domestic oil industry, but instead let the market sort it all out. They wanted to just let American and British big oil companies run the whole north sea.
We saw clear problems with how American ran the oil industry in the 70s here in Norway. It was wild west. They were reckless with security. There was many accidents. They also splurged money and had no long term thinking. It caused massive inflation causing industrial death in Norway. The Norwegian government stepped in to bring the wild west nature of the oil industry under control. That meant focus on more regular work hours, more safety, and less throwing money after any problem, driving up prices.
I am just pointing this out to make it clear that we did not just walk into the solution we ended up in, in Norway by default. There was actually a hard fight to make this happen. We had no experience with oil industry and a lot of powerful actors kept telling us we were doing it wrong.
It is also worth pointing out that it is not merely about having the right ideas. We tried exporting our management of the oil industry to many countries, helping them build up oil funds and moderate their spending of oil money, keeping state oil companies professionally run etc. But ideas are cheap. It is all about implementation. Few countries it turned out managed to have the political will over time to stay the course. It became too tempting to splurge oil money and stack the oil companies with your cronies.
The central idea of our oil policies were not even from Norway but hashed out by Iraqi Farouk Al-Kasim who had seen how multinationals had ruined his part of the world. Yet him together with Norwegians never managed to get Iraq itself to follow through with the same policies he got Norway to follow.
I am not sure what this "Wild West" chapter is you are referring to are you sure you have not let your imagination race ahead to fill in some "facts" against private industry? Anyway ,on the subject of private industry, you understand this animation is from a commercial company selling a service and so the story told in the animation is designed to fish in Norwegians to buy their products?
You may prefer academic forums which are more trust worthy, and sorry to say this about youtube threads, but tend to have more intelligent people in the deabating threads.
@@flashtrash7830 Not sure where you are going with this because you are kind of getting into all sorts of tangents. But let me try to address the individual parts.
> I am not sure what this "Wild West" chapter is you are referring to are you sure you have not let your imagination race ahead to fill in some "facts" against private industry?
If you were Norwegian you would have know, as this is a pretty well known part of our history. There are book and movies made about this period. I think you are showing a tad conspiratorial streak suggesting I made it up to smear private enterprise.
> you understand this animation is from a commercial company selling a service and so the story told in the animation is designed to fish in Norwegians to buy their products?
I disagree. I see this as a company making content they think people will find interesting to catch their attention and then promote their products. That they made a whole video primarily to target Norwegians is frankly ludicrous. You got a product you are selling to the whole world, and you chose focus your resources on targeting one of the smallest markets in the world? Come on get real. It makes more sense to target Americans, Germans, French, Italians, Brits, Chinese, Indians. Hell even our Neighbor Sweden is a better choice. They got twice the population.
> You may prefer academic forums which are more trust worthy, and sorry to say this about youtube threads, but tend to have more intelligent people in the deabating threads.
That came out of the blue? I thought you accused me of making stuff up? Anyway youtube is a good place to see what more regular people think. I've never cared much for the high brow kind of audience. I am a science popularizers at heart.
Then never forget to vote LEFT. Because they created the wealth in Norway.
The Netherlands had given the Gas field to Shell & Exxonmobil. And all the money from the GAS is all GONE and spend. And the gasfield is about to close because of all the earthquakes in the province which causes danger to the people living there. Damaging their houses etc. And now all the money has gone to capitalism instead of investing in the future of Netherlands for example FREE EDUCATION (which is now going to get more expensive....) really the Netherlands FUCKED UP back in the day by the right wing.
@@HermanWillems I think all political parties at times make mistakes. Sometimes voting right may help to keep the left on their toes. However today I feel the right has gotten too much power. The left has been weak for years and it is starting to show.
This is an aesthetically pleasing video that demonstrates a poor understanding of British economic history.
It is an advert
Even though situations were different w both countries having different pressures and demands, gotta applaud the Norwegians for thinking long term and not so short sighted or to the very least be corrupt and inefficient (e.g. Venezuela).
Superbly done by Norway, you have to respect them for superb management of their national wealth and resource.
Lol for du er jo ikke norsk
Farooq helped developed technology and had a lot influence on oil production in Norway 🇳🇴
UK has significantly larger economy and population than Norway. Oil revenues are also smaller as a portion of overall tax revenues. Thatcher also privatised inefficient government entities. It was good for the economy.
You're right that the UK's economy and population mean less per capita oil revenue. However, not all the companies Thatcher privatized were inefficient or unprofitable. British Petroleum is the prime example. All in all, Thatcher privatized ~50 companies and raised about ~£50 billion pounds. That's definitely not pocket change and the tax cuts Thatcher enacted thanks to this were indeed good for the economy. However, if you look at BP today it becomes less clear whether Thatcher made a good deal for the British people. It's possible that the company wouldn't have been as successful under public ownership, but that's conjecture. Fact of the matter is that Thatcher sold a lot of good businesses for tax cuts, which is a controversial move.
