Support NeoGAF

[ultratruman]

So the question isn't whether we need Trident for war, it is pretty obvious we don't. The question is whether we want to maintain our global influence and for me £3bn per year is a pretty small price for the amount of influence our permanent UNSC seat and veto gives us.

We have our permanent UN security council seat because of our victory in WW2, giving up the bomb would not lose our seat.

"Britain cannot lose its permanent seat without agreeing to do so … Linking possession of nuclear weapons as a sine qua non of holding security council permanent membership is both historically inaccurate and deeply unhelpful in the fight against nuclear proliferation … notions of national status have governed UK nuclear weapons policy. This is strategically myopic."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/05/trident-nuclear-deterrent-upgrade

Here is a nice video on the subject, with former a UK ambassador to the UN agreeing the UK would not lose its UNSC status: https://youtu.be/O_rfKcCIPZk

Sorry about the late reply, I'm catching up with this thread.

 

[Par Score]

The lowest threshold for Inheritance Tax should be £500k. £250k is basically anyone who owns any kind of property in a city or semi-prosperous area. And 100% tax rates? :lol, good one mate. Nice joke.

Do you realise just how few people either of those things would affect? Only ~20% of people leave more than £250k, and I'm not going to start crying over hitting the top two deciles with a little extra tax. Especially since they'll be dead.

And why does anyone need to leave more than a few million, or inherit more than a few million for that matter? This would affect a vanishingly small number of the super, super rich, to the huge benefit of the rest of us.

The main effect of both of these policies would actually be to put a cooler on the ridiculousness of the housing market, which should really be fixed supply-side, but a little squeeze on demand at the top end wouldn't hurt.

A pretty good article that elaborates on this position: https://medium.com/@AbiWilks/it-s-inheritance-that-is-immoral-not-inheritance-tax-33ff91791f03

 

[JonathanEx]

What's all this fuss about another bloody 100 person letter, as if it matters. I could probably get 100 people to agree with any old shit and it wouldn't be on the front page.

Meanwhile:

Cameron going for the Susan Boyle, he dreamed a dream of times gone by....

 

[Deleted member 231381]

We have our permanent UN security council seat because of our victory in WW2, giving up the bomb would not lose our seat.



http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/05/trident-nuclear-deterrent-upgrade

Here is a nice video on the subject, with former a UK ambassador to the UN agreeing the UK would not lose its UNSC status: https://youtu.be/O_rfKcCIPZk

Sorry about the late reply, I'm catching up with this thread.

I mean, this is true in that this is supposedly how the UN would operate even if we did get rid of them, but the UN is fairly malleable institution. It continues to have strength only so long as the strongest countries in the world see a reason to persist with it. In 2045, India will have a larger population than the United Kingdom, a larger economy than the United Kingdom, a larger army than the United Kingdom, and potentially more nuclear weapons than the United Kingdom.

At that point, India will probably feel it has a reasonable claim to have a stronger involvement in global security issues than the UK does. Many other countries in similar positions, like Brazil, will probably agree. At this point, if the UK has no nukes, how on earth do we justify the fact we have a permanent security council seat and they do not? "We were the victors in a war that ended a hundred years ago when you were still a colony of our empire, therefore we should have a permanent seat" is not very convincing. It would be diplomatically very difficult to find continued support for our position from the strong countries that the United Nations requires and is ultimately determined by. "We have a fuckton of the most devastating weapons on the planet, therefore we should have a permanent seat" is somewhat more compelling.

 

[nib95]

Wow at Osbornes car crash interview this morning. Andrew Marr actually took it too him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VbZ_khbkFs

Yes I know it's a labour supporting uploader but it's the only one I could find.

That was pretty amusing.

 

[kmag]

YouGov/Sun poll tonight – Labour lead by three: CON 33%, LAB 36%, LD 7%, UKIP 13%, GRN 5%

From looking at the polls for the last 7 days, it's likely that Labour are currently just a smidge ahead (1% or 2%) but fundamentally we're three weeks in and nothing has really moved.

 

[JonathanEx]

YouGov/Sun poll tonight – Labour lead by three: CON 33%, LAB 36%, LD 7%, UKIP 13%, GRN 5%

From looking at the polls for the last 7 days, it's likely that Labour are currently just a smidge ahead (1% or 2%) but fundamentally we're three weeks in and nothing has really moved.

