I ask about exploration because I guess that the state monopolizes it to keep its price high.
alimentarius: Jon Irenicus: Why would that be? Why would Norwegians benefit more from this oil than any other people, if it was owned by pravate people?
Jon Irenicus: Why would that be?
Why would that be?
Why would Norwegians benefit more from this oil than any other people, if it was owned by pravate people?
If the oil were in private hands, then the profits from the oil would not go to wasteful welfare, "public work," and other government programs. Instead, the profits from the oil would be invested back into the economy by the owners of the oil wells, refineries, and distribution centers. This new investment would create tremendous economic growth.
Moreover, privatized oil fields would increase efficiency. Currently, the Norwegian government has little incentive to keep oil production as efficient as possible. Thus, resources and money are wasted, leading to lower profits. Under a private system of ownership, efficiency would increase due to the profit motive, thereby increasing profits. Increased profits would further increase average household income as wages and salaries of those connected to the oil industry would rise and as the return to investors would rise. Furthermore, increased profits would further spur economic growth by promoting greater investment.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
Sorry, but you are WRONG. You didn't include that those Scandinavian countries have a 'mixed economy'. Norway has wide state ownership of the private sector, STATOILHYDRO and STATKRAFT included. STATOILHYDRO is the primary source of wealth in Norway, which is a petroleum asset owned by the state, and it has many wealthy investors.
Norway has the highest standard of living, and personal wealth in the world. They also recovered from the Economic crisis a lot quicker then any other country despite having State ownership of many industries. Norway is the world’s seventh largest oil exporter[10] and the petroleum industry accounts for around a quarter of its GDP
The hourly productivity levels, as well as average hourly wages in Norway are among the highest in the world. The egalitarian values of the Norwegian society ensure that the wage difference between the lowest paid worker and the CEO of most companies is much smaller than in comparable western economies. This is also evident in Norway's low Gini coefficient.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy
Germany also has an extensive safety net, and again have a higher living standard then the United States, even with their Universal Health Care they have a higher life expectancy.
also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_branding
Also wrong. The state does a pretty damn good job at regulating STATOIL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statoil
Lockesthenes: Norway has the highest standard of living, and personal wealth in the world.
Norway has the highest standard of living, and personal wealth in the world.
Sources?
I remember reading somewhere that a middle class family in America is 30% wealthier than a middle class family in a scandinavian country.
They also recovered from the Economic crisis a lot quicker then any other country
I thought Norway went bankrupt after the crisis
The egalitarian values of the Norwegian society ensure that the wage difference between the lowest paid worker and the CEO of most companies is much smaller than in comparable western economies.
I fail to see this as a good thing, although at least you could say that "lowest paid worker" doent feel so bad about his life.
Right there, read it.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Lockesthenes:Sorry, but you are WRONG. You didn't include that those Scandinavian countries have a 'mixed economy'. Norway has wide state ownership of the private sector, STATOILHYDRO and STATKRAFT included. STATOILHYDRO is the primary source of wealth in Norway, which is a petroleum asset owned by the state, and it has many wealthy investors.
Not so fast.
1)Assuming everything you say is true, that is only 1 country out of the Scandinavian 3 (or 4,5 etc of how many you want to include). Therefore, overall, Scandinavia as a whole would still be operating under the mixed economy system, not the socialist system, therefore rendering the initial claim still valid.
2) Does you share our definition of the term socialism? The complete and total control of all factors of production by a central institution? That is, a market does not exist? So perhaps your reply could contend, that norway is closer to socialism, then a mixed economy, however you did not do this.
3) Source to me the size of the economy that STATOILHYDRO & STATKRAFT make up. Answers such as "Jag är från Nor, Danmark, Norge, Sverige" will not suffice. Also, I find it a little contradictory that you say that STATOILHYRDO is owned by the state, but it has any wealthy investors. Are those investors private? If so, how much of the company do they own? So exactly how public, private is it? Is it a private company that enjoys the patronage of the state? That sounds more to me like corporatism or Marx's capitalism then socialism.
Lockesthenes:Norway has the highest standard of living, and personal wealth in the world.
Says who? Are you using the HDI index? Best read this little critique by Bryan Caplan.
Lockesthenes:They also recovered from the Economic crisis a lot quicker then any other country despite having State ownership of many industries. Norway is the world’s seventh largest oil exporter[10] and the petroleum industry accounts for around a quarter of its GDP
1) The economic crisis is not over, what if their recovery is temporary?
2) Did the crisis even really effect norway to begin with? This crisis is one caused by monetary intervention in the United States no? How dependent is Norway upon exporting to the U.S.
3) Logical fallacy. Simply having a large state sector does not prohibit a quick recovery. And therefore having a large state does not imply that recovery was caused by it. Did Norway enact any large "quick fix" schemes similar to that of the U.S or the various members of the E.U? Perhaps you should instead tell us why Norway was able to recover quickly.
Lockesthenes:The hourly productivity levels, as well as average hourly wages in Norway are among the highest in the world. The egalitarian values of the Norwegian society ensure that the wage difference between the lowest paid worker and the CEO of most companies is much smaller than in comparable western economies. This is also evident in Norway's low Gini coefficient.
&
Lockesthenes:Germany also has an extensive safety net, and again have a higher living standard then the United States, even with their Universal Health Care they have a higher life expectancy.
And your point is....?
My point is, they have regulation, and their economy is better then ours. I guess Capitalism doesn't work after all.
Sweden has regulation, while the U.S did not before the crisis. Thus why deregulation blew our markets to hell.
I'm going to label you a troll and not reply to your posts, and would advise others to do so, till you make a formal reply to my above questions.
Cheers
Lockesthenes: My point is, they have regulation, and their economy is better then ours. I guess Capitalism doesn't work after all.
What definition of "capitalism" are you using? Marx's explicit socio-economic definition of "free exchange, free buying, and free selling, with the goal making a profit, and which presupposes private property", or Marx's implicit sociological definition which can be surmised as mercantilism? Lockesthenes: Sweden has regulation, while the U.S did not before the crisis. Thus why deregulation blew our markets to hell.
Lockesthenes: Sweden has regulation, while the U.S did not before the crisis. Thus why deregulation blew our markets to hell.
False. The US had regulation before the crisis.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
Oh really? Why not take a look at the hedge funds market, mortgage derivatives, backed securities, and credit default swaps.
Most of those had little to NO regulation whatsoever.
Let's say that is true. So what?
To darkness I condemn you...
Lockesthenes: Oh really? Why not take a look at the hedge funds market, mortgage derivatives, backed securities, and credit default swaps. Most of those had little to NO regulation whatsoever.
And the government doesn't regulate how many times you can post idiotic comments on Mises.org. I guess that means we're in a free market!!! Oh noes! Let's ignore the SEC, FTC, Federal Reserve, and the other market regulating agencies!!!!
Your "point" pretty much got blown out of the water. Try harder, bridge dweller.
How wasn't deregulation the cause, if the lack of oversight allowed such investments to enter into toxic assets? Thus becoming a systematic risk?
How about monetary policy, gross moral hazard, and the nonloyalty to the customer?
Both Sweden and the US have had and still do have extensive regulation in all areas of life. Had you read the OP, you would have realized that Sweden has less financial regulation than the US. So if your claim that deregulation caused the financial crisis, shouldn't it have been much more severe in Sweden than in the US?
It is very hard to compare standards of living from one place to the next. Those income numbers do not translate well into lifestyle issues.
Norway has a huge national savings plan based on their oil revenues. You need to account for that.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap