Why Norway Became Rich From Oil But The UK Lost Out
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 12. 2023
- Both Norway and the UK struck gold with oil and gas discoveries from the early 1970s. But, both had different approaches on how to deal with the oil dividend.
► Please subscribe! / economicshelp1
About
► www.economicshelp.org was founded in 2006 by Tejvan Pettinger, who studied PPE at Oxford University and teaches economics. He has published several economics books, including:
► Cracking Economics. www.economicshelp.org/shop/cr...
► What Would Keynes Do? Amazon amzn.to/2xShqq4
Text version, with some additional detail and sources. I added note about Norway having greater oil per capita, which I meant to mention in video. www.economicshelp.org/blog/214768/economics/norway-uk-oil/
The people of Norway saw very little oil benefit as individuals.
It was put by for the greater good and for future generations.
The Milk Snatcher gave away most of the oil money by lowering high rate of income tax.
So the average person got no benefit. Only the wealthy.
@@williampatrickfagan7590SCOTLAND OIL NOT UK OIL😂
@@abcxyz2927 Look at the infrastructure the health service the hospital waiting list.
Then compare with UK and you will have answered your own question.
You get nothing for nothing.
The wealth fund imnNorway will be wound down over time.
Norway also has a far smaller population, so oil per capita would be higher.
@@williampatrickfagan7590 = I've worked in the North Sea Oil business both in the UK & Norway during the late seventies. What I have witnessed is a free market approach in the UK, whereas the Norwegian approach was to use state power (eg. the regulatory & investigative power of the 'Petroleum Directorate') to pressure oil producing companies (and their suppliers of equipment) into disclosing their technology and entering into joint ventures with Norwegian companies.
This has created -from almost zero- a very substantial Norwegian industrial base in offshore oil production and related equipment & services. This industrial base is employing many Norwegians. It is an error to state that offshore oil has not benefitted the ordinary Norwegian.
Great summary! In short, Britain blew through its oil money like a chav lottery winner, while Norway made sensible investments.
Norway has a population less than a tenth of the UK, it's not really a very good comparison. It can meet most of its energy needs from hydro rather than gas.
@@catinthehat906 So, nothing wrong in UK. All well done.
@@hoWa3920 Nope, I'm not saying that but the circumstances between Norway tucked up in far north of Europe with a small population and extremely low population density and a population with relatively little diversity or immigration is very difficult to compare with the UK. The relative value of a sovereign wealth fund per capita in the UK would be very small in comparison to Norway.
@@catinthehat906 Norway's hydroelectric power plants are built on the revenues from North Sea oil and gas.😏
Per capita has nothing to do with investing in a countries future. If it’s given in handouts to the population, then it’s been wasted
As a British person, even though I already knew most of this, this was such a painful watch :,)
I’m on a production platform in the North Sea watching this video. Aberdeen is a city which has benefited the most through oil and gas, yet the city can barely fill in potholes on the streets due to budget cuts after budget cut.. just staggering really, whilst we look over the sea at our neighbours
Telling that the UK parties didn't invest in a bypass for Aberdeen, the oil capital of Europe. Had to wait 45 years until SNP came to power to get one built. Fairly obvious Aberdeen would have suffered same fate as Glasgow shipbuilding if the unionists got their way.
Also the railway to Aberdeen has not been upgraded since before 1935...seems England needed the money more than investing in The North.
Evidence of trickle down economics having any benefit has been scant whereas evidence of the benefits of national investment in infrastructure, education and people is everywhere
Trickle down economics never made any sense and was always a lie sold to the masses to enrich the super rich.
I worked for BritOil in their Glasgow HQ (now home to Santander), the scandalous story of it's privatisation is worthy of a an entire documentary...
Maybe you could do a video on Britoil. A staff insider with connections to other past staff would make good content. Just remember to cite sources and make the content as factual and objective as possible without personal feelings getting in the way.
What about the City Of London and it's tax evasion of the elite, that pushed many normal people to vote brexit with massive propaganda paid by the elite. The UK has extreme corrupt elite, and crazy nobody stands up against that in the UK.
I'm sure any documentary would never be made/shown in the UK.
We need the truth to come out
There is a common issue here with all this content and it was touched on in a recent Economics Explained upload. The issue is this, do our elites (in London) care anymore? I think they have detached themselves from the regular economy and are now transacting amongst themselves. London is now a seperate economy. Our politicians and business leaders see themselves as citizens of the world playing between tax and banking systems. Our democracy is a side show..a career move..a bit of fun..there's no accountability, no action, no meaning. They're not invested in the regular economy. To me this explains why there is no will to reform, no long-term plan, no strategy....NO LOYALTY! "They" are not on the same team..And we need to come to terms with that!!
Well said 👍
Well said indeed.
I’ll just add aided and abetted by the mainstream media.
The Elite that run the UK aren't even in the UK. They're offshore with all their hoarded wealth.
I absolutely agree. Well said.
Amen bro
Great insight. Goes to show what happens when you actually distribute the proceeds of economic growth to the benefit of your population, as opposed to selling off your entire economy to the private sector in a massive fire sale for short term gains at the expense of long term revenues.
What people really need to understand is that privatisation was about individuals in a government selling public assets to themselves and others with money to buy those assets, which, on the whole, was not the public. Moreover, and crucially, due to the plurality voting system, those individuals making those decisions had no mandate to do so: 53% of the seats for 44% of the votes in 1979; 61% of seats for 42% of the vote in 1983; 58% of seats for 42% in 1987; 52% of the seats for 42% of the vote in 1992. Yet still they were allowed to sell off the public's assets for cheap prices to themselves and their overlords.
