I think the point here is that subsidies doesn't really matter for the big picture. It could be that some of these outrageous benefits wouldn't happen if it wasn't for a very wealthy state. The question is what you would be left with. It's probably a fair assumption to look at the countries around it.
What you find is that the real strength of these countries are in their culture, not in their natural resources.
Another thing to consider is how one would actually manage this kind of wealth if you actually obtained it. In my opinion, the way Norway spends huge amounts of money on foreign development projects, spreading progressive values such as gender equality, and promoting the role of the UN, are certainly better than building huge palaces or indoor ski slopes.
What you find is that the real strength of these countries are in their culture, not in their natural resources.
Another thing to consider is how one would actually manage this kind of wealth if you actually obtained it. In my opinion, the way Norway spends huge amounts of money on foreign development projects, spreading progressive values such as gender equality, and promoting the role of the UN, are certainly better than building huge palaces or indoor ski slopes.