Unless we have a serious fuckup, it's not going to move at all, is it?

 

[Yen]

What's all this fuss about another bloody 100 person letter, as if it matters. I could probably get 100 people to agree with any old shit and it wouldn't be on the front page.

The fallacy of composition.

 

[Dan1984uk]

Unless we have a serious fuckup, it's not going to move at all, is it?

I think the tories could still win but it is to close to call really.

 

[kmag]

Unless we have a serious fuckup, it's not going to move at all, is it?

Probably not. Kellner is still wittering on about swingback to the Tories but saying it'll now be in the order of 1%-2% instead of the 5% he was predicting. Of course, like Linton, Kellner has been talking about swingback occurring at various points throughout the last year without it ever happening.

Unless there's the polls are fundamentally wrong or a large wedge of folk change their mind in the polling booth I don't see anything other than a hung parliament with one of the big two slightly ahead of the rest.

 

[JonathanEx]

I think the tories could still win but it is to close to call really.

Out of interest, are you seeing that as a Tory majority or minority?

 

[Jezbollah]

PSA: Labour's manifesto comes out tomorrow. I'll post a link to it when I see it.

Should make for some interesting reading.

 

[Dan1984uk]

Out of interest, are you seeing that as a Tory majority or minority?

I would say minority.

 

[nib95]

The fallacy of composition.

Pretty interesting article and viewpoint.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

YouGov/Sun poll tonight – Labour lead by three: CON 33%, LAB 36%, LD 7%, UKIP 13%, GRN 5%

From looking at the polls for the last 7 days, it's likely that Labour are currently just a smidge ahead (1% or 2%) but fundamentally we're three weeks in and nothing has really moved.

I would disagree with that. You're probably not going to see massive overnight changes, but over the last three weeks there has been a noticeable slight increase in the Labour lead replicated across multiple pollsters. It's gone from Labour being oh-so-marginally ahead to having carved out what is looking like even a 2% lead. A 2% lead would be significant; that gives Labour a 20 seat lead on the Conservatives.

 

[Kysen]

If Labour gets in we are back to square one. More debt inc and something about Ed is just off. Why are the election choices so damn bad. We have to choose between:

- bad (what we have now)
- worse (Labour)
- terrible (Lib dems)
- rest not worth mentioning.

 

[RedShift]

If Labour gets in we are back to square one. More debt inc and something about Ed is just off. Why are the election choices so damn bad. We have to choose between:

- bad (what we have now)
- worse (Labour)
- terrible (Lib dems)
- rest not worth mentioning.

Well I'm convinced.

 

[Yen]

If Labour gets in we are back to square one. More debt inc and something about Ed is just off. Why are the election choices so damn bad. We have to choose between:

- bad (what we have now)
- worse (Labour)
- terrible (Lib dems)
- rest not worth mentioning.

Labour are putting reducing the deficit front and centre of their manifesto, they're cutting spending and raising taxes, I think they have the fabled 'economic credibility'. Definitely think Milliband is the better of the two Eds _ the focus on image this election cycle had been awful and rather American.

 

[kharma45]

The fallacy of composition.

Plugging a QUB article yeo.

Edit - oh Keith Jeffrey from queens has an article on there. My girlfriend will be delighted.

 

[Goodlife]

If Labour gets in we are back to square one. More debt inc

Sigh.

I don't want to say it doesn't matter.... clearly it does, if we were going crazy and continued to go crazy we'd have got ourselves into problems.

But, the whole "cutting due to not wanting to burden our grandchildren with debt" etc thing is fucking bullshit, just ideological driven changes by the Tories who want a smaller state and are using this "nations credit card" thing to excuse it.

Fuck it, I'll say it "IT DOESN'T MATTER"

And it hasn't worked. They've "piled on" the debt.... unsurprisingly if you cut public spending when your economy is in recession, or during the early phases of recovery, the tax take will drop and you'll end up borrowing more anyway.... who'd have thought it...

 

[CyclopsRock]

Definitely think Milliband is the better of the two Eds.

Tbf that's like saying you prefer Ian Huntley to Peter Sutcliffe.

 

[Yen]

Tbf that's like saying you prefer Ian Huntley to Peter Sutcliffe.