Edit: forgot to write "billion" after ~£50 lol
I think Thatcher raised more than just £50 lol.
You mean like the Railroad?
In long term state run oil companies just became the worst kind of companies. I'm from Brazil, and i'm not proud to say that we have the biggest corruption scandal in the history of the world, all starting with our national, government run and broken Oil company Petrobras. When a company is not looking for profit it's looking for power, and power can come in many shapes, and here it came by sacrificing our oil and break a company to serve as political tool. Companies are better run by individuals than governments! Pls do a Video on Brazil, and you'll see that government spending are far worse that big private companies. Business Casual
The UK is quite an unfairly designed society compared to Norway
The British found a small high quality oil in Nottinghamshire in WW2 (kept secret), which was excellent for lubricants. The Dutch found a natural gas field in Holland in the 1950s. The British found a small gas field on their east coast. So they decided to drill between in the North Sea. A rig named _Sea Gem_ found gas in 1965. Oil was found in 1970. It is running out.
No fair. Norway started the game on Legendary Start.
So did Britain though, and they have actual arable land.
@@casper_z1259 On the other hand our economy was effectively in terminal decline
Good video. But the choice should not be framed as choosing between free market reforms or saving money. Governments can actually do both if they really want to achieve those two goals.
We do both, the government is working on the free marked
damn this is slick editing! . the effects on the stills to make them look 3d is nuts.. amazing job! .
This video brought to you by Keynesian Economics! Lol!
What?
Both logical solutions to their circumstances. Thatcher saved the UK from drowning and Norway upgraded their already stable economy.
Thatcher destroyed Scotland and the North of England whilst focusing ALL investment in the South East of England and London. She was a genuinely evil person
What a great day to start! 2 of my favorite content creator, PolyMatter and Business Casual uploaded a new video. This is a great day indeed.
this video didn't mention anything about how britain stole a lot of iran's oil until 1951 when a democratically elected leader nationalised iran's oil(meaning that britain couldn't just take all of it and give little money to iran). then britain tried to cause a coup in 1953(which ended up succeding) on iran while also making the lie that they were preventing iran from being communist(which is completely false as iran's communist party weren't even that popular and nobody cared about the part). oh yeah, they replaced the leader with a monarch and througout all this, the u.s was supporting britain
Totally disagree! Great Britain recovered well and has economy much bigger than Norway.
British economy is #6 and Norways is #30.
It is similar if you compare US with UAE. Both of them are large oil producers
@david stewart We're fine thanks, the poor people are the uneducated or generally incompetent who unfortunately are growing and give the UK a bad image in Europe to the regular European. Ask a wealthy European businessman and they probably like the UK and what it does a whole lot more than the average Joe because they understand it.
I read 30 yrs ago that where as Norway had spent the money becoming self surficient I hydro power Britain had paid for Northern Ireland.. £2 billion a year policing that place....
Do "the rise and the fall of Nokia":D
Nokia is still around and doing quite well building networks, but they fucked-up their phone-business, that's for sure.
@@finntastique3891 but nowhere close to where they were
Sad but true. It's a national tradgedy. In his newly published book, present Chairman of the Board, Risto Siilasvuo, claims that former CEO Jorma Ollila's so-called "Dream Team" (the Board of Directors) was actually the "Scream Team", as Ollila frequently raged and ruled the company by fear. Apparently he suffered from a very short temper and also hybris, thinking of himself as irreplacable. Well, it all went tits up.
tragedy, I meant.
I like to know more about Nokia. And why they struggled and had competitive teams and didn't see how important MeeGo was instead they went ahead with Symbian to improve that..... They had QT which would be an amazing framework to build very very good performant low battery use applications. I mean Google uses a Java VM which is much more resource hungry than C++ QT framework.
Nokia had all the right ingredients to be succefull.(Both Software & Hardware wise!!!!) But still... they didn't. I want to know why. It's very interesting.
You forgot to mention that Shell created earthquakes in Groningen and that people are moving in massive rates because of them. Houses have dropped significantly in value in those regions, and a lot of them are barely left standing.
I'm pretty sure the Norwegians got the best oil fields. I don't think the British got as much oil as we did
leverposteifantomet Naa you just spent it in a shitty way
Norway's has double the oil and much smaller population. This video is stupid.
@@ABanRocks And so what..
How many British are even close to the living standards Norway has?
Welfare state isn't found in UK.. Starvation is possible!
Even a minor country/economy like Denmark are willing & able to provide modern welfare services like rest of the Northern Countries..
Oilfields in the North Sea is divided fairly measured from each continental sockets.
If you prefer to whine, at least be well informed!
I wasn't trying to present it as fact, although I do see why people might get that idea that I was. What I do know as fact is that the Norwegians were eager to establish a border in the north sea before announcing they were gonna look for oil, in hopes that the UK wouldn't want to fight over where the border should go. All I tried to say was I believe (yes, without actually fact checking, sue me) that the better oil fields ended up behind the Norwegian borders.
