On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:22:37 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:18:09 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:01:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/13/18 10:52 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:50:54 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/13/18 4:42 PM, Bill wrote:

And why are you opposed to social security funds in the stock market?


My recollection is that the private wall street banksters were lobbying
to "invest" those funds and earn their profit off it. Norges Bank
belongs to the people of Norway.

Norway invests all over the world in all sorts of things, Those
investments return real capital gains. The SS/MC funds are not really
invested in anything. There are just IOUs in the box and the
government spent the money on things that do not generate any income
for the government. They chalk up phony interest payments but some of
the money has to be borrowed from someone else when they actually have
to pay people the benefits they promise.


I suppose I should explain in pidgin English. I am not opposed to
investing. I oppose using the banksters in the USA to handle those
investments on behalf of our citizenry.

You didn't explain anything. Are you really saying you would rather
have politicians and bureaucrats handling your money than trained
money managers?

Well sure, as long as they're *Democrat* politicians and bureaucrats.

Yeah that is what I am talking about. FDR is the one who decided to
make it OK for the government to spend the SS surplus and put an IOU
in the jar, to hide the cost of Lend Lease. LBJ put the whole program
"on Budget" so it just became part of the general revenue to hide the
cost of his war.
Yeah we can always trust the democrats but the republicans are not any
better. They are the ones who say we can't raise the FICA tax to cover
the SS/MC deficits so it has just become another welfare program,
living on borrowed money. If the kids actually understood the real
cost of these programs they would throw momma from the train.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:18:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 6/14/2018 12:11 PM, True North wrote:
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki:

In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued
at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per capita), which
is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign
wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all listed
shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded shares in
the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment offices in
London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007 allow the
fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40%
prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate. As the
stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to buy more
shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the market
turmoil was recuperated by November 2009.

Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as Russia,
are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The
investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical
guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies
that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent
investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The future
size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to
developments in international financial markets.

In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil company
Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier, Telenor,
was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant
shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since
2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to
levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007: 1.3%). The
international financial crisis has primarily affected the industrial
sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000
people) in August 2011.

Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its mineral
production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological Survey
data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone),
building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and nickel.

Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in value,
after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of Norway's
electric power, more than any other country in the world.

Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure their future.

I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension
fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the money
and putting IOUs in the box. They are not dipping into the general
fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners.
Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they should
doing that themselves, not sponging off of us.


And, once again, without our international commitments, there would be
more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets.

So why don't we? I would start with Europe.

A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or not.



It would be interesting for historians to speculate on what the
planet would be like today if the USA (and Canada) had completely
followed a "we'll mind are own business" policy since the end of WWII.


How about since prior to WWI?

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:11:41 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:

On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki:

In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued
at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per capita), which
is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign
wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all listed
shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded shares in
the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment offices in
London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007 allow the
fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40%
prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate. As the
stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to buy more
shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the market
turmoil was recuperated by November 2009.

Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as Russia,
are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The
investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical
guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies
that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent
investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The future
size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to
developments in international financial markets.

In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil company
Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier, Telenor,
was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant
shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since
2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to
levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007: 1.3%). The
international financial crisis has primarily affected the industrial
sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000
people) in August 2011.

Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its mineral
production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological Survey
data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone),
building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and nickel.

Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in value,
after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of Norway's
electric power, more than any other country in the world.

Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure their future.

I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension
fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the money
and putting IOUs in the box. They are not dipping into the general
fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners.
Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they should
doing that themselves, not sponging off of us.


And, once again, without our international commitments, there would be
more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets.

So why don't we? I would start with Europe.

A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or not.

Apparently, the 30,000 Canadians who fought in Vietnam felt otherwise. The point is, if Norway is so
financially astute, why do they seek the NATO umbrella and not pay their fair share.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:20:37 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:22:37 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:18:09 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:01:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/13/18 10:52 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:50:54 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/13/18 4:42 PM, Bill wrote:

And why are you opposed to social security funds in the stock market?


My recollection is that the private wall street banksters were lobbying
to "invest" those funds and earn their profit off it. Norges Bank
belongs to the people of Norway.

Norway invests all over the world in all sorts of things, Those
investments return real capital gains. The SS/MC funds are not really
invested in anything. There are just IOUs in the box and the
government spent the money on things that do not generate any income
for the government. They chalk up phony interest payments but some of
the money has to be borrowed from someone else when they actually have
to pay people the benefits they promise.