Agreed. Moreover, and crucially, due to the plurality voting system, those individuals making those decisions to sell had no mandate to do so: 53% of the seats for 44% of the votes in 1979; 61% of seats for 42% of the vote in 1983; 58% of seats for 42% in 1987; 52% of the seats for 42% of the vote in 1992.
The Tories sold it to themselves!!! :-)
NHS and social housing bill has never been bigger
@@TG-ts3xn
Health service being outsourced
into private sector
who are only interested in Profit
Example
How much money was misspent on Cobid PPE On Track n trace? Billions lost.
Take that out of equation and NHS has reduced spending.
Social housing is being outsourced to private landlords who do not give a damm about the people living in slum Coditions at expense of the taxpayer
Build social housing and you will have an asset.
Norway has a better governing system (better ethics politicians ) than UK. Even if UK follow the footpath of Norway, outcome would be different.
Britain is riddled with apathy.
'we' are way too thick to hold our politicians to account.
Norway has better people.Period.
probably true...
Bro Norway was poorest nation before thay discovered oil. Oil is like Norway wins lottery before Their sources of income was fish n forest probably but now economy is relying on oils income apart from hydro electricity generation I do appreciate in this area, Norway is independent welfare state but UK is consist of 04 England+Scotland+Wales+ N.ireland its challenging do U think its easy?
did U know Norway is far behind in industrial manufacturing & military services, in terms of Inventions their contribution in sci n tech is little even Sweden performed well.
Norway has big advantage of extreme harsh cold weather in whole of Europe that's why their population is small /unmatched with UK Germany etc, immigrants don't like cold countries 🥶, thay never participate in wars like British empire. Thay learned lesson safe oil investment from Arab region.... Luckily thay got better leadership look what happened with Venezuela/Nigeria?
Thay also learned lesson from neighbouring Swedish uncontrolled unqualified immigration. UK is different country with different circumstances long history of most successful empire ever, UK invent more than 50% of inventions alone check which European country wins more Nobel ? Definitely UK n coz of colonization lot of commonwealth immigrants want to move uk so we cant compare Uk vs norway!
@@zainulabdin1720
To claim that Norway was a poor country before oil is a myth. If you compare Norway today with Norway before oil, you have a point, but if you compare Norway with the rest of Europe, Norway was not poor. Not being rich is not necessarily synonymous with being poor. Norway also had a significant export of metals and minerals, not just fish and timber. Moreover, the Norwegian maritime fleet has been the largest in the world at various times.
There are other reasons why Norway "lags behind" in industrial production. The main factor is high income, which means that Norway only produces high-quality products today because profits match expenses. However, the country's largest "factories" are in shipyards and the offshore industry. Shipbuilding has been a Norwegian expertise for hundreds of years, going back to the Viking era. Additionally, due to engineers as well as employment in the oil, energy, and fishing sectors, Norway does not have many extra heads and hands left.
When it comes to immigration, Norway has always been more restrictive than Sweden. It was not a lesson learned; they took different directions. Norway's population is half that of Sweden's, mainly because there is not much space to live in Norway due to the mountains, not primarily because of the cold. Swedish winters are actually colder in most areas due to Norway's coastline, where the sea is heated by the Gulf Stream. As for immigration to Britain, it is mainly because English is an international language. Most migrants to or within Europe know the language and the country. It is definitely not because of the beautiful weather ☺. Almost no one knows tiny Norway, and even fewer know the language.
Absolutely fascinating, thank you for this. It must have helped that Norway wasn’t trying to maintain the illusion of being a world power, so didn’t pursue an expensive defence policy including trident.
The UK also had post-industrial decline to deal with and debts from WW2 that were only paid off in 2006
Trident wasn't that expensive in the scheme of things.
Although if you factor in the future decommissioning costs of Sellafield, then that's another story.
Norway had only one or two elite families and the UK had many, especially England. And the English culture is one of social division into horizontal strata. The idea to share wealth with lower classes is deemed preposterous by the English elites. And the idea that one should not strive to be member of a higher class, is also foreign with the lower classes. This is VERY different in the Scandinavian countries and The Netherlands where people could not care less about being in a higher echelon.
Good point but don't forget that 'we' had been committing genocide on every continent for centuries so probably needed that navy :-)
Well, buying up stocks all over the world is also a defense policy in a way. Norway owns around 2% of all stocks on all stock markets globally. And it has prohibited investment in the arms industry, and in industries with poor working conditions globally, as well as prohibited investment in any industry using child labor or with a discriminating work and salary policy anywhere on the planet. So it is not only about money, it is also about equal rights, child care, and peace.
Excellent analysis. The consequences of the ‘looting’ of Britain’s oil and gas reserves will be felt for many generations to come.
Us in Spain hope that Scotland becomes an independent nation in the E.U & gets back its oil well that Thatcher stole , you certainly are living her dream now !Fuel cheaper here & our vital butane still €15.40 . Comes from our friend Russia .Putin has stopped the Supply of mideast oil ,& as can be seen America will crash ,biggest depression ever .Here in Spain we support ot farmers & ( has to be American) banned their Monsanto herbicide a known bee killer ,lovely cheap honey here , in my village of Gaianes the best olive harvest for year , the best olive oil in the 🌎 sweet & low acid virgin oil ,extra virgin is second pressing the boss at our produce won't sell to Greece , used to Improve theirs . The heart of our famous Mediterranean diet
The main thing is Norway has a small population, circa 6 million, but has more oil and gas than it needs hence could invest income from sale of excess. Also keep in mind a huge amount of Norways energy comes from hydro.
