Socialism vs Capitalism

It is an interesting article but I find it important to point out that the United Kingdom and Norway have vastly different population sizes. As the article says, both countries equally split oil reserves in the North Sea but the United Kingdom is a much bigger country with a much higher population and, as a result, much higher short-term financial needs which, even if both countries had shared an identical political leadership, could explain why the bigger country spent its share of the resource more quickly and forwent much higher profits as a result.

If you gave a special savings account with 10.000 USD and a highly lucrative 30% yearly interest rate to a married couple without childen and the same to a family of twenty-five, we all know who of the two families would be much more likely to maximize their financial return by withdrawing funds as slowly as possible...
 
JoBBo said:
It is an interesting article but I find it important to point out that the United Kingdom and Norway have vastly different population sizes.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's true by a factor of 10ish but despite the per capita share of the revenue being different, there is also a difference in revenue. Norway charged for their oil and the UK gave it away. That is because of the difference in political philosophy between the two governments. The Norwegian government acted as a public custodian of the resource whereas the the UK government acted as toadying lackeys to oil companies. The Norwegian government acted for the public, the UK government acted for themselves and their "friends".

If I have a family of four but I sell the farm for $1.2 million then my family will understandably be better off than if I have a family of 40 and I sell the farm for $10,000 to a rich guy in exchange for speaking engagements for myself until I die at $20,000 a pop partly paid out from the interest payments on my family members from the loans they keep having to take out to get to the end of each month.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
So let's say there's a capitalist country and a socialist country and you give them a bunch of oil. Which country will benefit more?

The experiment has already been run
Click to expand...


Whilst a lot more socialist than Britain, I'm not sure I'd describe Norway as a socialist country. Plenty of capitalism there too. I'd probably prefer to describe it as a balanced country.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
So let's say there's a capitalist country and a socialist country and you give them a bunch of oil. Which country will benefit more?
Click to expand...

TexasOil-600x406.jpg



Texas produced nearly one billion barrels last year, and 34.5% of all US crude

US was the world’s largest petroleum producer in October for the 12th straight month
 
metalman said:
food11.jpg
Click to expand...

I am afraid this is a pretty lousy collage for a number of reasons.

First of all, the black and white photo depicts a crowd standing outside of a supermarket in the former German Democratic Republic and looking at presentation tables. Based on what can be seen on one of the less frequented tables as well as the body language of the individuals, I think it is obvious that these people are not staring at or waiting to buy basic food items.

Secondly, many bakeries that existed before World War II continued to be operated as independent private enterprises in the GDR. Furthermore, baked goods that were being mass produced by government-owned companies were being sold at heavily subsidized prices to ensure everyone could afford to eat and, at least in the early years, to combat the effects of malnutrition that many suffered during the war.

Thirdly, the second image accurately depicts what you will see in a local bakery at 8:00 am but I can assure you that those shelves tend to be almost empty by 8:00 pm, which is not very different from how it used to be in the GDR. Even in large supermarkets, freshly baked goods can be difficult or even impossible to find in the evening hours so people are forced to buy not-so-fresh, but durable bread (or rolls) in plastic packaging instead.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Norway charged for their oil and the UK gave it away.
Click to expand...
Both charged for their oil. But, as discussed, Norway sold the oil much more slowly and benefitted greatly from doing so.

The article says:
Since Thatcher was in such a rush to develop their oil resource, the majority was sold when global prices were a fraction of what they are today, resulting in hundreds of billions less in public revenues.
Click to expand...
 
JoBBo said:
I am afraid this is a pretty lousy collage for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...
iHTkl3fHc4eU.jpg


January 08, 2014

Dozens of people take shifts to line up outside supermarkets in Maracaibo, a city of 2.1 million people located 800 kilometers (500 miles) west of the capital, waiting for the next delivery of regulated goods. The new stock is bought up as soon as it hits the shelves, leaving shops barren of products such as meat, grains and toilet paper.

Price controls introduced by Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chavez in 2003 to boost nutrition among the poor have fueled demand for staples such as flour, rice and milk as shoppers snap up products whose prices don’t change amid 56 percent annual inflation, the highest in the world.

Many professional shoppers are native Guajira Indians dressed in bright floral-print dresses who have double nationality and are exempt from border controls.


native Guajira Indians == hoarders and speculators!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top