It is misleading to look upon the cash flow from petroleum activities as income. The appropriate economic perspective is to see the transfer of the cash flow to the Government Pension Fund as a way of transferring capital from one account to another – from petroleum to foreign securities. By doing so, we diversify risk. We must also strive for an equitable distribution of this wealth across generations. The Norwegian authorities have been successful in ensuring that the bulk of petroleum wealth benefits society as a whole. Both the state’s ownership interests through the State’s Direct Financial Interest in petroleum activities (SDFI) and the tax system have contributed. The companies that extract oil earn a reasonable return on their investments and have incentives to invest, but the economic rent has essentially accrued to the general public. Second, the size of the cash flow from petroleum activities also varies. If petroleum revenues were to be used as they accrue, this would lead to wide fluctuations in demand in the Norwegian economy. Third, the use of petroleum revenues has an impact on competitiveness in Norwegian business and industry. A high level and substantial variations in the use of petroleum revenues would have a negative impact on internationally exposed industries. The establishment of the Government Pension Fund and the spending guidelines for petroleum revenues are intended to meet these challenges. The government earns large net cash flows deriving from the oil companies’ sale of petroleum products in foreign markets.
Limited losses on subprime loans ultimately led to the destruction of millions of jobs throughout the world, and the links between finance and the real economy were cruelly laid bare. ii)  But finance can certainly not be considered “all powerful”: in my opinion, the world of finance only has the political power that State governments choose to give it. •  Granted, the difficulties some countries were facing, notably in the euro area, were exacerbated by financial market pressures – think back to the attacks on Italian debt in the summer of 2011. But if the markets were able to exert this pressure, it was because those countries had, in a sense, put themselves at their mercy by demanding that they finance their ever-expanding public deficits, even during periods of growth. •  In nearly all the crises faced by the euro area since 2009, it is true that market reactions were often brutal and even extreme. But these reactions were frequently based on legitimate fears: for example the sustainability of Greek debt, weaknesses in the institutions of monetary union and divergences in competitiveness between euro area Member States. Again, it was by failing to make the necessary efforts (to ensure budget discipline, preserve competitiveness or finalise the institutions of a European financial union, for example) that these countries put themselves in a position to be rushed or even pressured by the markets and bear the consequences of their overreaction. Governments should not use finance as an alibi or as a scapegoat.