FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Norway, an amazingly successful welfare state

Norway, an amazingly successful welfare state

(6:24) Kyle Kulinski compares Norway's welfare state to the US' free-market economy. youtube.com/user/SecularTalk

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: noname (1097 days ago)

He should compere Saudi Arabia and Norway, both are oil reach countries, with large social programs.

ReplyVote up (149)down (136)
Original comment

He should compere Saudi Arabia and Norway, both are oil reach countries, with large social programs.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1097 days ago)

US is an oil-rich country.

ReplyVote up (182)down (135)
Original comment

US is an oil-rich country.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: noname (1097 days ago)

Not if you count per capita.
US has same production as SA, but it has 10x the population. Norway has about 1/6 of production of US and only 5 milion people.
The other point being that oil is importan for US as consumption commodity, while for Norway and SA it's large export commodity.

ReplyVote up (123)down (111)
Original comment

Not if you count per capita.
US has same production as SA, but it has 10x the population. Norway has about 1/6 of production of US and only 5 milion people.
The other point being that oil is importan for US as consumption commodity, while for Norway and SA it's large export commodity.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1097 days ago)

Saudi Arabia is a terrible country not because it is oil-rich and has large social programs, but because it is a dictatorship under Sharia law.

ReplyVote up (129)down (118)
Original comment

Saudi Arabia is a terrible country not because it is oil-rich and has large social programs, but because it is a dictatorship under Sharia law.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: noname (1096 days ago)

I thought he discused markets, not political systems, well he can use UAE or Brunei as references instead.
Either way compering US with them is as compering apples and oranges.

ReplyVote up (130)down (129)
Original comment

I thought he discused markets, not political systems, well he can use UAE or Brunei as references instead.
Either way compering US with them is as compering apples and oranges.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1096 days ago)

You can't discuss markets in isolation. I don't understand what you're trying to say - that Norway is a great society, Saudi Arabia is not, so it can't be anything to do with the welfare state because they are both welfare states?

Both countries are rich because of oil. In the US, oil profits go to superrich individuals. In Norway, oil profits go to the Norwegian people. In Saudi Arabia, oil profits go to the King and he decides what to do with it.

Where do you think oil profits should go? To the people of the land/sea above the oil, or to a few very powerful individuals?

ReplyVote up (130)down (153)
Original comment

You can't discuss markets in isolation. I don't understand what you're trying to say - that Norway is a great society, Saudi Arabia is not, so it can't be anything to do with the welfare state because they are both welfare states?

Both countries are rich because of oil. In the US, oil profits go to superrich individuals. In Norway, oil profits go to the Norwegian people. In Saudi Arabia, oil profits go to the King and he decides what to do with it.

Where do you think oil profits should go? To the people of the land/sea above the oil, or to a few very powerful individuals?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: noname (1096 days ago)

I don't want to go in argument about how good or bad SA is. Yes, it is rigid country, but if you are in right majority, you have many benefits, to some extent comparable to Norway, so I offer alternatives, that are a lot more similar to Norway.


Norway has around 78% tax rate on oil profits, also it has very high oil price, largely because of taxes on oil sales. That is the way it transfers welt from oil companies to government.
US could do the same, but then oil prices would rise and no one wants that, rich or poor, and they don't want it largley because they consume it, not just sell it.
And if he wanted discussion on higher taxes rates and less loop holes he could of said it. He also doesn't say what will happen when oil runs out, less than 100 year ago, Norway was very poor country.

ReplyVote up (149)down (143)
Original comment

I don't want to go in argument about how good or bad SA is. Yes, it is rigid country, but if you are in right majority, you have many benefits, to some extent comparable to Norway, so I offer alternatives, that are a lot more similar to Norway.


Norway has around 78% tax rate on oil profits, also it has very high oil price, largely because of taxes on oil sales. That is the way it transfers welt from oil companies to government.
US could do the same, but then oil prices would rise and no one wants that, rich or poor, and they don't want it largley because they consume it, not just sell it.
And if he wanted discussion on higher taxes rates and less loop holes he could of said it. He also doesn't say what will happen when oil runs out, less than 100 year ago, Norway was very poor country.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1095 days ago)

The reason why the US can't do what Norway has done, is that US government is deeply corrupt, and oil wealth won't trickle through to the people. Instead it'll pay for more tax cuts for the superrich.

