Norway's wealth fund now worth $319,900 per citizen(sherwood.news)
sherwood.news
Norway's wealth fund now worth $319,900 per citizen
https://sherwood.news/world/norways-wealth-fund-reports-record-profits-worth-usd319-900-citizen/
80 comments
Sigh. As a UK citizen, I have long wondered what it would be like to live in one of those Nordic countries that are run well with happy citizens. Once in my lifetime I'd like to have the feeling that my government cares about me and isn't completely incompetent.
The Nordic countries have a lot of problems too.
One example is their completely failed drug policy, which is aimed at repression instead of care and therapy.
One example is their completely failed drug policy, which is aimed at repression instead of care and therapy.
Failed from whose perspective? Definitely not the majority of citizens.
’Failed’ is in non-functional.
There has been decades of brainwashing from the state(jointly with various Christian organisations) and an incredible amount of disinformation.
I am a Cannabis user and I’ve moved from Stockholm to Zürich because I want to live my life in peace.
There has been decades of brainwashing from the state(jointly with various Christian organisations) and an incredible amount of disinformation.
I am a Cannabis user and I’ve moved from Stockholm to Zürich because I want to live my life in peace.
[deleted]
That’s what you get when you have free wealth you can pump out of the ground (or ocean floor in this case). Middle eastern oil countries are very happy too with wealth shared around (for the citizens) and most costs in life covered.
I would list Norway as exceptional since every other petro-state has had generations of corruption and most have credible histories of human rights violations.
I would note that the US, while not technically a petrostate, does get almost 10% of its economy from the fossil fuel industry.
They’re definitely governing well but without the oil it would all break down in a heartbeat.
The fun "life-hack" is now the oil doesn't matter anymore.
Norway needed it initially, but thinks to smart conservative finance policies now they don't.
As as lovely counter example, look at all of the UAE's expenditures on attempts at "destination tourism" revenue.
UAE "invested" its money into concrete. Norway invested its money into its people.
Norway needed it initially, but thinks to smart conservative finance policies now they don't.
As as lovely counter example, look at all of the UAE's expenditures on attempts at "destination tourism" revenue.
UAE "invested" its money into concrete. Norway invested its money into its people.
Not necessarily. The UK had that too (the same north sea oil as Norway), but we failed to invest it wisely.
Norway has less than 10% the population of the UK so that oil was worth more per capita
Thatcher used the oil revenues to pay for her cuts. That way the people didn't realise the damage her policies did to the economy. And they've been believers ever since.
The UK had larger oil reserves than Norway and started developing them earlier. At one point in the 1980s 1 pound in every 10 of tax taken in the UK was directly from oil extraction taxes.
Canada could've done the same but they chose Neoliberalism.
Norway has problems too. Don't mention Sweden
As a Brit living in Sweden for 10 years (and, who now has naturalised).
It’s incomparable and the parent is definitely right to ponder. Life here is better, even if it has it’s problems.
There is no “working poor” here, serial unemployment is significantly lower. And Sweden is the “worst” nordic country right now for crime and poverty rates. Britain is far-far behind, and getting worse yearly.
It’s incomparable and the parent is definitely right to ponder. Life here is better, even if it has it’s problems.
There is no “working poor” here, serial unemployment is significantly lower. And Sweden is the “worst” nordic country right now for crime and poverty rates. Britain is far-far behind, and getting worse yearly.
I live in Sweden and was wondering how bad things are recently given the daily explosions around the country related to gang criminality.
Apparently, even the worst parts of Stockholm have crime rates comparable to the best areas of the USA, which surprised me TBH (and I think that's a lot better than the UK).
Apparently, even the worst parts of Stockholm have crime rates comparable to the best areas of the USA, which surprised me TBH (and I think that's a lot better than the UK).
It's not a fair comparison, because everything in West compares better to post-Johnson Britain :)
Britain has been in decline since Thatcher, but is not willing to accept it.
Blair, for all his war crimes, managed the decline fairly well, but it’s been clear to anyone with an outside view that Britain is a mid-power, cosplaying as a world power.
Similar to that geezer who always has the flash car and no money to pay for it, keeping up with joneses and going into perpetual debt for it, until nobody will lend any money any more.
