Norway's "Government Pension Fund" is NOT used to actually fund pensions. It is actually not funding anything right now, but absorbs the government's budget surplus resulting from the oil sector. As such, it's a net negative for most economic indicators currently, since Norway has chosen to defer the use of their wealth in fossil fuels.

Are you suggesting it's unusual or undesirable for a pension fund to not be paying out currently? If a country creates a sovereign wealth fund for when the proverbial and in this case literal well eventually dries up and it doesn't need to tap into that currently, and there's $200k for every citizen in that piggy bank, that seems like a pretty good thing for preventing social unrest and perhaps even promoting social cohesion. A 25 year old in Belgium or Greece or Spain has a lot more reason to worry there won't be anything left by the time it's their turn than someone in a country that _doesn't even have to use their largest fund yet_.

Also, when you say "chosen to defer the use of their wealth", you mean "invest at a rate of about 6% annually"? As long as they're otherwise meeting all of their commitments, I'm not seeing the problem.

Maybe read the comment I was replying to? They made the argument that Norway's economic success is caused by the fund. Which it is not. Because the fund is, to repeat myself, "a net negative currently, used to defer the use of the fossil fuel windfall for future times".

To more directly answer your question: the fund is the sort of level-headed strategic genius that only a sane country like Norway could pull off. Compare Alaska.

I am the author of the comment you were replying to, so I assume I'm reasonably familiar with what it says and does not say. I did not say that Norway's _economic_ success is caused by the fund, that's silly. I was replying to a comment suggesting that comparing a country to Norway in the context of increased social cohesion and we could just cargo-cult whatever they're doing is simplistic, because their situation is different, among which a trillion dollar sovereign piggy bank.

You are making the opposite point of the one you think you are making: Norway has those trillion dollars set aside because they nationalized a lot of oil profit. The US could have done that to, and so could for that matter Venezuela.

I think you're attributing a point to me I'm not actually making? I am not saying "the US could not have done so", I am saying the US did not and Norway did.