I feel that you have misunderstood the purpose and message of my comment. I don't even have a reason to whine about this, since I am Norwegian. I get that it wasn't super clear, but if you read the second sentence again you should see what I mean.
So, if you're gonna complain about people whining online, at least read their comment properly!
Norway is a perfect example on how a small country should take care of its natural resources. At least 50% of the revenue generated has to stay in the country, and the government has to own all natural resources by default.
You didn't mention the most important thing. It's the people. Norwegians simply love their nation and care about it's benefit. Rare occurrence with politicians.
Norway is in the process of Africanisation, just as stupid as the BritCucks.
Not all politicians here though care about the people😬 there are always some idiots
Yes everyone cares about each other and trusts each other ! Generally is expected only the good from you ! So everyone is able to rely on each other ! The is how Norwegian society works !
Didn't mention that Thatcher did the restructuring of the English economy that later made the City of London to Europe's financial centre that in return created hundred thousands of new jobs when the old sectors like coalmines stumbled, their car manufacturers weren't profitable and so was many other industrial branches.
Before that a Labour government had taken some really bad decisions, for an example, the Labour government decided that they should make a car to a specific price (the Mini) before they had investigated what it would cost to make it, that resulted to that they lost money on every car they made so they had to use tax money to fill their losses, that's how bad the Labour party managed the economy in England country at that period, they tried to make populistic decisions and nearly drove the country to bankruptcy.
Yeah, and this guy "just" forgot about that, basicly blaming Tatcher for everything. Although, I would say trying to privitiseze the whole railway sector wasnt the best idea, maybe a part of it sure.
Would you be able to do a video on how the hell Ireland, could go from being the poor man of Europe, only being comparable with Albania, to being the 5th richest country in the world, per capita, and no natural resources worth mentioning. Very informative video Business Casual.
I'd be skeptical about all those Top 10, Top 100 type of league tables as the parameters vary and often they are done to either sell something or promote an academic position. But Ireland has certainly leaped ahead. If I were to ponder the reasons I'd say a youthful demographic emerging from a successful school-to-Uni conduit for tertiary education. Good fortune in speaking English and under Common Law principles which businesses feel safe with. A clear out of corruption after the Haughey (that may be the key thing to credit to the EU) cutting corporation tax to a mere thin slice of the cake and to some degree being in the single market (though sans single market didn't deter overseas inward investment boom in late 60s early 70s in Ireland).
Ehm 2 different economies (60mio /5mio citizen) and Norway has 10x more gas reserves and 2 1/2 more oil reserves.
The larger the population the harder to bring them the same living standards.
Also, the more the population the lower the impact of resources to the standard of living.
Considering this, the UK did the right thing and looking to the HDI, they did pretty well.
The thing with Norway is that they rely a lot on fishing/oil/gas and this are finite ressources or ressources which, with more time, could be synthesized...
It is already happened with meat in small quantities.
I don't want to talk Norway down but their approach was the right one because of the situation like UKs one on their.
The English dominated UK government was highly motivated to spend the income from Oil because it was sourced in Scottish territory. Moves towards restoring Scottish sovereignty are long standing NOT recent as the UK government tries to claim. Because of this there has been a great amount of secrecy about the resource. The most common claim has been it was just about to run out about Scotland would not be capable of surviving economically without the revenue.
As someone involved in economics and familiar with Scotland's economy I know that is entirely a fraudulent claim. I grew up in the USSR and my homeland is Lithuania a country much poorer than Scotland and quite able to survive. Our membership of the EU has been a great advantage over recent years.
Scotland has really two main disadvantages, economic control by England or specifically the City of London and exploitative nature of the British government. I would define the current UK as an English empire. England's south and capital makes economic decisions for their own interest and exploits the rest of England and treats Scotland like an imperial colony. Effectively Thatcher recreated the British Empire in miniature.
Oil has been a resource curse for Scotland and England. England through a parliamentary majority dominates Scotland and blocks through economic control and propaganda moves to independence. At the same time is addicted to Oil trading that props up their currency. This has allowed the UK elite to evade fundamental reforms that other European countries made decades ago even as long ago as the 1950's. The UK state lives in denial of the modern world and this is likely the basis for the rejection of the EU. The State remained an imperial British State that when it failed, had to be propped up by the IMF and EEC only then to infused with "Free Money" form Scotland's oil reserves. So the UK was able to continue believing they were a World Power with special national status beyond a medium European power. We now see political corruption and British-English nationalist fanaticism push the UK over an economic cliff.
It would have been better if they had never found oil.
This comment is absolutely bang on 👏
Don't you think a lot of Scots would move to England or the other constituent countries if Scotland gained independence though? The UK's oil boom is over and if Scotland went independent (I'm not for or against tbh they can do whatever they vote for) it would have more serious implications for Scotland.