Norway barely uses oil itself. It is almost 100% sustained by hydropower
SCOTLANDS POP., IS 5.5M, LET THAT FUCKIN SINK IN!!!!
@@adm7998 so does Scotland,
So in Norway, the profits of oil was used for the benefit of the people. In the UK, the profit was just declared abroad and just made shareholders rich.
Sold everything off trying to copy Uncle Sam. A great clip, thank you, these should be used in educational syllabus as they informative and offer an alternative viewpoint to our future policy makers.
Not copying Uncle Sam but becoming a colony not a country
In a nutshell, this is the difference between what happens when you let a predatory capitalist elite (UK) manage national resources by privatising them (virtuous enlightened selfishness, Ayn Rand would approve) and what happens when you let the Moderate Right and Centre Left (Norway) manage national resources by banking the profits for the benefit of the entire country (collectivism, Ayn Rand would be horrified).
This "oil collectivism" worked in the case of Norway but failed in another 20-30 countries. That's not a very good track record! I'll stick with the free markets and individualism, thanks 😊
@@cookiejar01 That's nice, if you are a card carrying member of the 1% capitalist elite. However, since I'm not a member of the 1%'er elite so I'm going to pick 'Norwegian Oil Collectivism' where I at least get some of the benefits of resource exploitation over your idea of handing all the profits over to a greedy selfish elite who hoards the money and stashes it away in tax havens 🤮. However, I can see why everybody getting a slice of the cake would seem offensive to somebody such as yourself who feels entitled to keep it all to himself 😀.
@@cookiejar01no it doesn’t work if the decision makers are corrupt. Fundamentally Thathchers stupinomics still being pursued benefit only the very rich
@@cookiejar01 Wrong those other countries you mention did put the oil directly in the economy. Which is called the Dutch Disease. Im from the Netherlands and our government made that mistake and almost destroying our economy. What Norway did was unique, they put all the profit in an investment fund and only the profit from that can be used to invest again in their own economy. So the REAL economy stays afloat. What Norway did is not what those other 20-30 countries did. You are literally WRONG.
Basically, but I think there is a bit more to it. You can earn a lot of money from oil into the state capital and piss it away or even completely destroy your own economy. (Look into Venezuela).
The main difference is long-term stability as a common goal, a well functioning administration, and little to no corruption (illegal or legal).
At last a good video. Please do another on how much privatisation across all sectors has cost the UK economy.
I'd watch that
The UK wealth fund is on the Cayman Islands and in Panama under control of the richies - who own it !!
In contrary Norway wants to make sure EVERYBODY has a benefit - not only the richies like in the UK!!
a simple difference - so easy to understand - if one wants !
This has almost nothing to do with the Oil itself in the North Sea. It has everything to do with Politicians. Anyone can see objectively that the Norwegian politicians made an effort to look to the future interests of their nation and people. The British (English really) Politicians only served themselves and their millionaire shareholder interests. Thats all there is to this. English politicians mostly don't care about anything beyond advancing their own careers and getting in with the London City crowd, making friends with bankers and corporation stooges. The idea that they would even attempt to begin to do anything to make the country better off is laughable naivete. English Tory politicians are mostly in the politics game for money and career advancement.
Well said 👍
From Kenya...former British colony.....its eaxctly the same or even more pronounced here!
Well said. Oil is just another asset that can be sold on the cheap by corrupt Government to corporate interests. The illusion to the public is a short term boost to the economy and a cut in taxes. The financial benefit is spent, taxes are going up again, we have no public ownership or dividend, and we pay a premium for every service we require. The NHS is next. Internal services will be given to private operators, who will be paid by the NHS on our behalf. Ultimately the NHS will no longer own or control or own the health services is provides. The NHS will mearly be a Government paid insurance provider that quietlypays for private services in the background. At this point we will be incentivised with crippling NI to opt out of NHS support and switch to a private insurance system and the job will be done. Fait accompli! We really do suffer from a bunch of bastards in the UK.
Yes, and had they set up a Sovereign Wealth Fund in the early 90s you can guarantee it would have been plundered by now no matter what safeguards had been put in place.
Its a key part of our total failure in the UK to invest in our whole country. The money has gone and our society has become more unequal and more divided. And the right wing in the Conservatives and Reform want more of this flawed economic thinking.
To them it’s not flawed. It’s following their plan exactly.
.."And the right wing in the Conservatives and Reform want more of this flawed economic thinking". And Keir Starmer and his City of London rep Rachel Reeves. Expect more cross-eyed logic and wealth transfers..how much more of this rancid neo lib crap are we going to tolerate?
Thankfully they dont want your thinking
I would argue that the money was intentionally used to increase inequality and pull up the ladder.
How is it that these 'accountancy firms' end up being worth trillions and paying countless salaries in the millions? Perhaps we are beginning to find out,one slip-up at a time.
The 'recent' revellations about the disgraced former Lady Mone and her husband are just the tip of a very old iceberg.
I just want the invasion to stop.
Reform UK for me 🇬🇧
Norway put 90% of North Sea oil money into a wealth fund for when the oil ran out.
