It's the same with your $200k debt per US citizen number. The Norwegian government just happens to have $160k in an investment fund per citizen.
I'm not sure what the overall budget for Norway looks like, but I'd guess it's a bit better than the US budget.
"the structural non-oil budget deficit is estimated at NOK 135.1 billion [...] Net cash flow from petroleum activities is estimated at NOK 314 billion. [...] The consolidated surplus on the Fiscal Budget and the Government Pension Fund, including NOK 147 billion in interest and dividends, is estimated at NOK 328 billion (corresponding to 10.6 of GDP)"
I guess a percent sign is missing there. That would make the surplus 10.6% of GDP.
Not really: in a progressive system, one's share of that debt when net worth is considered is probably more like $20k, thanks to wealth disparity. And again, given equitable spending per citizen (regardless of taxes paid), they really do have about $160k per citizen in that investment fund.
I was just pointing out the absolute division of the numbers for both seem like a similar, if ultimately meaningless, metric.
I won't profess to be an economist and/or understand the intricate differences between the US and NO government taxing/budgeting/accounting, so any enlightenment is welcome.
2013 Norway Govt expenditures: $182 billion, per person: $36,000
2013 US Govt expenditures: $3.93 trillion, per person: $13,000 ($22,000 counting local + state; I have no idea how Norway's government spending looks locally)
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States also have a ton of foreign workers who aren't citizens. Saudi Arabia is second to the US in remittances sent out... http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/economy/2013/10/27/...
Think about big that has to be - it's more than any of the most developed EU states to the rest of the EU (how many foreign workers are in the UK? Germany? A lot. And they probably pay much better). It's more than comes out of Russia, when half the GDP of some of the ex-Soviet states is Russian remittances.
So while maybe you're entitled to certain things as a citizen, a huge amount of what makes that possible is done by people who aren't.
Oil wealth is notoriously volatile, and it creates all manner of bad habits (for instance, scaling a services economy to match the scale of the oil wealth; the latter is a finite commodity, and the former is extremely hard to scale down once built up).
Norway has been relatively smart in managing its resource boom. It hasn't completely subsidized the cost of living, spent its oil wealth on giant, shiny objects, hoarded the wealth amongst a corrupt and tiny class of elites, or built an enormous social-services machine that won't survive an oil bust or pricing collapse. It's not spending above its means, presumably under the realization that its means came from a geological lottery ticket.
When your country hits the oil jackpot, your job is to convert the oil money to real industry. You don't splurge on mega-hotels, distribute the money frivolously, etc. You need to use it to create the basis for a non-oil-dependent economy.
In many cases, building mega-hotels is preparing for a post-oil future by establishing yourself as a tourism center. Witness Dubai, which basically has run out of oil but sustains its economy nonetheless.
Abu Dhabi, also in the Emirates, has followed the Norwegian model by building up a massive sovereign wealth fund which can replace/stabilize oil revenue indefinitely. Their fund is the second largest in the world, despite having a substantially smaller population (it works out to about $1.4 million per citizen).
Is Abu Dhabi oil owned by the citizens, or by the royal family like in Saudi? Later down the line, that will be quite an important distinction.
Dubai certainly had a lot less oil to start with, which is why it expanded so aggressively. Definitely overshot the mark there, but the issue isn't catastrophic (they do have a strong tourism base).
> Is Abu Dhabi oil owned by the citizens, or by the royal family like in Saudi? Later down the line, that will be quite an important distinction.
It's owned by the national oil company which manages it for the government. Part of the revenue is diverted into expansion, part into the sovereign wealth fund, and a lot into subsidies and benefits for citizens. Generally speaking the UAE is managed much more equitably than Saudi, with the benefits of oil money used to aid all citizens (for example, universal healthcare).
Having said that, I don't quite recall Thatcher being famous for spending oil revenues on expanding the welfare state (and it doesn't sound like something her supporters, then or now, would approve of) so maybe I'm missing something here?