First, the oil fund is a mathematical artifice. At three-quarters of a trillion dollars, the Norwegian Oil Fund appears to provide plenty for a country with scarcely 5 million citizens. Yet the country has accumulated a foreign debt that, at $657 billion, is almost as massive. Subtracting the debt from the fund’s $740 billion leaves a balance of only $83 billion. In other words, there is a treasure chest, but it is almost empty: Njord’s prize for future generations is only a little more than 10 percent of its putative value.
Socialists are very good at spending other people's money, aren't they edjs.
Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic liberalizations, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and enhancing the role of the private sector in modern society.
That's what Thatcher was all about.
If you want to see what a post neo-liberal political ideology looks like, go to a shop in Venezuela.
One thing I've learned over the years is to live and let live. If believing in a big Sky Fairy is comforting to people in a way that believing, say, that Newton's inverse square law for gravity, then that's fine. The only thing I ask is that you don't insist I believe it too. The latter is, ironically, precisely what you're wishing to impose on other people's children.
That is why your ideas here are illiberal and this illiberality is merely the thin end of the wedge.
Peer-reviewed publication is how scientists communicate with each other and keep track of errors
Depends on the field. It would be better if papers were more readily retracted when wrong. And peer review itself is a kind of group-think that sets the bar very high for hypothesis that go against the paradigm and prevents publication, for very Human reasons, of contrary analysis and opinion. Peer review isn't in itself all that useful a process for science.