Blair, for all his war crimes, managed the decline fairly well, but it’s been clear to anyone with an outside view that Britain is a mid-power, cosplaying as a world power.
Similar to that geezer who always has the flash car and no money to pay for it, keeping up with joneses and going into perpetual debt for it, until nobody will lend any money any more.
> serial unemployment is significantly lower
"Serial unemployment" sounds like a description of going from being unemployed to being unemployed, repeatedly. But that makes no sense. What does it mean?
"Serial unemployment" sounds like a description of going from being unemployed to being unemployed, repeatedly. But that makes no sense. What does it mean?
year after year of being unemployed, or dropping in and out of work very temporarily. (not being able to hold a job)
in britain there is a concept of “the underclass” which are perpetually out of work people.
in britain there is a concept of “the underclass” which are perpetually out of work people.
In the same way that year after year of remaining married to the same person constitutes "serial monogamy"?
Or... how stabbing the same corpse several times makes you a "serial killer"?
Or... how stabbing the same corpse several times makes you a "serial killer"?
Serial unemployment is an actual definition in sociology[0][1]
HN seems to have a lot of people these days who don’t follow the guidelines.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.[2]
[0]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242537188_Charles_M...
[1]: https://senseofmisplaced.blogspot.com/2011/03/serial-unemplo...
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
HN seems to have a lot of people these days who don’t follow the guidelines.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.[2]
[0]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242537188_Charles_M...
[1]: https://senseofmisplaced.blogspot.com/2011/03/serial-unemplo...
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You will always have problems in any country. Norway ranks at 7 in happiness, Sweden at 4. The top four places are Nordic countries. UK ranks 20.
Having lived in Finland and UK, I definitely don't want to live in UK.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-...
Having lived in Finland and UK, I definitely don't want to live in UK.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-...
How can these happiness scores be meaningful? It's all just surveys, and self reporting. It's subjective and sensitive to cultural differences.
Happiness being subjective to cultural differences is a feature, not a bug.
If a culture is breeding widespread unhappiness (perhaps in exchange for maximization of economic growth over all) then it's something that should be observed.
If a culture is breeding widespread unhappiness (perhaps in exchange for maximization of economic growth over all) then it's something that should be observed.
Do you think people are lying about their happiness or that happiness isn't subjective?
Self-reported happiness (or life satisfaction) is only a part of the ranking. The objective measures correlate strongly with the subjective ones (with some outliers like Israel). But as any metric, it's of course not perfect.
"Happiness is measured using six categories including GDP per capita, social support, and healthy life expectancy, among others."
"Happiness is measured using six categories including GDP per capita, social support, and healthy life expectancy, among others."
That measurement of 'happiness' is inappropriate. Instead of simply polling people about e.g. life satisfaction it's based on a bunch of random metrics that have, at best, a mixed relationship with 'happiness.'
So for instance it turns out the 'happiest' countries in the world also have some of the highest rates of depression in the world.
Now obviously that's not literally impossible but ffs just poll people - it's not hard. Yes it will be extremely subjective, exactly like 'happiness' is!
So for instance it turns out the 'happiest' countries in the world also have some of the highest rates of depression in the world.
Now obviously that's not literally impossible but ffs just poll people - it's not hard. Yes it will be extremely subjective, exactly like 'happiness' is!
Such polling is done extensively. Norway ranks 6th, with 94.1% very happy or quite happy.
Happiness vs life satisfaction correlates surprisingly little.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-people-who-say-t...
Happiness vs life satisfaction correlates surprisingly little.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-people-who-say-t...
[deleted]
Not great. Very few chippies.
Notice ALL the Anglo speaking countries are a mess. I blame Freidmanomics. A most poisonous ideology. As Wahhabism is to Islam so Freidmanonics is to the Anglo speaking West.
[deleted]
People replying to you don’t understand the utter failure of the UK, particularly the NHS, which is an abominable evil disgrace that unnecessarily kills and tortures many people every day
Counter point: the NHS saved my life last year. I’m glad it exists and I’m grateful for the amazing people who work at its front lines.
That isn’t a counter point at all. Of course the NHS saves some people. That doesn’t mean it isn’t absolutely horrific. British people are infected with some kind of brain worms where they can’t accept that the NHS is in a dire state because of fear of offending NHS workers. Let me tell you, those on the front line are the biggest critics
It’s easy to stand on the outside, pissing inwards, isn’t it? So thanks for the sweeping generalisations and absolutes, very helpful.