A corrupt government nationalising an industry is a recipe for disaster. That's like adding government power to an industry with no restraints.

ReplyVote up (135)down (125)
Original comment

The reason why the US can't do what Norway has done, is that US government is deeply corrupt, and oil wealth won't trickle through to the people. Instead it'll pay for more tax cuts for the superrich.

A corrupt government nationalising an industry is a recipe for disaster. That's like adding government power to an industry with no restraints.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: noname (1095 days ago)

It's not that simple, although corruption is a walid point.
Any change in taxition will change price of gasoline and US needs low gasoline price to function. It's not prepered for high prices, Norway has 2-3 times higher prices.

ReplyVote up (123)down (117)
Original comment

It's not that simple, although corruption is a walid point.
Any change in taxition will change price of gasoline and US needs low gasoline price to function. It's not prepered for high prices, Norway has 2-3 times higher prices.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1095 days ago)

Corruption is not just a valid point. It's a deal breaker. Nothing of any significance will change in the US until big money is out of politics.

But just imagine that government did actually work for improving the lives of its people.

The American fossil fuel industry could be nationalised. The price of oil could be kept low to help American business, the rest of the profits could subsidise the American clean energy industry, boosting the economy.

As the clean energy industry grows, taxes on oil could be raised to subsidise clean energy and incentivise people to switch, while fossil fuels are faded out, leaving most of what's left underground, and we live happily for ever after. What's there not to like?

All we need is a bit of imagination, and the help of an incorruptible government.

ReplyVote up (149)down (129)
Original comment

Corruption is not just a valid point. It's a deal breaker. Nothing of any significance will change in the US until big money is out of politics.

But just imagine that government did actually work for improving the lives of its people.

The American fossil fuel industry could be nationalised. The price of oil could be kept low to help American business, the rest of the profits could subsidise the American clean energy industry, boosting the economy.

As the clean energy industry grows, taxes on oil could be raised to subsidise clean energy and incentivise people to switch, while fossil fuels are faded out, leaving most of what's left underground, and we live happily for ever after. What's there not to like?

All we need is a bit of imagination, and the help of an incorruptible government.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: noname (1095 days ago)

For that, you don't need to nationalize oil, only to make strategic shift to clean energy. Oil can stay private, but increasingly taxed , at the same time government invests in clean energy reaserch and subsidies promising clean energy projects until clean energy can stand on it own feet.

ReplyVote up (125)down (135)
Original comment

For that, you don't need to nationalize oil, only to make strategic shift to clean energy. Oil can stay private, but increasingly taxed , at the same time government invests in clean energy reaserch and subsidies promising clean energy projects until clean energy can stand on it own feet.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1095 days ago)

I thought you said "Any change in taxition will change price of gasoline and US needs low gasoline price to function."

Nationalising oil allows the government to artificially control the oil price in coodination with subsidies for clean energy. Basically, the profits from oil are used to lubricate the move to clean energy, rather than go into the pockets of the Koch brothers.

Nationalising oil allows government to take the advice of scientists - that we need to leave 80% of the remaining oil underground to stand a chance of not going extinct.

Private oil companies know there's trillions of dollars worth of oil still underground and will fight with all their wealth to milk every last drop, at the expense of the human race, possibly all known life in the universe.

Anyway, this is all fairyland. The US government is way too corrupt to give any power back to the people.

ReplyVote up (106)down (123)
Original comment

I thought you said "Any change in taxition will change price of gasoline and US needs low gasoline price to function."

Nationalising oil allows the government to artificially control the oil price in coodination with subsidies for clean energy. Basically, the profits from oil are used to lubricate the move to clean energy, rather than go into the pockets of the Koch brothers.

Nationalising oil allows government to take the advice of scientists - that we need to leave 80% of the remaining oil underground to stand a chance of not going extinct.

Private oil companies know there's trillions of dollars worth of oil still underground and will fight with all their wealth to milk every last drop, at the expense of the human race, possibly all known life in the universe.

Anyway, this is all fairyland. The US government is way too corrupt to give any power back to the people.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: noname (1095 days ago)

I did, and I stand behind it.
What I said next, is that US government should subsidies clean energy and in the same time rise taxes, but not once.