At it's best an independent Scotland will be an English client state.
Margaret Thatcher was dealing with a BIG problem that Norway wasn’t, viz. a sclerotic economy held hostage by militant trade unions, and a state apparatus that had come to see its role as simply “the orderly management of decline.”
Please keep in mind that England had commonwealth countries that they had to subsidized.
1.They provide assistance to many Caribbean countries. 🇻🇨🇹🇹🇦🇬🇧🇧🇬🇩🇬🇾🇯🇲.
2. The royal family can cost tax payers atleast 340 million 💷 per year. (2013)
3. The United Kingdom is bigger than norway.
The total social spending comes to around 231 billion 💷(2016).
like the u. S 🇺🇲
U. K provide global unpaid services
While the Norwegian government invest it's resources to maximize its portfolio.
all in all I am part of the Norwegian model and also of the British model both is important👌
Also the u. K spends 2%of its gdp on its military which is about 35 billion 💷
@@mesoanto1031 The Uk spends 61 billion GBP per year on its military.
Not a bad summary, but one of the main reasons that Norway was able to proceed with the exploitation of it's oil and gas reserves at a much slower pace than the UK is that Norway is almost self sufficient in energy with most of it coming from hydro electric power.
They did not need to rush to get oil out of the ground because they imported very little oil. The UK, on the other hand, imported a great deal of oi, so getting oil out of the North Sea was critical in getting down the quantity of oil being imported and helping the UK balance of payments
The biggest field in the UK sector was Forties, discovered and put into production by BP which was effectively owned by the British Government.
BPs original plans for Forties which would have seen the oil extracted at a rate designed to maximise the life of the field were overruled by the Government and BP were forced to extract the oil much more quickly than they wanted.
This rapid production had the effect of shortening the life of the field and reducing the total amount of oil which can be extracted from it.
Some time after the government relinquished it's control over BP and it became a private company, BP sold the Forties field because they could no longer operate the field at a reasonable profit
I enjoy your content but in this case your analysis of Thatcher reflects a bias and lack of context for Britan's situation. Any short list of the 20th century great PMs would have near the top. Revisionists ignore how the labor party and decades of high-taxes, protectionism, and state-owned industries were eroding the UK from the inside out. She truly saved that nation.
Did she really though? She opened up the door towards extreme deregulation which in the short term is great, but would consequently lead to the 2008 financial crash. Which we still haven't really recovered from socially, economically, or politically.
Really? Post hoc ergo propter hoc? 30 years after the fact? Respectfully, as a historian, you know better than to make leaps like that. Let's make a list of all things we can blame 2008 on. The Thatcher revolution would not be in the top 100.
None of this detracts from the outstanding way Norway managed their windfall. Norway however, is a unique demography, geography, and economy, making direct comparisons problematic and unrealistic.
Thanks again for your excellent work.
Actions have consequences. As a historian, I also know that disregarding something that happened 30/40/50 years ago and its effect on our current society is naive.
Take WW1 essentially leading to WW2 despite the 20 year intermission or the Congress of Vienna essentially establishing almost 100 years of peace between European powers.
In fact, even Thatchers own Chancellor of Exchequer, Nigel Lawson admitted that the deregulation of the banks in the 80s led to the unintended consequence of the financial crash. It encouraged rampant growth at the expense of high risk.
Agreed, Norway is almost utopian in existence. But I do think that the oil wealth could have been handled better. Establishing a Sovereign wealth fund equal to a third of our current GDP of $3 Trillion would likely have paid off at least somewhat in the long term.
Thanks to you too lad.
Thatcher maybe was good at the time, but the consequences of her actions will probably still haunt uk for decades
Thatcher fucked the nation and the damage of her legacy still carries on.
Norway 5m people, UK 62m people. That has quite a big impact on the economy of the two countries.
well thatcher was the one that won the war over the falklands and oil was found recantly by the islands soooooooo they aint that bad
but im from norway and im very proud
True. In a few years time that oil around the Falklands could be a huge deal. I'm sure the RAF fighters and anti aircraft missiles based on the Falklands now are happily funded by the government with an eye to the future.
It's like drinking milk, when you are starving, your body will use the protein to provide energy, even it is inefficient. But when you are normal, the protein will be used to build your muscle. Same as UK, it was "starving", so they need to use whatever they have to save the economy first.
Just wanted to congratulate you on the stellar visuals on this episode- You've really upped your production game, even when compared to videos last year. Good job, and keep it up!
Scotland's oil spent to finance tax cuts and financial industry subsidy for London bankers who then put all their profits off-shore tax free. Britain squandered our opportunity, but we have learnt from the Norwegians of what can be - not only with oil, but the same opportunities in abundant resources and sustainable energy potential.