I suppose I should explain in pidgin English. I am not opposed to
investing. I oppose using the banksters in the USA to handle those
investments on behalf of our citizenry.

You didn't explain anything. Are you really saying you would rather
have politicians and bureaucrats handling your money than trained
money managers?

Well sure, as long as they're *Democrat* politicians and bureaucrats.

Yeah that is what I am talking about. FDR is the one who decided to
make it OK for the government to spend the SS surplus and put an IOU
in the jar, to hide the cost of Lend Lease. LBJ put the whole program
"on Budget" so it just became part of the general revenue to hide the
cost of his war.
Yeah we can always trust the democrats but the republicans are not any
better. They are the ones who say we can't raise the FICA tax to cover
the SS/MC deficits so it has just become another welfare program,
living on borrowed money. If the kids actually understood the real
cost of these programs they would throw momma from the train.

The question was who would Harry trust.

John H

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:11:41 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:Â*

On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 Â*Â*wrote:Â*

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze Â*
wrote:Â*
Â*
On 6/13/18 10:37 Â*wrote:Â*
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze Â*

- show quoted text -

"Apparently, the 30,000 Canadians who fought in Vietnam felt otherwise. The point is, if Norway is soÂ*
financially astute, why do they seek the NATO umbrella and not pay their fair share."Â*



I just wonder how many Americans would be gung ho about military spending if their taxes were raised to fully pay for it?

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:17:21 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:

John H

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:11:41 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:*

On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 **wrote:*

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze *
wrote:*
*
On 6/13/18 10:37 *wrote:*
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze *

- show quoted text -

"Apparently, the 30,000 Canadians who fought in Vietnam felt otherwise. The point is, if Norway is so*
financially astute, why do they seek the NATO umbrella and not pay their fair share."*



I just wonder how many Americans would be gung ho about military spending if their taxes were raised to fully pay for it?

Pay for *our* defense, or pay for NATO? Why should we pay more than our fair share foe NATO?

Who do you think pays for our military spending?

On 6/14/2018 1:05 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:18:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 6/14/2018 12:11 PM, True North wrote:
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki:

In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued
at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per capita), which
is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign
wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all listed
shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded shares in
the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment offices in
London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007 allow the
fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40%
prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate. As the
stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to buy more
shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the market
turmoil was recuperated by November 2009.

Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as Russia,
are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The
investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical
guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies
that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent
investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The future
size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to
developments in international financial markets.

In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil company
Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier, Telenor,
was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant
shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since
2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to
levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007: 1.3%). The
international financial crisis has primarily affected the industrial
sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000
people) in August 2011.

Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its mineral
production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological Survey
data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone),
building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and nickel.

Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in value,
after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of Norway's
electric power, more than any other country in the world.

Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure their future.

I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension
fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the money
and putting IOUs in the box. They are not dipping into the general
fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners.
Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they should
doing that themselves, not sponging off of us.


And, once again, without our international commitments, there would be
more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets.

So why don't we? I would start with Europe.

A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or not.



It would be interesting for historians to speculate on what the
planet would be like today if the USA (and Canada) had completely
followed a "we'll mind are own business" policy since the end of WWII.


How about since prior to WWI?



True but the USA really didn't emerge as a "Superpower" until after WWII.

The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes
I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made
by Russia.

On 6/14/18 1:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/14/2018 1:05 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:18:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/14/2018 12:11 PM, True North wrote:
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, Â* wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki:

In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets
were valued
at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per
capita), which
is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign
wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all
listed
shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded
shares in
the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment
offices in
London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007
allow the
fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40%
prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate.
As the
stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to
buy more
shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the
market
turmoil was recuperated by November 2009.

Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as
Russia,
are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The
investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical
guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in
companies
that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent
investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The
future
size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to
developments in international financial markets.

In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil
company
Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier,
Telenor,
was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant
shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since
2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to
levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007:
1.3%). The
international financial crisis has primarily affected the
industrial
sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000
people) in August 2011.

Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its
mineral
production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological
Survey
data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate
(limestone),
building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and
nickel.

Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in
value,
after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of
Norway's
electric power, more than any other country in the world.

Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure
their future.

I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension
fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the
money
and putting IOUs in the box.Â* They are not dipping into the general
fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners.
Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they
should
doing that themselves, not sponging off of us.


And, once again, without our international commitments, there
would be
more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets.