Since you have made no point so far, only offering spiteful generalisations and offence, I feel my lived experience is a good a counter point for those who may scroll by and want to see an alternative view.
Since you have made no point so far, only offering spiteful generalisations and offence, I feel my lived experience is a good a counter point for those who may scroll by and want to see an alternative view.
Government cannot care. You're looking for love in all the wrong places.
I've just spent weeks in Japan, where the government very much seems to care.
Are you joking? Japan?
You do understand, that government really can't care, right? People, animals can care. An institution cannot. It is a social construct. It is an anthropomorphising projection to attribute care or hate or thoughtfulness or any other emotional human attributes onto social constructs.
Humans are just collections of cells, bacteria and some electrical impulses; all vying for survival in a hostile world.
By your definition, anything made up of anything can’t “care”.
Corporations can care, they usually care a lot about for example profits. Governments can care, the ones you’re accustomed to might care a lot about the image of the country or their own image; some can be interested mostly in the survival and prosperity of the country and its citizens though. Politicians, CEOs, Executives etc; can be self serving.
Similar to our own bodies cells: those can be self-serving too. We call that situation cancer.
By your definition, anything made up of anything can’t “care”.
Corporations can care, they usually care a lot about for example profits. Governments can care, the ones you’re accustomed to might care a lot about the image of the country or their own image; some can be interested mostly in the survival and prosperity of the country and its citizens though. Politicians, CEOs, Executives etc; can be self serving.
Similar to our own bodies cells: those can be self-serving too. We call that situation cancer.
With which bacterial cell am I speaking?
Norway as a state may be rich. but the state is also very afraid of spending too much money within the country as not to drive up inflation, salaries etc. In Norway the school children do not even get free/hot lunches (compared to e.g. Sweden).
Having lived in Norway forsome years, at least to me the locals told me that it is more due to tradition of ”matpakke” and not so much of not being able to do it. Even in the work place it is common to bring your own sandwitches in stead of having ”proper” lunch. And also, it would be a huge undertaking even if people wanted it as no school building is equipped with suitable kitchen.
Free school lunches are coming in Norway next year.
https://archive.is/20241129112123/https://www.thelocal.no/20...
https://archive.is/20241129112123/https://www.thelocal.no/20...
You mean they're so rich the government don't need to pay for the food for the poorest in society?
They don’t have poor the way other countries do. And that’s down to culture. I don’t think people appreciate just how homogenous Scandinavia is. (Although this is changing, especially in Sweden)
I also don’t think most people realize how small these countries are. Sweden is as big as Michigan, and Norway is as big as South Carolina.
Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland combined have about half the population of California. And California has about 1/10th of the US population.
I also don’t think most people realize how small these countries are. Sweden is as big as Michigan, and Norway is as big as South Carolina.
Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland combined have about half the population of California. And California has about 1/10th of the US population.
> They don’t have poor the way other countries do. And that’s down to culture. I don’t think people appreciate just how homogenous Scandinavia is.
The good old dog whistle.
It's down to politics. Nordic countries had estate systems (codified social classes) until the late 19th to early 20th century, with high class separation still until the enormous socialist reforms in the mid 20th century.
Finland in particular was a true "shithole country" until after massive reforms (that were partially mandated by the Soviet Union) after WW2. Finland had a massive famine in 1866-1868 where around 10% of the population perished. The government refused to distribute food out of fears it would make the working class lazy, and continued food exports while the people were literally starving. There was a semi-serfdom system until after the 1918 civil war.
> Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland combined have about half the population of California. And California has about 1/10th of the US population.
So they managed it even without the economics of scale.
The good old dog whistle.
It's down to politics. Nordic countries had estate systems (codified social classes) until the late 19th to early 20th century, with high class separation still until the enormous socialist reforms in the mid 20th century.
Finland in particular was a true "shithole country" until after massive reforms (that were partially mandated by the Soviet Union) after WW2. Finland had a massive famine in 1866-1868 where around 10% of the population perished. The government refused to distribute food out of fears it would make the working class lazy, and continued food exports while the people were literally starving. There was a semi-serfdom system until after the 1918 civil war.
> Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland combined have about half the population of California. And California has about 1/10th of the US population.