Basically. I'm aware my slogan of 'vote labour cos they're the less of two evils and milliband is the less of two evils within labour' is the least inspiring reason to vote for them but it might be all they have.

 

[Chittagong]

It's sad to see our employees frothing excitement about labours populist promises to make a 'fairer' system by abolishing non-dom status and other tax breaks meant to incentivise capital and investment in London. In our case it quite literally would mean that London would become an unattractive city for us to employ people or to live in. We would shut our UK branch and fire them all. But hey, they would enjoy a fairer system wooo

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

It's sad to see our employees frothing excitement about labours populist promises to make a 'fairer' system by abolishing non-dom status and other tax breaks meant to incentivise capital and investment in London. In our case it quite literally would mean that London would become an unattractive city for us to employ people or to live in. We would shut our UK branch and fire them all. But hey, they would enjoy a fairer system wooo

Pure hyperbole.

You're going to pull out of London because you don't get a special tax arrangement on overseas earnings for individuals? Nonsense. London is about more than Non-Doms, and they are not the reason why businesses set up there.

 

[King_Moc]

It's sad to see our employees frothing excitement about labours populist promises to make a 'fairer' system by abolishing non-dom status and other tax breaks meant to incentivise capital and investment in London. In our case it quite literally would mean that London would become an unattractive city for us to employ people or to live in. We would shut our UK branch and fire them all. But hey, they would enjoy a fairer system wooo

Good. A UK company can step in and fill the hole. Take some bankers with you when you leave, please.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Pure hyperbole.

You're going to pull out of London because you don't get a special tax arrangement on overseas earnings for individuals? Nonsense. London is about more than Non-Doms, and they are not the reason why businesses set up there.

Without knowing what the company he works for does, it may well be why Chittagong's business set up there.

 

[Walshicus]

It's sad to see our employees frothing excitement about labours populist promises to make a 'fairer' system by abolishing non-dom status and other tax breaks meant to incentivise capital and investment in London. In our case it quite literally would mean that London would become an unattractive city for us to employ people or to live in. We would shut our UK branch and fire them all. But hey, they would enjoy a fairer system wooo

Hey, fewer parasites shitting up London though.

 

[tomtom94]

Re: the polls, both the polls of polls (may2015 and the Beeb) I saw today had Labour 1.5 or so points ahead which seems consistent with what we're seeing.

BBC appear to have got their hands on Labour's manifesto. Big headline:

Labour is to "guarantee" that each of its policies will be fully funded and require no "additional borrowing", as it launches its manifesto on Monday.

Pre-announced stuff is as expected:

A £2.5bn fund for the NHS paid for largely by a mansion tax on properties valued at over £2m
Twenty-five hours of childcare for working parents of three and four-year olds, paid for by increasing the banking levy by £800m
Freezing gas and electricity bills until 2017, so they can only fall not rise
Banning zero-hour contracts and raising the minimum wage to £8
Scrapping winter fuel payments for the richest pensioners, capping child benefit rises and cutting ministers' pay by five per cent
A 50p tax rate on incomes over £150,000 a year and abolishing non-dom status

I think the BBC analyst hit the nail on the head:

It looks like a political role reversal. While the Conservatives are promising more cash for the NHS - without detailed costings - Labour is putting fiscal responsibility on the very first page of its manifesto.

 

[pulsemyne]

Labour seem determined to say "Here is what we are going to do and this is how we are going to afford it" Tories meanwhile are saying "Here's what we are going to do, fuck knows how though so it's probably not going to happen". Makes you wonder which is the party in power and which isn't. It's utterly clueless from the cons. They should be the ones with costs all worked out as they have access to the government books.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Labour seem determined to say "Here is what we are going to do and this is how we are going to afford it" Tories meanwhile are saying "Here's what we are going to do, fuck knows how though so it's probably not going to happen". Makes you wonder which is the party in power and which isn't. It's utterly clueless from the cons. They should be the ones with costs all worked out as they have access to the government books.

They're hopeless. They honestly believed that they were going to walk this.