Your oil supply at its height was still nothing. Also on the bright side, we have BP which gives us access to more oil. Also, tax havens are the UK's No.1 Business, like it or not. So shut up.
So, Great Brittain reacted in The USamerican way, then.
Well, I am happy the brother nation acted wiser. Norway, you deserve your fortune.
To be fair, it was largely because Amerivca had Westminster by the balls as they owed us a lot of money from beating the Nazis (and the Nazis wrecked a lot of the means Britain could use to repay America). So most of the blame there goes to everyone's least favorite Austrian.
retxeD ienniB retxeD ienniB Jiews will “invade it”. They will own your wealth. Happening in Norway right now. And they will spend it on shItrail. When you realise what’s happening I will be too late because the country will be full of Africans and Muslims with easy citizenship to make sure that you don’t have any democratic power.
The lesson here is never forget to reinvest your profits. A politician will always be a politician, maintaining their popularity is their main concern. While the investor's main goal is to grow their wealth.
years ago, the theory was, high government salaries would attract a higher calibre of politician to replace the mediocre current politicians of the day, so what has happened mediocre politicians are paid big money!
Which political system are you referring to?
No one in Europe is elected by their wealth..
Lobbying is an issue when among the decision-makers.
Untill there, anyone has equal chances
Australia did a UK with our mining money :S. lease the UK didnt have an example to follow, aus had the perfect example what Norway did yet still screwed it up.
From the USA, I salute the Norwegians! I salute the British middle-class & poor, too, for their protests against banker financial terrorists.
Shut up, commie.
Privatization of government property is like peeing in the trousers during cold winter night: warms for a while and then comes the cold
Britain and Norway are very different countries and so the same approach would probably not work for both.
Firstly the British economy is far larger so the oil revenue was a much smaller proportion of national income.
Secondly the population is far larger. The government relies much more on taxes and on employment in oil related industries than it does on the raw value of the oil itself.
Norway needed to take that approach because otherwise it would end up like the oil dependent countries of the Middle East which lack other industries since they can just rely on the oil. But in the UK oil was (and is) just one of many industries.
As far as I know the oil actually paid for destruction of British industry 🤘🏻
The UK has a second chance though, as right now we are discovering oil near the falkland islands, the UK's economy is strong even with brexit and doesnt require a instant boost of revenue, this means the money gained from the expected 60 billion barrels that will be withing our territories can be used in the same fashion as norway, investing.
They privatized already again but this time, to only British companies that are based in London.
I don't particularly like Thatcher, but if she didn't cut taxes, there'd be people paying astronomical sums for income tax (83%). Better to cut tax because these people would have claimed citizenship in Monaco for example
They still do claim citizenship in Monaco, though. Trying to appease the 1% (well, the tax rate you mention is more like the 0.01%) is a losing strategy.
83% tax rates are a joke--the rich get around them one way or the other. But when someone's income is over $1 million/year, it seems reasonable to me to tax the difference at 60%.
Its always "reasonable" when taking away other people's money and then whine about it when they get fed up and leave
The economy and population of the UK is a lot bigger than Norway. You can’t really compare the two.
To all the people who mention the size/population difference of the two countries, that is a completely irrelevant factor as Norway saved the money and the UK didn't. The UK COULD have done exactly the same, set up a sovereign wealth fund and only allow a small % of the INTEREST on that fund to be spent in the budget. *If the UK did that, they would have roughly the same sized fund as Norway has now, the population size is irrelevant if you take into account the main lesson from this history, that Norway DIDN'T spend the wealth, and the UK did.*
The Norwegian oil and gas fields were much larger than the UK's and if the wealth fund was shared, it would be worth only $15,000 per capita of UK population. The UK grew and has kept growing for 31 of the last 37 years since the end of Socialism. It created new industries, it created the world's largest financial centre, created millions of new jobs and saw incomes rise at their fastest since WW2. It is the No.1 destination in Europe for foreign investment every year. These industries raise more income per year than the Wealth Fund and employ more people directly too. The UK currently has record levels of employment and some of the lowest unemployment in Europe.
@@MichaelThomas-be7gq Sweden has managed much the same without any oil. Sure Sweden is poorer than Norway, but not poorer than the UK. Stockholm is presently the leading tech hub in Europe with more startups than almost any other city. This has all happened in a country which was run by socialists/social democrats for most of its modern history. So don't claim you could not have done it with socialism. Sweden proves you wrong.
A lot of random statistics, then you conclude it happened because of the end of socialism, without pointing to a single causational relationship between the two. Per capita GDP in Europe, the UK is at #22, most above are more "socialistic" in their economic policies(Norway #3). And as of 2014, unemployment in Norway was 3,4% compared to the 6,0% of the UK. *Look, I'm not here to shit on the UK, I actually like the UK very much, but if you try to tell me that the UK handled it's natural resources as well as Norway when it comes to oil & gas, you're just so off I can't tell if you are even being serious.* Oh and BTW, the UK has the last second largest budget deficit in the world, only surpassed by the US. You are close to 100% of GDP in debt, and you are running a record deficit on your budget, on what planet is that the trademarks of a good economy? Norway, Sweden and Denmark are all running surpluses.
