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.
Political Atheists Blog
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.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
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?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
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.
It's so annoying when people come here without reading anything from the main site first.
Here you go:
Code of Federal Regulations
Happy reading.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
So you wilfully ignore all the elements of state control (e.g. over interest rates, implicit and explicit guarantees by the state of failing banks &c.)? Yes, you do. The burden of proof is on you statist idolatre. And by the way ban dodging is not very clever.
Norway reelected their social leaders yesterday last night.
alimentarius: Norway reelected their social leaders yesterday last night.
Some people just never learn.
The liberal people's party of Norway seems a good political platform for libertarian ideas though.
Sweden and Denmark is not as most US liberals and socialdemocrats think. It was up until 197o but after that it went south. In exactly the same way the US will go if you follow the Scandinavian Tax and Spend formula, raised the taxes by 50 % and increased the benefits by 100 %.
The cost can be shown in thsi latest report from KPMG. They show that Sweden and Denmark has the highest overall tax burden among 86 nations as well as the highest marginal taxation, not only that it kicks in at very low levels of income. Sweden will 2010 pass Denmark.
Denmark has the world’s highest marginal taxation of 62.3 % followed by Sweden 56.7 %. For incomes above USD 100.000 dollar Sweden is in the lead.
The average marginal taxation is 28.9 % in the world. The EU average is 36 %. It is about the US average if you include State marginal taxes.
Sweden and Denmark suffer from the Laffer curve i.e. the more taxes are raised the less taxes is raised, the growth in the economy as well as employment is hit. Between 1970-1990 the Laffer effect was extremely strong. Sweden fell from the 4th richest country with the world’s best welfare state to a measly 17th and a mediocre welfare system at best. The Social Security system had become bankrupt. In the early 90s Sweden cut social security benefits by some 30 % and fully funded and privatized it. It deregulated, implemented school vouchers for private schools as well as sold out all public utilities and banks. The marginal taxation was cut from 75 % to 50 %. Denmark did basically the same. Still according to a recent study Sweden and Denmark still suffers from the Laffer effect i.e. should not raise taxes since they are contra productive.
According to the German study the US can raise taxes by 30 % on income and 6 % on capital gains without the risk of the Laffer effect. However as Sweden’s and Denmark’s example when you raise taxes close or above the Laffer maximum curve you tend to keep raising them to pay for all the reforms you put in.
The US will probably have to raise taxes by 10-15 % to pay for Long Term Care and Medicare as well as have to cut Social Security benefits by 30 % and stop the PayAsYouGo system to a fully funded partially privatized system.
The worlds highest marginal taxation
1. Denmark (62.3 %)2. Sweden (56.7 %)3. The Netherlands (52 %)4. Japan (50 %)5. Austria (50 %)6. Belgium (50 %)7. Ireland (46 %)8. Israel 46 %)9. Australian (45 %)10. China (45 %)11. Croatia (45 %)12. Germany (45 %)
World average: 28.9 %EU average: 36 %
The worlds lowest marginal taxation
Bahamas (0 %)Bahrain (0 %)Cayman Island (0 %)Kuwait (0 %)Oman (0 %)Qatar (0 %)Saudi Arabia (0 %)Bulgarian (10 %)Kazakhstan (10 %)Paraguay (10 %)Russia (13 %)Costa Rica (15
Could we get a link to this info please
From Mathias Trabandt and Harald Uhlig, there is a new study:
We characterize the Laffer curves for labor taxation and capital income taxation quantitatively for the US, the EU-14 and individual European countries by comparing the balanced growth paths of a neoclassical growth model featuring ”constant Frisch elasticity” (CFE) preferences. We derive properties of CFE preferences. We provide new tax rate data. For benchmark parameters, we find that the US can increase tax revenues by 30% by raising labor taxes and 6% by raising capital income taxes. For the EU-14 we obtain 8% and 1%. Denmark and Sweden are on the wrong side of the Laffer curve for capital income taxation.