The Milk Snatcher reduced income tax.
Result Norway os very wealthy.
UK is very poor. UK have nothing to show for its oil except a few multi millionaores.
Well,we did get a new word - Yuppy.
One election won because the unions were taking the p!ss.One election won by selling the family silver.One election won by 'liberating' the Falklands.
What a nice bunch of people.
Probably ex ministers 😂
100% correct. As someone who spent 25 years in the Brent field from 1976 I can conform that the oil was produced at such a rate as to be detremental to the reservoir. And all to fund Thatchers de industrialisation of UK. Meanwhile Norway produced carefully and diligently and now have an enormous sovereign fund.
As the graffiti on an Aberdeen wall said "Oh Lord, send us another oil boom. And we promise not to piss it up against the wall again".
@@z0n0ph0ne Aberdonians were actually part of the Independence vote problem. Scared of Holyrood damaging Aberdeens economy. "Oh Lord, send us another oil boom. And we promise not to piss it up against the wall again". That wasn't really the problem, was it. It should have read, "Oh Lord, send us another oil boom. And we promise not to gift all the revenues to London again".
The crafty manipulators down South also hilariously claim that Aberdeen is the oil capital of Europe. Compare Aberdeen and London skylines from 1970 to present day. They also refer to the oil price as the value of 'LONDON BRENT'. It says it all really. Pathetic and still wanting to be governed from London. Respect man!
The wealth fund is probably in US dollars, if so, the US is holding Norway by the balls.
It makes you wonder why no British politician is asked about their party's long term lack of vision or strategy or what they think about this
Anyone who cares about anything gets removed from politics.
Look at the ridiculous,wholly false accusations and well-organised smear campaign that put Sir Keir in charge of 'the opposition'.
The mainstream media certainly won't as they are the Corporate Sponsors' mouthpieces. Roll on Arab and Chinese ownership of these. All it takes is a brown paper envelope
British politicians are only interested in getting re-elected. They have no real interest in the future of the country or its inhabitants. I really wish I'd emigrated after my education had finished
... and still some people are surprised that so many in Scotland want to get out of the unequal union.
What has happened with oil money goes completely against the grain with the Scots, who are noted for fiscal probity.
And in the red corner we have Schumpeter's Social Democracy, taking on in the blue corner local hero Smith's Laissez Faire. An ideological set piece. Thank you for you work. Well done.
Wonderful commentary , This should be compulsory reading in my country Australia. We had a great Pri minister Geof Whitlam who only served 3 years yet bought in more social reforms than every pri minister before and after combined. Sadly he was dismissed for corrupt reasons. But none of his reforms and initiatives were cut or replaced. Yet they were the very reason for his dismissal.
It could have been Scotland's oil
It should have been Scotland's oil....
Stolen.........
Because the Norwegians made a state service to extract the oil and so got the full benefit of it. Westminster just gave away licences to private companies to extract it all the while letting said corporations get away with paying the absolute minimum in tax on it.
It is in scotland's territorial waters, it is part of scotlands wealth, it's always been hers, it's been used and abused for many decades now by every UK gov since its discovery.
Our country has been held back by every UK gov.
Aberdeen should look like Dubai by now.
No licences should have been awarded to private companies to extract it without an oil fund in place.
The Shetland Isles have at least 9 public swimming pools, the best roads anywhere in Britain and more community centres on every corner for 22,000 people.
All aquired because a local Councillor negotiated 1p per barrel from every barrel landed ashore in the mid 70's.
All because the oil companies needed planning permission for somewhere to store it on land.
Scottish industry and citizenry didn't need it all and only 1/6th of the gas reserves are required for the country, so the rest could have been sold to the highest bidder and the profits stored in a sovereign wealth fund like Norway and the interest used to further the advancements of our entire infrastructure and a social contract for our people for generations to come.
But no, that's not good for the greedy bastards who want ALL the profits for themselves and fck the people who live there.
Scotland.... the only country in the world to stike oil and get poorer for it..
Empire
I hope Scotland is free soon! A sovereign wealth fund could still be achieved , but be aware that the character presently leading the SNP only cares about flooding Scotland with HIS kind! Vote Alba party!🏴 Ps. Imagine an independent Scotland with a third of the land area covered by state owned forest with the sales of the timber going into a sovereign wealth fund! That's an income stream that would last forever! 😀🤔
@@user-kp7gq6ou7u
love Scotland forever ❤ Scotland could be richest country of Europe 🌍 if thay are not under UK flagship
Well, buying up stocks all over the world is also a defense policy in a way. Norway owns around 2% of all stocks on all stock markets globally. And it has prohibited investment in the arms industry, and in industries with poor working conditions globally, as well as prohibited investment in any industry using child labor or with a discriminating work and salary policy anywhere on the planet. So it is not only about money, it is also about equal rights, child care, and peace.
A proper government
Main reason: Norway has got less than a tenth of UKs population. Further, Norway's oil and gas resources are a fair bit bigger than UK's. Also Norway doesn't need much of its oil and gas for its own energy supply, most comes from Hydro power plants.
Well, apart from that, Norway's politics is way smarter to keep the money in the country and invested in national fonds for everyone's welfare instead of making only oil and gas multis rich.
Less villainous govt held to account by a significantly less apathetic public?
People will take to d streets all over western Europe I feel its d only way every town is being filled with immigrants
If not for being part of the UK Scotland would be nearly a trillion richer with nearly 96% of UK oil in Scottish waters.