So why don't we? I would start with Europe.

A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is
sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a
good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested
or not.



It would be interesting for historians to speculate on what the
planet would be like today if the USA (and Canada) had completely
followed a "we'll mind are own business" policy since the end of WWII.


How about since prior to WWI?



True but the USA really didn't emerge as a "Superpower" until after WWII.

The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes
I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made
by Russia.

Wasn't it wonderful for the Soviets to sign a treaty with the Nazis, who
then abrogated it and invaded Russia, giving the Soviets the ability to
fight back and then overrun a huge percentage of Europe and impose
itself over kazillions of people and cause us to waste trillions of
dollars on the Cold War? Yep, tremendous contributions. So, have you
signed up for the Trump-Putin Fan Club?

I know it isn't fashionable for you Trumpsters to remember this, but
Russia ain't our good buddy.

On 6/14/2018 1:49 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/14/18 1:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/14/2018 1:05 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:18:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/14/2018 12:11 PM, True North wrote:
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, Â* wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki:

In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets
were valued
at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per
capita), which
is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign
wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all
listed
shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded
shares in
the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment
offices in
London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007
allow the
fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40%
prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate.
As the
stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to
buy more
shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the
market
turmoil was recuperated by November 2009.

Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such
as Russia,
are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The
investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical
guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in
companies
that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly
transparent
investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The
future
size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to
developments in international financial markets.

In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil
company
Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier,
Telenor,
was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant
shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS.
Since
2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to
levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007:
1.3%). The
international financial crisis has primarily affected the
industrial
sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000
people) in August 2011.

Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its
mineral
production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological
Survey
data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate
(limestone),
building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and
nickel.

Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in
value,
after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of
Norway's
electric power, more than any other country in the world.

Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure
their future.

I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension
fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the
money
and putting IOUs in the box.Â* They are not dipping into the general
fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners.
Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they
should
doing that themselves, not sponging off of us.


And, once again, without our international commitments, there
would be
more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets.

So why don't we? I would start with Europe.

A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is
sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a
good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested
or not.



It would be interesting for historians to speculate on what the
planet would be like today if the USA (and Canada) had completely
followed a "we'll mind are own business" policy since the end of WWII.


How about since prior to WWI?



True but the USA really didn't emerge as a "Superpower" until after WWII.

The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes
I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made
by Russia.

Wasn't it wonderful for the Soviets to sign a treaty with the Nazis, who
then abrogated it and invaded Russia, giving the Soviets the ability to
fight back and then overrun a huge percentage of Europe and impose
itself over kazillions of people and cause us to waste trillions of
dollars on the Cold War? Yep, tremendous contributions. So, have you
signed up for the Trump-Putin Fan Club?

I know it isn't fashionable for you Trumpsters to remember this, but
Russia ain't our good buddy.


Holy Crap. Now, because I point out that Russia played a major role
in the defeat of Nazi Germany in WWII (which is historically correct)
I am now a member of the Putin Fan Club?

Something wrong with your head Harry.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:37:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 6/14/2018 1:05 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:18:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 6/14/2018 12:11 PM, True North wrote:
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki:

In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued
at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per capita), which
is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign
wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all listed
shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded shares in
the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment offices in
London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007 allow the
fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40%
prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate. As the
stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to buy more
shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the market
turmoil was recuperated by November 2009.

Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as Russia,
are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The
investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical
guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies
that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent
investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The future
size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to
developments in international financial markets.

In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil company
Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier, Telenor,
was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant
shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since
2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to
levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007: 1.3%). The
international financial crisis has primarily affected the industrial
sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000
people) in August 2011.

Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its mineral
production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological Survey
data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone),
building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and nickel.

Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in value,
after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of Norway's
electric power, more than any other country in the world.

Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure their future.

I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension
fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the money
and putting IOUs in the box. They are not dipping into the general
fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners.
Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they should
doing that themselves, not sponging off of us.


And, once again, without our international commitments, there would be
more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets.

So why don't we? I would start with Europe.

A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or not.



It would be interesting for historians to speculate on what the
planet would be like today if the USA (and Canada) had completely
followed a "we'll mind are own business" policy since the end of WWII.


How about since prior to WWI?



True but the USA really didn't emerge as a "Superpower" until after WWII.

The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes
I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made
by Russia.

'World War II in Color' does a good job of showing the Russian contribution.