@@povelvieregg165 Havent ever heard of Stockholm being anything of importance outside of Stockholm. I as a foreinger cannot point out to any Swedish company that is well known (and no, IKEA is not today, and for years it is not, since it is owned by a Dutch foundation). Also, how can UK be richer than Norway, but Sweden is poorer than Norway, but not poorer than the UK? Also, didnt its government put more capitalism in its country after the 80s and 90s? Until then it was pretty much socialistic country. Also, pointing out one relatively good example for a socialist country, meanwhile there are many, MANY countries who failed is one thing.
@@TheSaltyAdmiral I guess the lesson is not stand to evil (Nazi Germany) with all that you have? And just crumble like a house of cards like Norway did. The UK is first, much, much bigger economy in terms of anything and had HUGE debt to the US. Moreover, after Tatcher you cannot say that the Labor party of the UK handled things even mediocre. So here it is kids, just surrender to evil, so that later on you are financially alright and let other people pick up the slack. Also, I am not sure how until Brexit London became basicly the financial capital of Europe, but alright. Oh and unlike Norway, they actually count on themselfes for their defence, unlike some countries like Norway, Germany.... So, the other lesson is, even when there is no evil, do not spend money on defending yourself, just let some other superpower do it for you.
Short summary of the video: create state owned company, leave taxes high, don’t privatize… The problem is, it works mainly for resource rich countries, same way as it worked in gulf.
Also worth of noting, that Norway has 2.5 time more reserves and 12 times less population
I hate this fantasy of nationalizing everything and your nation will prosper while those who privatize will get plundered or something.
What about all of Latin America? Aside from Chile, the rest all nationalized.
When making comparisons of this nature, it's always good to give a background and include facts that will help a person digest the information better. You did not mention population difference, number of oil fields, ratio of oil field to population, economic conditions at the time decisions were made, size of the economy (both at the time of the decision and present day) etc.
All these factors will allow a viewer to make a judgement on whether the decisions made at the time and under those conditions were the best. If you overlook some important statistics and facts, it can make you look like you have an agenda you are trying to put forward. Even worse it can make you look out right biased which would be an unfair way to paint your channel which has good content.
Hopefully Ireland's Corrib gas field on the west coast will lead to prosperity and success.
Ireland has gas but sold it of to foreign company's we don't get any money from it and have to pay for gas OUR GAS
Socialized natural resources isn't a good idea for the economy.
@@kamanashiskar9203 Your just blindly saying that cause it’s what all the capitalist propagandist say.But this video literally shows you that it is a good idea.Norway has highest HDI in the world and their natural gas and oil is nationalized.
So, the Norway used this money to invest in a fund. The UK on the other hand used the money to balance its budget and reduce taxes for its people. Of course all the tax money that people saved, they either spent or invested, helping the economy. These both seem very wise ways of using the money. Your bashing of the UK is totally unfair.
The Norway approach works better for a very small country whose small economy cannot absorb so much money. The second approach seems more appropriate for the much larger British economy.
By the way, by the late 70s the UK was basically bankrupt and its GDP was about 60% the GDP of France. By the late 90s UK had a healthy economy and its GDP was almost equivalent with the French one. This shows how successful Tatcher's reforms were.
Correct title "Scotland's Oil wealth stolen and squandered"
Good video. The Nowegians had an advantage in that effectively "oil income per capita" was much higher than the UK. That allowed better use of the income. The soverign wealth fund is a good idea though...
2:00-2:36 Groningen today is plagued by tremors and small earthquakes, slowly causing a lot of damage to buildings and farms. Pressure on the Dutch government to cut back production has mounted over the past decade, and production is slowly being driven back
Basic fact: if a government won't help all its people equally, then it has no business forcing laws on them. So, if you're going to go free market anarchist, then get rid of all laws all government agencies entirely. That is the logical consistency that it is impossible for conservatives to understand.
With the exception of exactly one: Larken Rose, who speaks out against both the military & the police.
He is the only logically consistent anti-socialist anti-communist I have ever seen or heard.
Both the left wing Labour Party and the right wing “conservatives” replace their White populations with more easily and divisible brown ones.
excellent analysis!
uk is still suffering from the mistakes of thatcher market dogma.
it's basically been deindustrialized and stripped of its wealth.
state owned enterprises often do well, especially for industries requiring longer-term vision and patient capital.
being state owned isn't the problem, it's bad management - bad management happens in both private and state entities.
You can also thanks Thatcher for the UK's financial superiority.
The Norwegian Labour Party was not responsible for the Norwegian Welfare System at its own. It was a joint political agenda, that both the left, centrum and the right supported - where the Conservative party and Labour party were the biggest players.