They won’t if the oil point is the same and that assumes they invest well
what we could have won.. :(
@@agentsmith2798 Oh it's not gone, Westminster pretends it is gone but there's more oil from Claire and West of Shetland than they could get from the North Sea.
They don't want to talk about it, fiddle the figures and keep the revenue figures as low as possible, petrified that the Scots might like prosperity more than a dying Union.
Just watch Ireland, they have oil but in deeper water, technology will overcome that barrier.
Scotland should consider Brexit.
@@slavakotelnikov2440 In what way should Scotland consider Brexit?
Privatisation was about individuals in a government selling public assets to themselves and others with money to buy those assets, which, on the whole, was not the public.
Moreover, and crucially, due to the plurality voting system, those individuals making those decisions had no mandate to do so: 53% of the seats for 44% of the votes in 1979; 61% of seats for 42% of the vote in 1983; 58% of seats for 42% in 1987; 52% of the seats for 42% of the vote in 1992.
Yet still they were allowed to sell off the public's assets for cheap prices to themselves and their overlords.
When there were no longer colonies to plunder we started plundering our own country. And still continue to do so.
You mean oligarchs looting public assets...😂😂😂
This is great. Exactly up my street these videos. Subscribed babyyyyyyy.
When I was in UK. I saw empty boarded up streets under a constant grey sky, litter everywhere.
Homeless people sleeping in doorways. A women with cat whiskers makeup casually walking into Tesco with her pajamas. Opioid addicts out of their mind and women so drunk they urinated on the streets.
It's a sad declined country.
Govt will explain some people like the fresh air and outdoor life. Why pick up litter? There will always be more litter tomorrow. This is not China, we are free to take as much drugs and piss anywhere we want!
Great video. Thanks. Keep it up. I'm finding this channel very educational.
Thanks, that was really clarifying.
Tejvan, this was an excellent insight into a factor that still influences our economy today. Your channel is so useful and accessible to students and the general public. Keep up the good work.
It’s in off shore bank accounts of multinational companies.
Multinationals are a separate thing.
These are probably shell companies based offshore in the hideously named COMMONwealth or other tax (avoidance) havens.
Former Lady Mone was walking a well-trodden path.
Then we should all get an account. See problem solved!
Absolutely great video ! CON GRA TU LA TIONS ! I never had a that clear and easy to understand explanation on this subject before ! Thank you very much ! May God bless you always ! Keep up the excellent work and I already subscribed to your channel ! If I could make a request, can you make a video on the Israeli economy ? (thr growth caused by the hi-tech sector etc. ?)
The main difference between uk and Norway is that the rich get away without paying taxes, while in Norway wealth is distributed. Thanks for this great program!
fantastic video, great quality
Great explanation, thank you.
As a young Brit i lived and worked in Norway in the 80s, married a Norwegian and lived there until my job took me to Asia.
The main difference is better Politicians and above all proportional representation. Yes you might get a few extream politicians but thats just democracy in action, but above all Politicians work with each other and dont act like a bunch of baying hounds.
When i listen to the news from back home i get depressed about how politicians and the media love to fight and stir each other up.
Until the UK changes to PR your never going to get stable government which thinks long term rather than worrying about the next election cycle and giving tax cuts to push the country into more debt.
And Brits themselves need to be realistic about wanting a high level of welfare without wanting to pay the taxes it costs.
May I ask which Asian country you are staying ❤😊
@@zainulabdin1720 Japan
@@horsk9704 great
Firstly, Norway's oil revenues are many times greater than the UK's when compared with its GDP. So the positive impact of oil revenues for Norway was much, much greater. Secondly, you have to consider the opportunity cost of creating a sovereign wealth fund. In the UK's case, this would have been either higher taxes (to fund the same level of public expenditure) or lower public expenditure (as oil revenue was saved rather than spent). It is not clear that creating a sovereign wealth fund would have been better than the combination of lower taxes and higher expenditure that the UK experienced.
No Margret Thatcher and the conservatives just looted the public funds like they've done in recent years
An excellent video. Thank you
Fantastic video. I know some of the details of the paths that the two economies took and where they stand today. With your presentation, it is clear that a free market economy i.e an unlimited potential for corruption, may be the key to understanding where the UK stands today as an 'also ran oil economy'! It shines a spotlight on honest politicians who have the long term interests of their population at heart vs English leaders who have sold off the assets of their country in a fire sale for their own benefit and their shareholders!
Very good video!!
Really interesting content - thank you. So sad for current state the UK...
It’s like the famous spat that Gordon Brown had with a member of the public in the north, where he was talking about GDP and she ended the conversation by saying it’s not OUR GDP! Just big corporations, (foreign owned) and city spivs in London got rich in the 80s and 90s.
Producing large amounts lowers the price. It's why OPEC carefully hoards oil to keep the price high, whereas under Thatcher, Britain just spaffed our valuable oil onto the open market and squandered the profits.
Tony Benn set up an oil revenue investment fund for UK industry in 1978...in 1979 the Tories got in and Nigel Lawson abolished it - as well as getting rid of public holdings in BP etc. Result: the mess we're in now...
Another stuff up by the Cons. It would be a short list of what positive achievements they've made starting from the Thatcher era.😢
liebor had plenty of time in power to change it but choose not too
Your absolutely right about the 80’s -business was saying leave it in the ground as the exchange rate surged and made exports unprofitable.