 

[pulsemyne]

It's sad to see our employees frothing excitement about labours populist promises to make a 'fairer' system by abolishing non-dom status and other tax breaks meant to incentivise capital and investment in London. In our case it quite literally would mean that London would become an unattractive city for us to employ people or to live in. We would shut our UK branch and fire them all. But hey, they would enjoy a fairer system wooo

What a load of crap. No one in their right mind is going to walk away from the city of london. There's truckloads of money sloshing through that place. Even if non doms are abolished etc, no one is going to walk away from one of the worlds biggest financial centers.
Even if they do someone will take their place. They always do. If your not offering people a product they want or need then someone else can and will.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

It's sad to see our employees frothing excitement about labours populist promises to make a 'fairer' system by abolishing non-dom status and other tax breaks meant to incentivise capital and investment in London. In our case it quite literally would mean that London would become an unattractive city for us to employ people or to live in. We would shut our UK branch and fire them all. But hey, they would enjoy a fairer system wooo

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I sincerely doubt you'll shutdown your UK branch, but thanks for the laugh.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[ultratruman]

I mean, this is true in that this is supposedly how the UN would operate even if we did get rid of them, but the UN is fairly malleable institution. It continues to have strength only so long as the strongest countries in the world see a reason to persist with it. In 2045, India will have a larger population than the United Kingdom, a larger economy than the United Kingdom, a larger army than the United Kingdom, and potentially more nuclear weapons than the United Kingdom.

At that point, India will probably feel it has a reasonable claim to have a stronger involvement in global security issues than the UK does. Many other countries in similar positions, like Brazil, will probably agree. At this point, if the UK has no nukes, how on earth do we justify the fact we have a permanent security council seat and they do not? "We were the victors in a war that ended a hundred years ago when you were still a colony of our empire, therefore we should have a permanent seat" is not very convincing. It would be diplomatically very difficult to find continued support for our position from the strong countries that the United Nations requires and is ultimately determined by. "We have a fuckton of the most devastating weapons on the planet, therefore we should have a permanent seat" is somewhat more compelling.

Why wait until 2045? The UN security council is already one of the most baffling, anachronistic features of modern geopolitics. Restricting membership to the 4 countries who won WW2 (i suppose France counts) and the country with 1/4 of the planets population and saying Germany, Japan, Brazil etc are not eligible is just absurd in 2015.

However, when you say the UN is malleable, this doesn't really apply to the UNSC. Numerous people have tried to change the way the security council functions (Kofi Annan among them), yet each attempt has failed precisely because current members don't want to dilute their influence and generally can't agree on what form the changes should have anyway.

 

[Omikaru]

I don't even get this "Tories are good stewards of economy" thing. It's a myth. If I remember correctly, they have accrued more debt in five years than every Labour government in history.

Plus they sell all our assets off to their mates, which is bad enough, but they also do it at rock bottom prices so we're not even getting anything good out of it. Meanwhile, the newly privatised public services plummet in quality and rack up huge profits (and if they don't, the country has to pick up the pieces before it's sold on again).

A complete fucking farce.

And don't even get me started on their policies outside of economics, like the ideological vandalism of the education system, disgusting mismanagement of the NHS, and getting their mates in the press to vilify the defenceless (the poor, the disabled) so they can take a massive policy shit all over them and have large swaths of the voting public not even bat an eyelid.

People have, quite literally, died due to policies of this government. That ~30% of the electorate wants to vote for these cowboys is staggering.

 

[Chittagong]

Hey, fewer parasites shitting up London though.

Pretty much all the non-doms I know paid last year UK income tax for their UK originated earnings, with just taxes amounting to five to ten times the average UK salary, and did not even use the (admittedly fantastic) NHS services for it. So yeah, parasites shitting up London.

The thing is, UK government has massively incentivised bringing overseas capital to UK. As long as you invest in an UK company, you can remit overseas earnings under a relief. Which makes UK the most attractive market to invest in currently. After the removal of the reliefs UK is on par with any other market, and I am not sure I'd bet on the competitiveness of UK labor on its own merits. But then again, that would be fair too.

 

[The Cowboy]

And don't even get me started on their policies outside of economics, like the ideological vandalism of the education system, disgusting mismanagement of the NHS, and getting their mates in the press to vilify the defenceless (the poor, the disabled) so they can take a massive policy shit all over them and have large swaths of the voting public not even bat an eyelid.

People have, quite literally, died due to policies of this government. That ~30% of the electorate wants to vote for these cowboys is staggering.

Well said.

