Økt sparing for atomvinteren?

Innebryter Økt Sparing for Atomvinteren? The recent focus on the Norwegian oil fund's management has sparked debate about the need for stricter guidelines. Ine Eriksen Søreide, leader of the Norwegian Progress Party and a member of the Norwegian central bank's board, Nicolai Tangen, have warned about the potential consequences of an atomic war or bioterrorism.

Tangen claims such threats are "quite likely." Eriksen Søreide has indicated she plans to reduce oil consumption and change the handling rule. Other observers agree that the handling rule must be tightened to prevent further growth in oil consumption. This is a healthy reflection of not letting the fund run on autopilot. The economic policy must always adapt to the world around us, both as it is and as desired.

The handling rule has served as our lifeline, preventing Norwegian politicians from getting carried away with excessive spending and resource misallocation. However, it's not the handling rule that should receive all the credit. Norway was already wealthy in democratic institutions, knowledge, and industry when oil was discovered.

Awareness of the dangers short-term wealth can bring has contributed to politicians directing resources towards other areas, such as welfare and education. While political disagreement exists on various areas of spending, there have been examples of irresponsible spending. However, overall, major priorities have remained consistent.

The economy and public sector have also benefited from this. As the world changes and the fund has grown far beyond what we could have imagined 25 years ago, we should not exaggerate the crisis but instead analyze what we have done well so far, what we have learned, and what society's needs will be in the future. The handling rule was appropriate.

A predictable rule that regulates the infusion of oil money into Norway's economy, while oil wealth is distributed across several generations, is both wise and responsible. We have learned that Norwegian politicians can prioritize. Every budget has had fixed parameters for spending, and governments and the Storting have prioritized within those parameters.

We have also learned that this has worked very well for Norway. Productivity growth has been high, and wealth development has been significant. There is no threat to the civilization. What will society and the economy need in the future? We know that higher costs will arise, while productivity growth has taken away (like all similarly comparable countries).

Climate changes present us with significant challenges, both in transitioning to a zero-emission society and in adapting to climate changes. At the same time, activity levels in Norway's oil sector will decline, leading to a need for realignment, both nationally and regionally. Infrastructure maintenance will put pressure on the country, both in roads, power lines, and water and sewage systems.

Defense spending will increase, as will welfare spending. These are challenges that other countries also face. However, many countries burden their budgets with fuel costs, which politicians must cut without making things worse, neither in terms of growth or productivity. Our wealth gives us the opportunity to meet the future and invest in a better life for current and future generations.

This must be done responsibly, however, the goal of what is responsible cannot be a pietistic fear of "less than today," a feeling that things are getting worse. It must be tied to the realities of the real economy and how much Norway can handle. How much we can extract from the oil fund should be covered by some predictable rule.

Simply concluding that oil consumption must be reduced does not provide such a rule. It first and foremost provides increased savings. Keep in mind that lower oil consumption is equivalent to higher taxation, all else being equal. The result is an even larger fund. What is good for someone when an atomic war can strike the wealth (and perhaps all of us) is an increased savings rate.