This is what Canada could have done as well. Over roughly the past 40 yrs Canada extracted a similar amount of oil as Norway. In fact Peter Lougheed the Alberta Premier in the 70s started a similar Heritage Fund - but they've stopped investing in it in the 90s and raided it a few times so now its like $16billion which is nothing compared to Norway's 1.3trillion $ fund.
In fact Alberta proudly advertised the lowest royalties in the world. Consequently it follows the boom and bust cycle of oil prices.
I worked for a Norwegian company making underwater cameras for the oil industry etc, they payed 7% of your earnings into your pension, try getting that in the UK these days.
Many thanks for this insight. It is beneficial to understand certain developments in different countries with similar preconditions.
Unfortunately i see this same short term thinking with present resources too, the Polyhalite deposits resources found for example.
When l first heard we'd struck oil in the 1970s l thought, that's the end of unemployment. Boom times ahead! But the opposite happened. Only British politicians could receive such a bonanza and preside over the explosion of unemployment the UK suffered in the 1980s.
It's not just oil. Think about London property. The government owned loads, all those central London civil service buildings but rather than retaining and commercially letting them in a wealth fund it was all sold off to foreign entities. At least the Crown estates have been protected so far from the grubby hands of the MPs those at least still generate a bit of cash for the country even if the King gets a kickback.
The Crown Estates don't really make any money for the country, the money would still be raised (probably more efficiently, given the tax status of the Crown Estates) for the exchequer without them. For example, in the UK the Crown owns the foreshore, which is the real money maker these days - in most countries it's the government.
@@FlatDerrick Crown Estate made £440m+ last year with only about £90m going to fund the Royals. Plus leasing for offshore wind is likely to triple this in years to come. My point is at least this land still benefits the British people. If it was left in the hands of MPs it would have been all been sold of to Qatar years ago.
Very interesting this one - thank you. I have had this argument about all the oil money being squanderd many times. Never any long-term thinking in this country - and it has now caught up with us. The Tories will still probably get back in, not that it will make much difference.
The health care chart hits hard. My wife is south Korean and their healthcare system is cheaper and much more efficient than the UK potentially a thousand fold. You can literally go to the hospital and get treated within a day.
Can you do a video on UK education levels and show that we're one of the lowest educated nations in the OECD.
Are we though? Looking at top 20 global university rankings the UK is still high, although gradually losing to the US over time. It’s about the only sector we seem to have a functional and equitable grasp on. Though it’s very hard to measure in short time spans.
@Garcia-Hall what does university rankings have to do with the general populations level of education?
@@Garcia061 Wouldn't take the global uni rankings to mean anything - they are created by UK/US publications and stack heavily in their favour. The teaching was far better at my German Uni with it's 20 year old paint job and no nightclub, my British Uni had weaker teaching but spent a lot more on student services (3 nightclubs, gigs etc) and changing the carpets every 2 years.
@@FlatDerrickOur students need to relax in a nice environment and have a couple of pints after a hard day sleeping off the the previous night's hangover. These are our future baristas and fast food servers.
@@famouschappi It wasn't the future baristas and fast food workers that required these services, hell it was us working class local students that staffed them to pay our tuition. The services were there for the richer kids that could get jobs with a third, a nice accent and a share of nepotism.
We had a shop keepers daughter for a Prime Minister being advised by an OIL rich American Monetary adviser who like a star struck child, went along with his policies which syphoned off UK oil income into the American economy. She always said NO NO NO to sensible advice from UK advisers and YES YES YES to American manipulation.
But USA is like a big brother and loves us.
Heh, an economics channel was bound to cover Norway's oil eventually.
“….there was never much effort to make long term investments from the proceeds of oil. It was all very much short term gain” I think you’ll find that’s pretty much the situation now, not just with oil, but all long term planning in the UK, and has been for many decades.
The UK is on the same Neo-Liberal program as the US, which is just an academically respectable beard covering base corruption and nepotism. Unfortunately, this won't be fixed in elections, since the amount of private leverage is too great to bring things back into balance with a vote. What we need is some high profile corruption trials to demonstrate publicly that the present arrangements, although pro-forma democratic, are in fact the result of criminality of the highest order. Hence the contracts made were invalid, and the resources must return to public ownership.
The story of Britain oil folly can ge summed up in two words. THATCHER, TORIES.
And yet people will still tell you austerity was necessary.
We are still feeling the effects of Thatcher and will long into the future ☹️
The Act of Union was a treaty of unification between England and Scotland as equal partners in a combined country. But we’re not, the English lied to Scotland over the oil reserves and this is enough to null and void the union. Someone should take a legal case to the United Nations to have Scotland officially recognised as a protectorate of England which would legally dissolve the Act of Union.
Well you go and do it if you feel that way, instead of complaining on here to no end whatsoever.
No, the UK is no partnership. The act of union eliminated England and Scotland and replace them with one single Kingdom by the name of Great Britain.
The oil reserves are therefore British. And Scotland and England don't strictly exist beyond a decorative sense.
If UK is one country.Why was the oil money not spent fairly. Scotland should have got the majority of investment. All that happens was Scots told it was the English taxpayer who was supporting them...And they believe that lie.
Due to our corrupt politicians
Is the uk doing the same with wind power?
Take a delve into the Alberta Heritage fund in Canada. it was worth $14 billion US at one point, it's empty now.
Great video. This make me SO sad. Oh Britain.
