Norway rethinks €1.7 trillion sovereign fund to boost support for Ukraine
-
Kind of. The amount that can be spent annually is regulated by law. I don't remember the exact figure, but the budget can not rely on more that N% of the profits from these funds. And, not, I don't remember how much N is, but it's reasonably low.
It is entirely possible to change this number of passed by a majority at the parlament.
Source: Am noggie
-
Very nice, exactly the signal The Free World needs now. Now, that the previous leader vanished in a puff of Kreml propaganda.
It's now more than ever at stake wether Ukraine can fend off the invasion (the outcome of which is another signal to autocrats eyeing future invasions, for example Taiwan, Tasmania). It's a question.
One answer, one possible scenario is that each individual EU country feels overwhelmed to shoulder the additional burden. Or that the Union cannot muster enough support to replace the U.S.
This scenario can be self-reinforcing. If it seems likely that the combined response would still be insufficient, a plausible outcome is everybody holding back, which already would favor the Russian aggression.So this is why I want to highlight how much good news this is, because it's exactly the opposite kind of example. Literally stepping up.
-
It is not that simple. While the country is rich and getting richer, it's population is getting relatively poorer. Housing is at an all-time high (as it is in so many places in the so called developed world). More and more complain about food prices, especially fresh vegetables and for some reason, chocolate. The country is completely dependent on imports.
They restricted the budget allowed to communes, which not only stopped their planned investments, but had to cut several services such as school and culture programs, mostly in the less dense areas.
Add to that the relatively weak krone, and you get a very strong feeling of moving down. This pushes their local populist right wing party (FrP) high.
Many would not understand the remote support while they experience those cuts.
-
Earmarking the war profits for the war, as well as reconstruction, seems to be quite sensible.
-
The reason chocolate is expensive is because the last couple of harvest were a horrifying preview of what global warming is gonna do. Cocoa, now coffee harvests are failing. My pessimistic side would say: eat chocolate now, while you can. Those prices are not coming back down in our lifetime.
"late 2023, failed cacao harvests have contributed to a major jump in cocoa prices on the New York and London markets where cocoa is traded, reported The Guardian."
Oops.
-
Guys, we can only throw so much money at war before it stops having an effect.
Ukraine has recruitment problems. They have moral problems. Nobody wants to fight in a losing war. They've all seen their friends die. They've all heard stories about how awful combat is. None of them want a part of it anymore.
It's unfortunate, but we have to accept the reality that real people are dying. They don't get to respawn after a few seconds like in a video game. Each death results in more grieving friends and family.
-
Comments like this highlight how much some people are getting brainwashed
-
I wish my taxes in the US could be sent straight up to Ukraine since the Orange Moran and the Nazis got rid of every program that our taxes used to benefit us. I don't want a penny going to those monsters.
Slava Ukraine!
-
Trump will say, "Thank me! See make them pay for it!" Even though this puts us at greater risk in the future. 🤮
-
Thing about social democratic bureaucracy is that it tends to end up being extremely rigid with politicians who are particularly entrenched in this rigid system of rules.
Add to this that the same politicians also have entirely forgotten what social demkcracy is supposed to be - maintaining a capitalistic market economy while leveraging state power to counteract its negative social effects and ensure the social security of the people - in favour of some idea that it’s actually just a set of basic institutions that were invented one to two hundred years ago that don’t need any kind of updating outside of just the bare minimum of maintenance, and… well, you end up with states that run relatively well but increasingly keep creaking at the seams, everything increasingly underfunded, with politicians who seem convinced they can’t actually do anything apart from tinkering at the edges.
This breeds discontent and political distrust. And in such conditions, it doesn’t really matter if the vast majority would want us to support good causes abroad, people will still be angry about it because it feels like they are getting stepped on in favour of someone else. They couldn’t tell you exactly why they feel that way, so they grab on to the nearest idea - cognitively speaking - that they can spin an understandable narrative about. Immigrants is the obvious one. Political elites playing their games the obvious next one. Then comes the common misunderstandings about economics, especially where inflation is relevant.
Basically our politicians have put themselves in a corner they are unequipped to get themselves out of, and everything they do ends up producing backlash one way or another.
-
While your own people can't afford treatment and die of treatable illnesses, weird choice of fight.
-
Weird dichotomy, when there's more than enough wealth to take care of both, if it were managed sensibly.
-
Pissed at who, though?
Either way, this sentiment ignores the point in the text about war related profits.
-
Yes but how's that relevant to the topic at hand?
Topic of hand is sending all of your (mismanaged or otherwise) wealth overseas while
-
What sentence in this article says who is suggesting this, I can't find it.
-
(the outcome of which is another signal to autocrats eyeing future invasions, for example Taiwan, Tasmania)
Wait, what? What autocrat is eyeing Tasmania?
-
Yes, the rule is up to 4% of annual proceeds can go into the national budget for covering spending. That rule, however, is arbitrary nonsense and only serves to limit the size and scale of investments on the budget.
The actual limiting factor is that the law states that the purpose of the fund is to save for the benefit of future generations.
It sounds to me like 4% is the amount they've guesstimated as being the maximum safe amount that can still fulfill that sustainable spending goal. I might call that "arguable," but I wouldn't call it "arbitrary."
-
It's indirectly referring to the sovereign fund, but (emphasis mine):
"Norway is one of the few countries that has large amounts of money readily available, and we must therefore multiply our support for Ukraine immediately," Liberal Party leader Guri Melby said on Saturday.
Norway's support should be increased "significantly" and "fast", Norway's former Conservative prime minister, Erna Solberg, said in a statement. "The government can safely assume there is will in Parliament to give more," she added.
The leader of the Greens, who are currently polling at 2.7%, reiterated their proposal that Norway should pledge €85.5 billion to Ukraine.
-
On this episode of false dichotomy...