So they managed it even without the economics of scale.
> So they managed it even without the economics of scale.
You're also more likely to see extreme outcomes with small sample sizes. For example, if we were looking at a list of countries ordered by GDP per capital, statistically we should expect to see more smaller countries in the top and bottom of the list. It doesn't necessarily mean it's due to underlying causes like policy.
You're also more likely to see extreme outcomes with small sample sizes. For example, if we were looking at a list of countries ordered by GDP per capital, statistically we should expect to see more smaller countries in the top and bottom of the list. It doesn't necessarily mean it's due to underlying causes like policy.
Free vs hot makes a very big difference in this case since Norway is well known for its lunch culture. What matters: is it free or is it not?
Of all the things to pick, school lunches would not have been it.
School lunches are considered one of the best return on investment if you want to lift next generations out of poverty. It's really very little money, but greatly improves attendance and participation (poor kids go to school because the get lunch, and are much more attentive because they are not hungry).
does norway have poverty
A large systematic review from 2023 was unable to conclude what positive consequences school lunches would have in Norway, as there is too little research from comparable countries.
The report: https://www.fhi.no/contentassets/97c17432815a4b2291e34140748... Results translated with chatgpt:
> In general, the results from the Nordic literature were inconsistent, and several of the studies were of low quality. The majority of studies from the Nordic countries indicated that a free school meal (breakfast or lunch) had a positive effect on some dietary outcomes. Furthermore, the results suggest that a free school meal may help reduce social disparities in diet.
> A total of three Nordic studies examined the relationship between free school meals and weight, with one study showing increased weight, another showing increased waist circumference, and one showing no change as a result of a free school meal. Two Nordic studies investigated the effect of a free school meal on academic performance, but neither found a clear positive effect.
> None of the Nordic studies found a link between free school meals and absenteeism (two studies), well-being (two studies), or the school environment (two studies).
> Regarding sustainability, only one study from Denmark examined the impact on food waste. The results showed that a warm school meal led to more food waste compared to a packed lunch brought from home.
> Two studies examining the long-term effects of free school meals, implemented in the Nordic countries between the 1920s and 1940s, found that the school meal led to longer schooling and increased income.
The report: https://www.fhi.no/contentassets/97c17432815a4b2291e34140748... Results translated with chatgpt:
> In general, the results from the Nordic literature were inconsistent, and several of the studies were of low quality. The majority of studies from the Nordic countries indicated that a free school meal (breakfast or lunch) had a positive effect on some dietary outcomes. Furthermore, the results suggest that a free school meal may help reduce social disparities in diet.
> A total of three Nordic studies examined the relationship between free school meals and weight, with one study showing increased weight, another showing increased waist circumference, and one showing no change as a result of a free school meal. Two Nordic studies investigated the effect of a free school meal on academic performance, but neither found a clear positive effect.
> None of the Nordic studies found a link between free school meals and absenteeism (two studies), well-being (two studies), or the school environment (two studies).
> Regarding sustainability, only one study from Denmark examined the impact on food waste. The results showed that a warm school meal led to more food waste compared to a packed lunch brought from home.
> Two studies examining the long-term effects of free school meals, implemented in the Nordic countries between the 1920s and 1940s, found that the school meal led to longer schooling and increased income.
Interesting as I was only aware of studies done in other countries, with significantly higher poverty rates. I stand corrected.
Sorting this list by "Value NOK" shows their biggest holdings:
https://www.nbim.no/en/investments/all-investments/#/2024/in...
Apple, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta ...
Does this put Norway at the mercy of the USA?
What if Norway and the USA have an argument and the USA says "You don't want us to freeze your investments in our beautiful tech stocks, do you?".
https://www.nbim.no/en/investments/all-investments/#/2024/in...
Apple, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta ...
Does this put Norway at the mercy of the USA?
What if Norway and the USA have an argument and the USA says "You don't want us to freeze your investments in our beautiful tech stocks, do you?".
Norway's national security is already tied to the US by virtue of its membership with NATO. Any country in a military alliance understands that it somewhat politically limits their freedom when it comes to foreign policies, as they also have to consider the foreign policy goals of those in the military alliance (especially the more powerful partners - see https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/80821 ). Unless Norway is lead by some foolish political leader who forgets this basic political principle, there shouldn't be any problems with the US. Note also that Norway's sovereign fund investment in the US also create an economic dependence between the two countries. It would hurt the US industries too, if Norway suddenly decided to pull all their investment out of the US.