I guess some of those countries should cut their tax rates. The title of the paper is How Far Are We From the Slippery Slope? The Laffer Curve Revisited. You'll find some ungated versions here.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 16, 2009 at 07:38 AM
On comparison between the EU and the US as well Sweden and the US you can read the 2 following texts by 2 leading Swedish Economists:
Fredrik Bergström & Robert Gidehag
”Sweden vs. USA, an analysis of the importance of growth” 2003
“EU vs. USA, an analysis of the importance of growth” 2003
Unfortunately they are no longer available online in English and only the latter is available online in Swedish. I have a pdf hardcopy in English of EU vs. USA.
However you can read a commentary made by the Wall Street Journal:
Europe vs. America Germany edges out Arkansas in per capita GDP.
But what about equality? Well, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden--the very model of a modern welfare state--were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income.
In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.
So what is Europe's problem? "The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west," the authors write. In 1999, average EU tax revenues were more than 40% of GDP, and in some countries above 50%, compared with less than 30% for most of the U.S.
Thanks for the contributions, Homo Illuminatus.
Ok, I am new to the site, so forgive me if I say or do something wrong here.
It is my understanding, that these Quasi-socialist states are able to prosper because at least a portion of their economy is in fact capitalist in nature. Just like America, since say 1913, it is because of those capitalist areas of the economy that we grow despite the enhanced regulation, not because of them.
I recently debated with a gentleman from Denmark who is very happy with his socialist economy. He is going to college there for free. After much debating, he conceded that he in fact had far fewer choices in Denmark than we do here in America. That is what the bottom line essence of Capitalism is to me, the freedom of choices.
Makes me wonder if ignorance is indeed bliss, he is happy, and I stress about losing our economy to crazy Keynesians and Obamanomics. What a world we live in.
Justin:He is going to college there for free.
He is going to college there at someone else's expense. School is not free. Somone is paying salaries, materials and overheads.
I don't doubt that free riders feel pretty good about the trip.
Sorry to quibble, I am a stickler for this distinction. I really dislike when people say "free". I always remind them that someone is paying the costs, because the teachers, or doctors or whatever are not donating their wages for free.
My apologies. It's kinda late here. You are absolutely right in correcting me. I sometimes need jumping on, I have to admit I was on a kind of high about making him concede. I did end up telling him that he didn't go for free actually, and I also got him to concede that point as well. If anything, him not being able to out debate me on these points leads me to one of two conclustions:
1) state schooling has failed again and not given him the proper tools to win in a debate
2) socialized economic systems are indefensible
I guess it's probably the ladder with the former as a side dish.
Justin:My apologies. It's kinda late here.
No need to apologize. You did well in your debate. It's my pet peeve about "free". When you point out how it is not free, people suddenly stop being so arrogant about how much their government does for them. Really takes the starch out of them IMO.
Sorry but this way of comparing is plain bullshit. Just compare some real-estate-dealers´offers on the web - and you will realize that you cannot compare on air-conditioning, sqarefeet and so on and blame the different system.
Include Japan or Switzerland - and it would become even more ridiciolous. Just have a look on a map!
USA: 9.161.924 km² - 305.548.183 Inhabitants -> 31 Inhabitants per km²
Germany - 357.104 km² - 82.002.356 Inhabitants -> 230 Inhabitants per km²
In order to compare somehow realisticaly - you would have to compare Germany to Maryland - even thoth the population-density of Maryland is 175 Inhabitants per km². Ok from this point we could for example compare the prices in Munic with the prices in Baltimore - even thogh Baltimore is smaller.
And even from this point you would have to think about the quality of the houses. In Germany most houses are build in bricks and concrete. These houses are built to last 100 years and longer.
If there are living many people on little space - this makes the prices rise! Not only the prices to buy a House.
I don't see your point?
US left liberals and Big Government statists always love to compare the US average to Scandinavia. Why do you find it bs when the comparison goes the other way?
