I get the point you're trying to make, but as always with nuanced discussions people end up in the weeds focusing on points they feel you didn't cover well enough or flatten too much.
I think the easier comparison is to look at the differences between Norway, Alaska, and Alberta - all western states that greatly benefited from oil.
Alberta has absolutely nothing to show for it. Taxes were slashed and it's now impossible for them to raise taxes as needed to fund necessary machinations of the state in times when oil prices are low. The Albertan government brags about 1. No debt, and 2. Cash payouts to Albertans that happened like twice. They just gave everyone $500 which is the dumbest way imaginable to deal with a budget surplus, especially when your economy relies on historically volatile commodities. Alberta is basically run by oil companies.
Alaska has a nominal, state controlled investment fund that pays yearly dividends to citizens of Alaska. It's not that much money in the grand scheme of things and again they keep their taxes really low making it difficult to fund state programs when oil prices are low. Also in true neoliberal fashion it's very difficult to get signed up for payments, and it's inefficiently paid out to people. Sure it's nice getting extra money, but the state has better bargaining power than individuals and they can make that money stretch further if they kept it to fund programs. This is very much a neoliberal state program.
Norway had labour power fight for the high taxes and very strong social safety nets they enjoy. I think that's the best illustration of how the wealth the west enjoys could be used to actually make peoples' lives better. How when people make their own decisions as a group they make good ones. I think these examples best show what organised labour can achieve.
I get the point you're trying to make, but as always with nuanced discussions people end up in the weeds focusing on points they feel you didn't cover well enough or flatten too much.
I think the easier comparison is to look at the differences between Norway, Alaska, and Alberta - all western states that greatly benefited from oil.
Alberta has absolutely nothing to show for it. Taxes were slashed and it's now impossible for them to raise taxes as needed to fund necessary machinations of the state in times when oil prices are low. The Albertan government brags about 1. No debt, and 2. Cash payouts to Albertans that happened like twice. They just gave everyone $500 which is the dumbest way imaginable to deal with a budget surplus, especially when your economy relies on historically volatile commodities. Alberta is basically run by oil companies.
Alaska has a nominal, state controlled investment fund that pays yearly dividends to citizens of Alaska. It's not that much money in the grand scheme of things and again they keep their taxes really low making it difficult to fund state programs when oil prices are low. Also in true neoliberal fashion it's very difficult to get signed up for payments, and it's inefficiently paid out to people. Sure it's nice getting extra money, but the state has better bargaining power than individuals and they can make that money stretch further if they kept it to fund programs. This is very much a neoliberal state program.
Norway had labour power fight for the high taxes and very strong social safety nets they enjoy. I think that's the best illustration of how the wealth the west enjoys could be used to actually make peoples' lives better. How when people make their own decisions as a group they make good ones. I think these examples best show what organised labour can achieve.
deleted by creator