Moreover, the US dealing with the Norwegians like they did with Russian wealth in America or Europe, would mean the end of western control over international finance. Other countries have already noted how the western countries are withholding Russian funds to try and blackmail them, and are already talking about the need for an alternate international finance system that will not be as vulnerable to western politics.
Moreover, the US dealing with the Norwegians like they did with Russian wealth in America or Europe, would mean the end of western control over international finance. Other countries have already noted how the western countries are withholding Russian funds to try and blackmail them, and are already talking about the need for an alternate international finance system that will not be as vulnerable to western politics.
That doesn't really square with reality. For instance Turkey goes directly against US interests in the middle east constantly - while being part of NATO.
The linked SO question is a bit ridiculous. Since when are India and the US allies? I can't think of anything the two countries have really done jointly. The US has historically supported Pakistan and India has historically had very chummy relations with the USSR/Russia (esp the military industrial side of things). India is not a signatory of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and they don't respect US pharmaceutical IP. They're not outright enemies, but they're def not allies
The linked SO question is a bit ridiculous. Since when are India and the US allies? I can't think of anything the two countries have really done jointly. The US has historically supported Pakistan and India has historically had very chummy relations with the USSR/Russia (esp the military industrial side of things). India is not a signatory of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and they don't respect US pharmaceutical IP. They're not outright enemies, but they're def not allies
That's a different case. Turkey (Türkiye) was desperate to join NATO because of USSR. Now that Russia isn't as strong and relationships between the two have improved, and Türkiye has realised that the EU has no intention of ever making it a member, it has less reason to kowtow to US / NATO foreign policies. Once it de-prioritised its foreign policy from US / NATO, it has naturally found more space to have a more independent foreign policy.
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally
"In 2016, the United States recognized India as a "major defense partner"...
In June 2019, American lawmakers provided for enhancements to the strategic status of India, though this fell short of designating the country as an MNNA."
"In 2016, the United States recognized India as a "major defense partner"...
In June 2019, American lawmakers provided for enhancements to the strategic status of India, though this fell short of designating the country as an MNNA."
if Norway suddenly decided to pull
all their investment out of the US
an alternate international finance system
I was citing the opposite scenario - if the US can claim the investment is void Norway too has the option to unilaterally withdraw its investments from the US, anticipating such shenanigans. Both are extreme cases. As for international finance systems vs restrictions on technology - you are mixing up different forms of sanctions.
If the US wants to wreck their own stock market by inducing fear and uncertainty in investors everywhere (including in the US), this would be one way to go about it.
Didn't they introduce fear and uncertainty in their currency by freezing Russia's Dollars?
Didn't they introduce fear and uncertainty in their trade relationships by using tariffs as a negotiation tool?
Do you think their stock market is safe from that behavior?
Didn't they introduce fear and uncertainty in their trade relationships by using tariffs as a negotiation tool?
Do you think their stock market is safe from that behavior?
Sanctions wasn't a new thing when Russia invaded. A rational investor can consider the risk that their country will start invading neighbours in a war of conquest and price it in
Norway also holds $500M Bitcoin through Microstrategy
The USA would never be so childish...oh, hold on
I thought I recognized this username, you're the same guy who was asking whether Europe could build their own AI infrastructure a few days back [1].
You clearly have some kind of bone to pick with how Europe has chosen to handle things here. No, Norway is not "at the mercy" of the USA because it has chosen to voluntarily conduct business with US companies, any more than the USA is "at the mercy" of, say, China. That's a ridiculous way to frame free trade between friendly, or even not-so-friendly, nations.
If - and this is a big if - Norwegian-US relations degraded to the point that asset freezing was on the table, then yes, Norway would likely choose to divest those direct holdings somehow. The most likely way they would try to do this is by looking into some kind of proxy situation whereby a firm in another, friendlier company to the US directly holds the basket, and they hold a big stake in that company. Capitalism is more clever than you are.