Fun fact, the right winged parties such as the Conservative Party, the Center (farmers) party and Christian Democrats were in government when the modern welfare state was introduced in 1967.
The Norwegian Labor Party had 40-46% of the votes between 1933 and 1969. They did not need the support from the right.
bernhnic2, sure others played apart but one cannot deny the profound impact the labour party had. Even when they did not implement policies their power changed other parties. Remember Otto von Bismarck of Germany created the first modern welfare state, not because he wanted to, but because he feared the growing strength of the socialists. Norwegian conservatives likewise knew they could not radically depart from labour part policies without getting killed in the elections. I think the usefulness of the Norwegian political right is that they made sure the labour party did not completely go off the rails in their socialist policies. They did make sure many necessary deregulations happened later.
your forgot to mention. the horrible economic situation in britain at the time, stagflation. the government was doing horribly in managing the economy. Privatization actually saved Britain. Reagan did the same thing in America.
you are not having the coal mines back !
@Adfywiad Celtaidd ... political correctness... you know what I mean mate... GBR, United Kingdom, same stuff lah. In Cantonese, we just call it Ying Gwok, which means England.
@@artski09 Isn't that what Thatcher said?
she shut down the government subsidised mines and broke the unions
the welsh are still salty
To be fair to Norway's successes, the country has a population of 5 Million people compared to the UK's 66 Million (~50 Million in 1980).
Not to say they didn't do a good job, but their plan worked for their population given the culture, history, and population of the nation.
Every person who wants to argue against privatizing Social Security should watch this video.
I had a Norwegian employer here in RP Especially if they staying here in the Philippines. They are too Thrifty and demanding. He maltreatment me and I was underpay.
I live in Groningen and the oil's wealth is certainly nice, but we suffer from ever-increasing earthquakes and damages to property. :-(
Oil wealth? Het is aardgas mattie.
En de winst is ook niet bepaald verdeeld over de provincie. :/
Are you compensated for the damages?
Calyx Ja, gas. Ik typte en die vent zei toen 'oil' dus schreef ik dat, haha. Maar ja, blijft gewoon kut.
John Good As far as I know it's really difficult to get in touch and get things done with the company that's responsible.
@@tomboerstra2533 Alright, well I looked it up on wikipedia and it states that your government are paying for damages of 1.2 billion euros and that the production has been cut to 24 bcm/y which is less than domestic demand. So it seems your government is taking some responsibility for the situation.
Always keep your principles in mind with regard to different issues.
5:22 I see you, Felix!
This video omits hugely important factors to the point it can not be unintentional. The main one is different population sizes. GB had 11 times more people so even if GB did the same thing as Norway it would it would 11 times less effective. Another thing that is hugely misleading is the notion that Norway invested the money while GB lowered taxes implying that private investment of companies is never beneficial for public.
Not entirely true on the british end.
Since Brexit, Europeans have developed a habit of lying about the UK.
I don't know much about this, but the video smells biased. If Britain had an 83% tax bracket before Thatcher, they couldn't afford what Norway did and probably spent the money wisely since they still exist. 83% can start a braindrain.
give examples or sources or gtfo
Well it would have been impossible for britain to receive the same benefits that Norway had because of our much larger economy and population. Plus Britain's economy was doing was doing terribly at the time anyway.
Kaleb Bruwer You should bare in mind that before Thatcher there were restrictions on taking money out the UK unlike today it was much harder to avoid tax. The people who were paying 83% income tax were the people who after the tax were still well off compared to the rest of the population. And the tax revenue raised were reinvested in Britain and its economy. As we have seen the reforms Thatcher made while a success in the short term are biting hard in the long run.
Take the privatisations, she foregoed a stable income in the long run for a quick buck. A more sensible government would have reformed lost making public sector companies and turned them around into profit making companies which would lessen the tax burden in the future.
Invest to go not cut to save, and when you invest remember to keep your shares.
Population plays a big role, It's not just about saving money. The Norway doesn't have to care about the population from long back. Their reserves were way higher than British when its come to reserves per person.
Actually, the UK did what was the obvious better choice: less taxes means more money on the hands of businessmen which means that they will have more money to employ people, and these people will spend their money, spinning the economy. Privatizing is necessary, once that it is much harder to fire someone from a public enterprise than it is on a private one, make state owned companies non-functional organizations with a lot bureaucracy and small profits or even debts.
One of the very few stones you can throw at Thatcher. She was a leader that saved Britain.
As the global price of oil is falling, the Philippines kept on increasing oil tax for Covid-19 expenses.
I second that all the way.
Norway invested it's oil revenues into various Sovereign Wealth Funds and became RICH. Scotland's oil revenues where stolen by England, and became POORER. Remember, it's not British oil, it's SCOTTISH OIL!
Stephen Armstrong Calm down Wallace....
@@CCMqueretaro The break-up of the UK and a United Ireland.....COMING SOON!