The contention of the Swedish report is that poverty is relative to other peoples earnings and wealth, not an absolute i.e. poverty is in the eye of the beholder, a personal opinion not a fact. The report holds that a better way of understanding poverty is to measure living standards and housing standards.
Personally I agree that to compare Sweden and Germany to the US is absolutely misleading. The poorest states in the US, Louisiana etc. should be compared to the poorest and most corrupt EU countries such as Greece.
Sweden should be compared to Minnesota and New York, States with high marginal taxation and high overall taxes as well as very large public sectors and strong trade unions as well as large state entitlements programs.
Even given these comparisons the US leads but after Obama 2 terms the US overall will look much more like Greece than Sweden. Large corrupt government bureaucracies with little or nothing to show for all the taxes spent. Big corporations, Big Labor and special interest groups will have a field day.
US little hard working chickens will be screwed. My mother used to work for the government in Sweden during our crazy socialist years 1968-1993. Marginal taxation was for employees at 90 % and for self employed 105 %. So how did workers, small business owners, entrepreneurs and professional people react?
Blue and white collar workers started abusing the entitlement systems to supplement income and increase free time. If supplementing income by work they asked for money under the table. The Swedish Black Market sector grew like crazy. You couldn’t find a contractor that would give you a invoice or an estimate.
Small business owners transferred their earnings to Switzerland in suitcases and engaged in extreme tax evasion dn tax avoidance schemes. Tax fraud became a national pastime.
Entrepreneurs left Sweden by their own volition or hounded out by the IRS and the media.
My mother and her compatriots that couldn’t take balck money instead had their trade union extend their vacation time. My mother had 12 weeks paid vacation and for every hour working overtime she got three hours leave i.e. non of her colleagues worked more than 6-7 months a year. The rest of the time they hunted, took flying certificates and had 200 extra College credits each when they were not busy repairing their house and car.
Welcome to the US of the year 2016 but the difference is that instead of an non-partisan, non-corrupt bureaucracy denying special interests as in Sweden the US will have the South European version, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Southern Italy.
The lesson that left liberals and statists does not understand is that you cannot have extremely high taxes, a large entitlement program combined with corrupt bureaucracies and self serving partisan bureaucrats.
I've read this discussion very carefully and many times. very illuminating and, except for a few posts, very high quality. My compliments to the ones involved.
I only have one small thing to add, a minor correction if you like. While Southern Italy is surely very similar to Greece and the poorest parts of Spain the rest of the country doesn't fare much better. The central parts (Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna particularly) are called "the Red Regions" for reasons easy to imagine. While they like boasting "high living standards" a quick look at their hospitals and roads says it all. Then you have the Northern part. Though in a slow decline since the late '70s (caused by, you guessed it, increased taxation and legislation) we are the powerhouse pulling the rest of country, though we are quickly running out of steam. But do not believe for a minute that our situation is similar to, say Germany and France. We are very close to Sweden in the '80s, as rightly depicted by HI: high taxation, very powerful special interest groups (including omnipotent unions), rapidly deteriorating infrastructures etc. Add the fact that Italy is a state held together by an artificial and increasingly decrepit identity concocted in the late XIX century to keep together people who have always hated each other's guts (and we still do) and you get the picture.
Sorry for hijacking the thread and keep on rocking!
Kakugo:Add the fact that Italy is a state held together by an artificial and increasingly decrepit identity concocted in the late XIX century to keep together people who have always hated each other's guts (and we still do)
Don't worry about hijacking the thread. We're all interested in intelligent input. Now, I'm wondering, could you please expand on the above statement? I wasn't aware that there is some kind of conflict between Italians. Are Sicilians opposed to Venetians and Venetians to Romans, etc.?
As someone who has lived there and knows people who still live there I can vouch for that statement.
You can also read up on its history. Was only recently unified in the 18th century, the people speak their own dialects. I suppose in many cases it is similar to germany, I think the central government on a whole is just much weaker.