The UK is not the only country to have done this. My country, Australia, has and continues to squander the procedes of our mineral wealth. We have a thing called the Future Fund, but it is there to finance the retirement costs of federal government employees and is not a soveriegn wealth fund as such. Like most democracies, we only attract, in the main, second rate people into politics and these clowns have no understanding of any thing outsider the current electoral cycle.
If only people in power would learn from their failures or others successes. I doubt the privitisation train and "trickle down economy" will stop anytime soon.
The ones in power had little interest in learning so long as they get theirs.
Conservatives aren't interested in economic theory, they're interested in their own ideology to selectively maximise only the wealth of those who already have it.
They knew exactly what they were doing !!!
How can you be so naive??? :-)
Main lesson: Thatcher is the worst thing that ever happened to the UK.
One huge crack and our fund is gone... Still, I agree with you that the Norwegian population owe THAT GENERATION of politicians a lot. The US offered to pump the oil "for us" and we would get some percent of the revenue. Fortunately, they refused. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of todays politicians in Norway would for sure accept the offer without even blinking and we would have gone the same way as many other oil producing countries..
NO NO AND NO. If you want it the way Norway has it, then you have to write it into your constitution so that it is impossible for politicians to do as they want without breaking the law. This is actually how the Norwegian constitution was written, no politician is able to give away Norwegian resources or land to the private sector, everything belongs to the Norwegian population. This is also why Norway cannot join the EU, then they have to rewrite the Norwegian constitution. It is also the reason why all hydropower in Norway is state-owned. Otherwise, Norway would probably also have had corrupt politicians who had taken advantage of it to run private business in that way.
Excellent and I would recommend watching Russell Brands documentary called ‘The Emperor's New Clothes’.
What's the price for Scotland? (Asking for a friend.)
It works as intented. You either want private equity or state remaining funds/equity.
As a scot i cant listen to this without having a stroke.
There is the slight difference in sheer scales if the two economies too, the oil receipts as a percentage of revenues is many times smaller in the UK than Norway, not to say it would have not been welcomed. It would have not moved the dial anywhere near the way it did first Norway
I don't think oil.was the reason why the pound was over valued. The reason was the nonesense of moneyerism. The Thatcher government thought it was a good idea to put up interest rates much higher than necessary to push up value of the pound. This devastated the UK's manufacturing base leading to 4m unemployed in 1981 up.from just below 1m when Tnatcher came to power in 1979. Moneterism was quietly abandoned in the mid 80s after it devastates the UK' s manufacturing base
Very good analysis which omits one main point - the narcissistic psychopathy of the English upper class.
It continues to damage the UK, primarily beyond the SE of England, to this very day.
It is unlikely to stop because the English love tradition and well over 40% of them have proven to be very slow learners.
The Tories since 1979 have done so much damage and that includes the red tories of Blairs years.
Put Simply Norway doesn't have the political parties the UK has. Oil in the North Sea was discovered in the 70s when we had a labour government then followed several periods of Tory rule. Labour kept it secret how much the oil was worth fearing Scottish independence then the Tories came along with their instinct for personal greed. Scotland is unfortunately tied to the UK.
*TORIES* thats how
Actually Labour opened the floodgates in 1997.
Vote Reform UK 🇬🇧
@@TG-ts3xn Please stop lying - BP was privatised by Thatcher in 1987.
I believe our beloved pm sunaks wifey is a large shareholder in BP how fortunate her hubby looks after her🤣🤣
Norway's Georgist policies for its oil would have been amazing for the UK
Since 1997 the UK has been governed by a kakistocracy (both Labour and Conservatives) they financially bribed the electorate with promises of un-earned wealth and these governments (especially the Blair/Brown Labour governments) then financed its own expansion with debt riddled boondoggles such as PFI's, a commercial/residential property Ponzi scheme, corrupt London based financial systems, pet projects and unnecessary/unprovoked wars. This fact always makes me so angry but then I remind myself of the Joseph de Maistre quote "Every country has the government it deserves" so in short we deserve the squandered wealth, the massive debt mountain we are now saddled with, and the future it has bequeathed the UK population. FYI the UK now has a 3 trillion pound national debt (without the hidden debt, personal debt and future unfunded liabilities) that can only lead to a slave based CBDC system or a Sovereign Debt Crisis. Dark days ahead.
Sad to know UK having 3 trillion pounds debts 😢
Norway has vastly more oil per capita than the UK. Helps a lot.
Some more considerations - oil money in Norway was about to go into the pockets of a wealthy elite by contract when literally at the 11th hour a lady politician (her name escapes me just now) leaked what was going on, stood up and made sure the money went to the state, the people - it didn't come about by planning or some nicety nice agreement, it came about because of one clever, caring and astute woman with a bee in her bonnet who wasn't having the greed we suffer from in the UK.
To liken Norway and the UK post-war is ridiculous - the demographics, geography, pollitics and societal trust levels could not be more different.
Norway has 99.9% hydro electricity because of its geography, something we could never do, and had the booming neighbour Sweden which had not been wrecked in the war - indeed profited from it and was able to supply all manner of skills, raw materials, etc.