Yeah.... Nobody cares mate. Calm down.
The oil that was discovered in Scotland was nothing compared to the ones discovered in the Falklands. Also, go all ego, ego, but remember Scotland is dependent on England.
@@stephenarmstrong5107 you wrote that 2 years ago and I’m still waiting
It is up to 30m waves btw,, Im a norwegian oil student
So history tell us a big tax cuts to large companies can get a temporary grow in economics but followed by a free fall.
the uk was forecast to become poorer than communist albania back then. in 1980 they had an inflation rate of 21.9% and instead, thanks to thatcher's reforms, became one of the fastest growing economies of europe by 1988. Becoming an economic power house is hardly a free fall.
King of Crabs. The UK is not an 'economic powerhouse". Where the fuck did you get that idea from?
in terms of finance we are second to non..
@sunnyjjng In other words, not a powerhouse.
Of the oil in the North Sea, Norway have the biggest part. Still it is interesting how they did it and the different way they went. Norway is quite unique how they managed the oil. For other countries it have not been a blessing.
You shoild do a video about skillshare
Sorry i made a typo
Why & how should he do that?
@@InspectHistory how he makes all of his other videos his way
Tanner Rugg oh, yeah agree with you :)
Well played. Underrated post
*your voice is soo pleasant to hear and those pictures (or animation or editing} you used in this video are also soo good. i really appreciate your work mate*
"Tax the oil industry excessively"??? Seems they are taxing the oil industry at about the CORRECT amount.
Not becoming beholden to oil extractors seems like a good move. It's like NOT having wolves inside your house.
thatcher administration made a mistake with short sighted vision, allowing british petroleom to become a private company instead of being a state owned company like statoil (modern day equinor). Oil wealth basically flowed into shareholders for UK while it flowed into governemt coffers for norway. The norwegian govt in turn very cleverly reinvested the surplus cash. Difference between short and far sighted governance.
does anyone know if UK govt can renationalize those companies like rolls royce and BP that were privatised in the 80's?
very Informative and, Intellectually Sound. 🔥🔥🔥🎶🎵🎼💯Thanks for Sharing.
And Norway was also a country hit by the 1980s neoliberalism. But instead of privatising oil, there were busting of the state monopoly on broadcasting and the liberalisation on the laws that regulated when shops could be open.
wow much respect for norway :-)
Norway invested well but the UK was in an entirely different scenario. We still hd war debt, a broken economy from our Labour government, militant unions, war in the Falklands to contend with.
Thatcher decided on concentrating on a service industry and thus our Banking industry and IT thrived.
Oil however is nearing the end of it's days. Norwegian investments will be crucial to maintain a good standard of living but without the tax from oil revenue, life will change somewhat.
I'd like to see Norway become world leader in a new field and not only be more succesful now but have security for the future.
Tom Costa - Veiga, Norway also was burdened heavily by war. Unlike Britain we were occupied. 20% of our population was German soldiers consuming 40% of our GDP for 5 years. Imagine having 12 million German soldiers stationed in Britain today for 5 years, while Germany extracted almost half of your economic output to drive their war machine. You don't think that would break your economy?
Top top it off, the Germans burned down all of Northern Norway to stop the advancing Red Army. Imagine Germany burning down all of Scottland and you having to rebuild that.
I am not saying the war was no hard on Britain, but don't assume it was easy for us. My grandparents had many stories of hardship from the war.
Norway also had a labour government. I don't think you can blame it all on them. I think the British problem seen from Norwegian eyes is your class society. You have not managed to get your classes of people to work together for common goals. Your classes have been at war with each other. The labour conflict of the 70s you suffered I think has much to do with the failure to come together for common ground. E.g. I remember reading about Kværner's experience buying ailing British shipyard Trafalgar house. Norwegian management called in the British union to sit down with the Norwegian government and forge a plan for the future. They refused to show up. Why?
They had never in their lives been asked to participate in such talk EVER!!? Should that not be cause for concern? The previous British management had private chauffeur driving a Roll Royce or something. They had their own vine cellar. These people were completely detached from their workers, and I believe that was a large cause of their failure.
That such conditions would cause labour conflict and unrest is almost given. Can Labour be blamed squarely for this? Should not management and the upper classes take their share of the blame for doing little to nothing to bridge the gap?
I wont beat my chest and say we were so brilliant in Norway. It was not our choice per say to not have a class society. It was more an outcome of us being so poor in sparsely populated that we did not develop an aristocracy. I am just pointing out that you need to know your history and understand its impact on your present problems rather than ignore its existence.
They actually do , they investing in their population ! And renewable resources and technologies ! And small and medium sized businesses !! So all people do get well paid jobs
It is certainly possible to lose money on investment also
I wouldn't say that Thatcher privatized profitable companies. Many were not profitable at all and where a drag on the UK economy.
Any Norwegians? :)