Why Is Norway Not In The Eu?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24049876
I think we know! Why is it so rare for most of the economies of the world to run in the black?

[cassa333]

Before I've even read any replys..... Because they aren't stupid :)

[weecalf]

I preferred it when it was called the common market but then I was only 12

[New Judge]

Not being disingenuous at all, Gromit.

Jake has consistently argued in the past that an ever-increasing population, mainly fuelled by immigration, is the only way to reverse the UK’s relative penury (and hence increase its prosperity). He has argued that vital services and industries cannot function without such an influx. He has argued in particular (as you mention) about the need to increase the population, again mainly by means of immigration, in order to fund pensions. You may also have noticed that I have consistently argued that this is the economics of the madhouse and treats the State pension scheme as a gigantic Ponzi scheme (which it is, but there is no need to exacerbate that situation).

But now he puts forward an argument that a nation with a relatively small population and which happens to be relatively prosperous (and who does not, apparently, need vast numbers of immigrants to maintain that prosperity) is in that position precisely because it has a small population.

Hence my confusion.

[ludwig]

It's quite simple NJ. Norway has huge gas, oil, and mineral reserves and not many people, so they're rich.

We have a large population and no money, so the only way we can survive is to keep making the population larger, because then there'll be more people to tax.

..er hang on, now I'm confused as well.

[Gromit]

NJ

Perhaps you are both right. The State Pension is a ponzi scheme. Because Norway has a small population, the black hole is small and does not need as many new taxpayers to contribute to pay for the old. The UK, being 10 times larger in pipulation has a 10 times bigger black hole. The indigenous birthrate is too low to sustain our aging pipulation.

[New Judge]

Then a way needs to be found to sustain the existing population without an increase in numbers. Incredible as it may seem, the increasing numbers (wherever they originate from) eventually get old and require care and pensions. If we don't have enough resources to service the existing aged population why should we have enough to service an even greater number in thirty or forty years time? We are constantly being urged to consider the effect our current actions will have on our children and grandchildren. Increasing the population (by whatever means) to satisfy current demand for cash is no different to increasing greenhouse emissions to satisfy current demand for energy. It is, quite simply, the economics of lunacy.