"Okay, but what if the US freezes investments in all other countries that trade with Norway in that situation?" That leads to much worse outcomes for everyone involved, the US included. Everyone becomes poorer when they are unable to trade, that's econ 101. How far down this rabbit hole do we have to go? No trading with other countries which trade with other countries which trade with Norway? Come on. Even North Korea trades with other countries. What crimes has Norway committed in the first place to lead to this nightmare, anyway? Eating fish? Preferring iPhones to Androids? Offering a 2 year citizenship track to those rogues, the Finns?
If you want to argue that Europe is doing dumb things with its money, or its investments, sure. By all means. Don't insinuate there is a looming embargo with the US because you're mad that Vanguard is outperforming MSCI, though. Focus on doing the things that make you rich - like thinking clearly, and being friendly to those who want to do business with you. Hey, it's working for Norway.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42875716
You clearly have some kind of bone to pick with how Europe has chosen to handle things here. No, Norway is not "at the mercy" of the USA because it has chosen to voluntarily conduct business with US companies, any more than the USA is "at the mercy" of, say, China. That's a ridiculous way to frame free trade between friendly, or even not-so-friendly, nations.
If - and this is a big if - Norwegian-US relations degraded to the point that asset freezing was on the table, then yes, Norway would likely choose to divest those direct holdings somehow. The most likely way they would try to do this is by looking into some kind of proxy situation whereby a firm in another, friendlier company to the US directly holds the basket, and they hold a big stake in that company. Capitalism is more clever than you are.
"Okay, but what if the US freezes investments in all other countries that trade with Norway in that situation?" That leads to much worse outcomes for everyone involved, the US included. Everyone becomes poorer when they are unable to trade, that's econ 101. How far down this rabbit hole do we have to go? No trading with other countries which trade with other countries which trade with Norway? Come on. Even North Korea trades with other countries. What crimes has Norway committed in the first place to lead to this nightmare, anyway? Eating fish? Preferring iPhones to Androids? Offering a 2 year citizenship track to those rogues, the Finns?
If you want to argue that Europe is doing dumb things with its money, or its investments, sure. By all means. Don't insinuate there is a looming embargo with the US because you're mad that Vanguard is outperforming MSCI, though. Focus on doing the things that make you rich - like thinking clearly, and being friendly to those who want to do business with you. Hey, it's working for Norway.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42875716
proxy situation whereby a firm in another,
friendlier company to the US directly holds
the basket
Similar situation with the Dollar. That's why Russia can't just sell their Dollars to other countries.
What crimes has Norway committed
The data about who "owns" shares in US companies is stored digitally in the US.
Similar situation with the Dollar. That's why Russia can't just sell their Dollars to other countries.
I'm nearly positive a buyer exists who would be willing to trade at, say, 1 US dollar per 0.1 Chinese yuan, even if it meant they had to drive a truck into and out of Anatolia to move the physical bills. China and Russia are trade partners, but s/China/India, Kazakhstan, wherever you want - the point remains the same. Indeed, if Russian citizens are not rushing to sell their dollars for whatever they can get them for, it must be because they foresee some future where they might have actual value, which seems at odds with the claim that Russia is permanently and magically banned from ever using their US dollars again.
[T]he US might not want to send stuff to Europe when Europe has nothing to send back.
This seems extremely contrived. First, you're imagining US-Europe trade slows to a trickle. Second, you're imagining that not one single Euro country decides to reverse course on their bad economic choices when it notices this. Third, you're imagining that Norway is still holding onto their enormous US assets in this situation instead of liquidating them as soon as they see people riding the horse and buggy to work again.
The holding company in the other country holds the shares.
And if their shares get frozen, they can't "move" them to the company in the other country. The US just won't update those database entries.
In Norway the state owns over 50% of the country's wealth, and over 70% if you don't include home ownership. Over 20% of the government budget is covered using profits from ownership.
Norway didn't follow the 80s/90s trend of public asset selloff. Turns out there are alternatives after all. It also didn't join the EU, so it has more sovereignty over its economic policy, although EEA does mandate some neoliberal policies (some of which Norway has ignored or fought against).
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/03/14/the-state-ow...
Norway didn't follow the 80s/90s trend of public asset selloff. Turns out there are alternatives after all. It also didn't join the EU, so it has more sovereignty over its economic policy, although EEA does mandate some neoliberal policies (some of which Norway has ignored or fought against).
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/03/14/the-state-ow...