As clean energy grows taxes on oil should get larger and larger, this will allow for two things, both US economy and society to adjust to change and reduction of demand for oil.

In later stages (when clean energy is well developed) oil should be so heavily taxed that it would be used only where there is no alternative.

There is also a problem of artificially low prices in your argument. Prices are already to low, basic income for building infrastracutre comes from taxes on gasoline (and US needs rebuilding of infrastracutre), which weren't raised in decades.

ReplyVote up (119)down (108)
Original comment

I did, and I stand behind it.
What I said next, is that US government should subsidies clean energy and in the same time rise taxes, but not once.

As clean energy grows taxes on oil should get larger and larger, this will allow for two things, both US economy and society to adjust to change and reduction of demand for oil.

In later stages (when clean energy is well developed) oil should be so heavily taxed that it would be used only where there is no alternative.

There is also a problem of artificially low prices in your argument. Prices are already to low, basic income for building infrastracutre comes from taxes on gasoline (and US needs rebuilding of infrastracutre), which weren't raised in decades.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1094 days ago)

Your route to clean energy is basically the same as what I suggested, except without nationalising the fossil fuel industry.

You didn't address the more important point - how do you get a private industry to leave trillions of dollars underground? Because that's what scientists are telling us we need to do if we don't want to go way of the dinosaurs.

ReplyVote up (135)down (126)
Original comment

Your route to clean energy is basically the same as what I suggested, except without nationalising the fossil fuel industry.

You didn't address the more important point - how do you get a private industry to leave trillions of dollars underground? Because that's what scientists are telling us we need to do if we don't want to go way of the dinosaurs.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: noname (1094 days ago)

Taxetion although detested is accepted concept in US, nationalisation however would be same as eruption of Yellowston park volcano. :)

I did, you can tax production directly, for every tone pumped company has to pay $XXXX even before it has sold a drop, same can be done in refineries, causing prices to be so high, that demand is only for what is necessary (in other words small).

Oil is not only abuot energy, you can make plastic, fertilizer, roads, medicine out of it.

ReplyVote up (125)down (127)
Original comment

Taxetion although detested is accepted concept in US, nationalisation however would be same as eruption of Yellowston park volcano. :)

I did, you can tax production directly, for every tone pumped company has to pay $XXXX even before it has sold a drop, same can be done in refineries, causing prices to be so high, that demand is only for what is necessary (in other words small).

Oil is not only abuot energy, you can make plastic, fertilizer, roads, medicine out of it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1093 days ago)

I like your description of nationalisation in the US.

We are jumping between ideas that work theoretically but not in reality, and ideas that are actually plausible.

Fossil fuels are a really big problem because of climate change, and there's an urgency to get our shit together. The cost of failure is extinction, possibly within the lifetime of someone alive today.

Taxing fossil fuels out of existence won't work because fossil fuel lobbies are too powerful, and it would impact negatively on the competitiveness of US business. It also affects poorer people disproportionately, but it seems in the US that counts for jack shit.

I prefer nationalisation of the fossil fuel industry. But I do concede it won't happen because as you say, it's like Yellowstone erupting. If only people could see the benefits.

- First, you'd be nationalising an industry we know won't exist in any significant form in the foreseeable future. It can't do, because if it does, then we won't.

- Secondly, it's a one-off action that applies specifically to the fossil fuel industry because of climate change.

- And thirdly, all profits made after nationalisation go to boosting the clean energy industry, something the whole world needs so desperately and could put the US at the forefront of green technology.

- There's also another point which I'm not sure how significant it is - that's once fossil fuels are nationalised, the move the clean energies doesn't require fighting a very powerful fossil fuel industry every step of the way.

What do you think about this? LINK (solution starts at 11:00). Fee & Dividend. It's something between the tax/nationalise ideas we have been talking about. It doesn't require nationalisation, but it addresses the impact of raising the price of fossil fuels for US business and poorer people.

ReplyVote up (135)down (116)
Original comment

I like your description of nationalisation in the US.

We are jumping between ideas that work theoretically but not in reality, and ideas that are actually plausible.