Can I ask Sweden is also getting benifits from Norway's oil 🛢️, indirectly or may be trade ? Cheaper gasoline etc
@@zainulabdin1720 hi, that very much depends on the year/decade. When Norway first discovered large oil reserves in the 60s/70s it was a relatively poor, very conservative country with a low population and didn't have the finance or skills to exploit it. They offered Sweden half of the oil in return for the infrastructure to extract and process it, with a swap for 50% of Volvo:- Sweden said no. Sweden has nuclear power and municipal heating based on wood so its need for liquid/gas fuel was limited and came from various sources until recent events made it better to buy more from Norway. I'm sure Stoltenburg was aware of that change and was busy lining his pockets in organising clashes with Russia - and Norway/NATO countries weren't going to complain. Either way, having that fuel security so close, in a 'sister country' has meant lower risk for (investment in) Swedish companies needing/using it, and having a rich and protected country next door means stability generally.
@@gurglejug627 thanks for valuable information, as student of international affairs/politics it's helpful for me. But Norway needs to help Sweden coz of Scandinavian neighbours secured fuel ⛽ export, create friendly atmosphere.
Love Sweden! Because of achievements without oil money!
@@zainulabdin1720 you're very welcome. Just to give you a wry smile - Sweden got rich as A) it was underdeveloped and had loads of resources and a low population, suddenly being mechanised around 1930 and B) through investing heavily later, post war, in education and C) selling weapons and steel and ball bearings to both sides in WW1 and 2, despite being 'neutral'. The Swedes love themselves and try to look squeeky clean and perfect, but it wasn't all roses ;)
@@gurglejug627 ok I got it ... Once again thanks
Two words Margret Thatcher.
The UK government sold licences to companies but could have nationalised it and taken most of it, as Norway did.
Great video, undoubtedly correct. But renewable energy is an entirely different story that deserves it's own video. Norway has about 1.500 hydro electric powerplants! Next, Norway has a population of 5 million people. With their vast profits from oil they can subsidize the use of Electric Vehicles and heat pumps and the use of electricity in general. They can electrifiy the entire country in a way that no other country on earth could do. But without their hydro electric power plants and without their oil revenues, this electrification might very well be a dream.
These kind of decisions are not mistakes... this is theft.
Cutting corporation tax is equal to industrial investment. You make some good points, but I think if you subtracted the total influence of oil in the 1980s, the 1980s would simply be that much poorer. We were failing in the 70s as you hinted. I think I recall a stat where investment per worker in Britain was about 6x less than Japan back then. We have suffered from being inefficient, or you could call it lazy or perhaps stupid, but productivity is our problem and investment in non-productive industry is a bad thing anyway.
I think you miss two vital points in this lecture. Norway had a population of about 5 million people and the Government was terrified of the vast resources totally wrecking the economy so nationalised it and used the proceeds for a sovereign wealth fund and providing social benefits. I was born in 1946 so at that time there were several war debts Britain was responsible for: WWI, WWII, and the losses payable to Europe for the bombing damage to factories in WWII. In 1953 we also had the war debt for the Korean War which was half of the cost of WWII. Thatcher’s claim about the vanishing oil re venue was that she had reduced most if not all the war debt. The British at the end of the war although broke and in deep debt launched into social benefits of various sorts but would not listen to the Treasury who said the financial model would collapse in ten years. It did but no further means was taken to provide for it bar writing bigger cheques funded by tax from a population increasing from 56 million post war to depending on who you read today 66 to 68 million population. Oil saved Britain from being a complete basket case to being a bit of a basket case but not much wise pro rata than most other economies where the population is as large or larger.
The maths you give is undoubtedly true but you have to lay out the whole equation not just part of it. No political party has ever laid out the financial problems of state and its means of addressing them all we ever get is tiny fractions to address a small core of voters or discomfort a potential incoming government of alternative texture.
Much of the problem of the seventies was because of political interference with business and markets by all parties and they all got it wrong.
Agreed, I have always said, why do we have to extract it all 'NOW'. Same here in Australia. Ps: The war debt was horrendous for the UK and everything was going to reparations up to about 1952, and British Industry was using outdated, wornout Machine tools, and bringing in immigrants, as that was a cheap fix for the problems of labour shortages and lack of investment. Same in the Car Industry, shipbuilding. Restrictive demarcation, uninterested middlemanagement, and those at the top who had no incentives to modernise, so became selfish and looked after themselves. Many many soldiers who came back from the war had no intention of working g hard ever again, them were tired and had made their contribution. It's not all about squandered oil reserves. The problems were there for any student to see, just open your eyes.
@@rivergladesgardenrailroad8834 Ah someone else who remembers history as it was. Too many people have this strange vision of a sunlit upland. There was none! I was born post war before the was an NHS. MyNHS as a child was Pint of orange juice fortnight dished out in a tea spoon daily. This was supplemented by malt extract, privately purchased on Friday night and Marmite/Vegemite when available.
The problem was jam tomorrow but nobody was interested. It generated a nation of thieves. Everything was liberated! Black market profits had to be invested so they moved to the country bought old water mills and houses and set fire to them. It still happens occasionally and people wonder why us old uns laugh but we have long memories.
Having a tiny population and no decaying post industrial base was kinda helpful too.
it wasn't squanderd, it went into off shore accounts.... er...
Uk has well over 67 million people. Norway has less than 5.4 million. Not comperable in that sense. The other difference is the state of the economies at the time of discovery of oil. So the vision to invest the revenues is only one thing UK could have done.
The UK spent over 28 Billion POUNDS in 2023 purchasing natural gas from Norway from a Gas field that the UK owns half of. The Conservative UK Government refuses to grant drilling licenses for the extraction of GAS in this field. This helps explain the lack of visionary leadership that exists within the current UK Government. 26 02 2024 UK