People have killed themselves due to stress over loosing their homes because of the bedroom tax, people have starved to death due to the benefit sanction system, food bank usage went crazy and went from 128k using them in 2011/12 to 913k using them in 2013/14 (over a 7x increase). I mean think about this stat, in 2013/14 there was 330,205 children having to be fed by food banks and in 2011/12 there was 128,697 people TOTAL (46,018 children) having to be fed by food banks.- and hardly anyone seems to give a crap about this, its not only mind boggling: its bloody horrifying.

The current leadership should be ashamed of themselves

 

[King_Moc]

Well said, people have killed themselves due to stress over loosing their homes because of the bedroom tax, people have starved to death due to the benefit sanction system, food bank usage went crazy and went from 128k using them in 2011/12 to 913k using them in 2013/14, i mean think about this stat: in 2013/14 there was 330,205 children having to be feed by food banks and in 2011/12 there was 128,697 people TOTAL (46,018 children) using food banks.- and hardly anyone seems to give a crap about this - its not only mind boggling, its bloody horrifying.

The current leadership should be ashamed of themselves.

I can guarantee you they dont give a single damn.

 

[f0rk]

How arbitrary some of Labour's more populist policies are is quite frustrating.

How did they decide to cut the tuition fee cap to 6k, surely if they think the Tories rise was so unfair they should put it right back down to either free or 3k? And that's ignoring how it actually benefits the middle classes more, or how Universities will cover the gap.

Where does 5% off of ministers pay come from? It doesn't save a significant amount and an independent commission suggested raising it (which sounds like a better idea if they at the same time reduce expenses). It's not common sense it's just very reactionary.

Fair play if they do properly lay out where all the cuts come from. Although hopefully they go into more detail than 'largely funded by' when estimates say 'largely' looks to equate for just half.

 

[King_Moc]

How arbitrary some of Labour's more populist policies are is quite frustrating.

How did they decide to cut the tuition fee cap to 6k, surely if they think the Tories rise was so unfair they should put it right back down to either free or 3k? And that's ignoring how it actually benefits the middle classes more, or how Universities will cover the gap.

Where does 5% off of ministers pay come from? It doesn't save a significant amount and an independent commission suggested raising it (which sounds like a better idea if they at the same time reduce expenses). It's not common sense it's just very reactionary.

Fair play if they do properly lay out where all the cuts come from. Although hopefully they go into more detail than 'largely funded by' when estimates say 'largely' looks to equate for just half.

I'm guessing a lot of the tuition fee money has been budgeted for elsewhere, making it difficult to cut more? There's also the problem of giving useless degrees to so many people costing quite a lot of cash.

The 5% ministerial paycut is just a vote-winner, more than anything that is particularly useful. I suppose they're trying to send the message that they aren't just in the job for financial gain.

 

[kitch9]

Sigh.

I don't want to say it doesn't matter.... clearly it does, if we were going crazy and continued to go crazy we'd have got ourselves into problems.

But, the whole "cutting due to not wanting to burden our grandchildren with debt" etc thing is fucking bullshit, just ideological driven changes by the Tories who want a smaller state and are using this "nations credit card" thing to excuse it.

Fuck it, I'll say it "IT DOESN'T MATTER"

And it hasn't worked. They've "piled on" the debt.... unsurprisingly if you cut public spending when your economy is in recession, or during the early phases of recovery, the tax take will drop and you'll end up borrowing more anyway.... who'd have thought it...

Interest rates at 6%+ would have been worse too.

Spending is a small piece of the puzzle.

 

[benjipwns]

Sigh.

Puny mother country.

 

[kitch9]

I don't even get this "Tories are good stewards of economy" thing. It's a myth. If I remember correctly, they have accrued more debt in five years than every Labour government in history.

Plus they sell all our assets off to their mates, which is bad enough, but they also do it at rock bottom prices so we're not even getting anything good out of it. Meanwhile, the newly privatised public services plummet in quality and rack up huge profits (and if they don't, the country has to pick up the pieces before it's sold on again).

A complete fucking farce.

And don't even get me started on their policies outside of economics, like the ideological vandalism of the education system, disgusting mismanagement of the NHS, and getting their mates in the press to vilify the defenceless (the poor, the disabled) so they can take a massive policy shit all over them and have large swaths of the voting public not even bat an eyelid.

People have, quite literally, died due to policies of this government. That ~30% of the electorate wants to vote for these cowboys is staggering.

People died under Labour, a lot of people. Saying that suicide rates don't to seem to have risen that much. (The overall trend over the last 20 years is actually a slight reduction.) Less women kill themselves these days but more men. For every person who had a free spare room to keep their crap in there were a dozen families waiting for a house who couldn't get one. I'm not sure what happened was the correct way of going about it but something needed to be done and the attitude of a council house for life needed changing. There's a guy who works for me who is paid well and has been for the last 10 years, his wife works and he refuses to give up his council house because he knows that he won't get another and it's cheap. Most of the tenants on his estate have the same attitude. My work sees me on a lot of council estates across the UK so I have probably a different picture about this subject than most.

With regards foodbanks most of the research I have seen is people citing temporary reasons for using them, such as delayed benefits payments. Not an ideal scenario, clearly, but not the picture of long term misery you appear to paint.

I know it's tempting to use hyperbole to get your point across, I do it myself but I don't feel things are quite as bad as you say. Things are certainly much better now than they were a few years back.

Maybe one day we'll get a government who can maintain a decent level of spending whilst saving a few quid for when the bad times hit but alas I think they will manage to delude themselves that they have fixed the boom and bust problem again and do the same cycle of spending like crazy in a boom and scraping round the empty petty cash tin in the inevitable bust.

 

[CyclopsRock]

People killing themselves if tragic but it says nothing about the quality or effectiveness of the legislation in question IMO.

 

[Maledict]

No democratic government will ever be able to implement Keynsian policies properly. The idea of saving and cutting when times are good, and spending when times are rough, is both contradictory to how people think (wrongly!) but also self-defeating for governments that want to be re-elected.

No party, or any persuasion, is able to look at a growing prosperous economy and all those tax receipts and decide to actually cut services instead of splashing out on whatever ideological party bribe your party is in favour of (tax cuts or service improvements).

It's unfortunately a flaw in how our democracies work, they aren't capable of that long term planning.

 

[kmag]

No democratic government will ever be able to implement Keynsian policies properly. The idea of saving and cutting when times are good, and spending when times are rough, is both contradictory to how people think (wrongly!) but also self-defeating for governments that want to be re-elected.

No party, or any persuasion, is able to look at a growing prosperous economy and all those tax receipts and decide to actually cut services instead of splashing out on whatever ideological party bribe your party is in favour of (tax cuts or service improvements).

It's unfortunately a flaw in how our democracies work, they aren't capable of that long term planning.

Norway manages it. Their response to the economic crisis was classic Keynes.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Somebody bought Grant Shapps/Michael Green/Sebastien Fox's old domain.

The results are marvelous.

The Chairman of the Conservative Party, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm very curious as to how actual Tories are feeling about how their party has went about this campaign. Surely you're all raging?

 

[PJV3]

Somebody bought Grant Shapps/Michael Green/Sebastien Fox's old domain.

The results are marvelous.

The Chairman of the Conservative Party, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm very curious as to how actual Tories are feeling about how their party has went about this campaign. Surely you're all raging?

What he did to his constituent is much worse than his stupid lying, an MP fucking over a voter like that should be a straight firing.

 

[Maledict]

Norway manages it. Their response to the economic crisis was classic Keynes.

It's not the response to the crisis that's the issue - despite all the difficulties, that's actually the easy part. It's the 'saving and cutting in times of plenty' that is really, really hard to do.

Norway is in a better positions due to its management of the oil fund that say the UK, that spent the money on tax cuts, but even they don't implement the other half of Keynsian policy fully.

 

[kmag]

It's not the response to the crisis that's the issue - despite all the difficulties, that's actually the easy part. It's the 'saving and cutting in times of plenty' that is really, really hard to do.

Norway is in a better positions due to its management of the oil fund that say the UK, that spent the money on tax cuts, but even they don't implement the other half of Keynsian policy fully.

Norway's oil fund is also Keynesian. I mean they could have reacted to the "burden" of having oil by squandering the peak years on massive unemployment payments while selling off anything which wasn't nailed down to their cronies...

 

[industrian]

Norway's oil fund is also Keynesian. I mean they could have reacted to the "burden" of having oil by squandering the peak years on massive unemployment payments while selling off anything which wasn't nailed down to their cronies...

Too soon. :/