Fossil fuels are a really big problem because of climate change, and there's an urgency to get our shit together. The cost of failure is extinction, possibly within the lifetime of someone alive today.

Taxing fossil fuels out of existence won't work because fossil fuel lobbies are too powerful, and it would impact negatively on the competitiveness of US business. It also affects poorer people disproportionately, but it seems in the US that counts for jack shit.

I prefer nationalisation of the fossil fuel industry. But I do concede it won't happen because as you say, it's like Yellowstone erupting. If only people could see the benefits.

- First, you'd be nationalising an industry we know won't exist in any significant form in the foreseeable future. It can't do, because if it does, then we won't.

- Secondly, it's a one-off action that applies specifically to the fossil fuel industry because of climate change.

- And thirdly, all profits made after nationalisation go to boosting the clean energy industry, something the whole world needs so desperately and could put the US at the forefront of green technology.

- There's also another point which I'm not sure how significant it is - that's once fossil fuels are nationalised, the move the clean energies doesn't require fighting a very powerful fossil fuel industry every step of the way.

What do you think about this? LINK (solution starts at 11:00). Fee & Dividend. It's something between the tax/nationalise ideas we have been talking about. It doesn't require nationalisation, but it addresses the impact of raising the price of fossil fuels for US business and poorer people.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: noname (1093 days ago)

For my take on change from fossil fuel, I will draw from a book "The Box" LINK

It's interesting book on its own, but it is significant for our discussion because it talks about change that happened on global scale, when transport shifted to containers.

1. Container has visible benefits to old way of transport, it's better hunderds of times.
We don't have that in energy field, and we need something that will be at least on par with oil, with similar price. Only way I see we can get to that point is if (any large country) government takes strong steps in that direction, like US did in "Manhattan project", or later with sending man to Moon project. Alocate money (> $50 billions a year), get togheter all the people that know something on clean energy and let them work on it.

2. When we have alternitive from step 1. we can start with taxetion, simple, complex it doesn't matter, because there is alternative, then even nationalisation could make sense, Fee&Divident as well, but before step 1. it's empty talk. Oil industry can simply stop all delivery of oil, and economy will crumble long before oil companies fail.

3. It's not the problem, that oil loby is strong, but that economy is heavily dependent on it, that gives it power. In the book "Box", you can see the same behavior when ports, workers and politicians united to stop containerisation. Politicians even aproved funds for rebuilding of old ports, that were not suited for containers.
It was necessary to build new ports, in different locations, with different people. But they accepted the change, only because they saw benefit, and we are back to step 1.
It is possible that US is not suited to lead the change, and that some other country will have to take the lead if we are ever going to accept clean energy.

ReplyVote up (128)down (139)
Original comment

For my take on change from fossil fuel, I will draw from a book "The Box" LINK

It's interesting book on its own, but it is significant for our discussion because it talks about change that happened on global scale, when transport shifted to containers.

1. Container has visible benefits to old way of transport, it's better hunderds of times.
We don't have that in energy field, and we need something that will be at least on par with oil, with similar price. Only way I see we can get to that point is if (any large country) government takes strong steps in that direction, like US did in "Manhattan project", or later with sending man to Moon project. Alocate money (> $50 billions a year), get togheter all the people that know something on clean energy and let them work on it.

2. When we have alternitive from step 1. we can start with taxetion, simple, complex it doesn't matter, because there is alternative, then even nationalisation could make sense, Fee&Divident as well, but before step 1. it's empty talk. Oil industry can simply stop all delivery of oil, and economy will crumble long before oil companies fail.

3. It's not the problem, that oil loby is strong, but that economy is heavily dependent on it, that gives it power. In the book "Box", you can see the same behavior when ports, workers and politicians united to stop containerisation. Politicians even aproved funds for rebuilding of old ports, that were not suited for containers.
It was necessary to build new ports, in different locations, with different people. But they accepted the change, only because they saw benefit, and we are back to step 1.
It is possible that US is not suited to lead the change, and that some other country will have to take the lead if we are ever going to accept clean energy.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1093 days ago)
Latest comment:

All very interesting, but climate change is nothing like the history of the container.

It's more like Dunkirk in 1940. There were only a few days to evacuate troops trapped on the beaches of Dunkirk before German Panzer divisions would arrive for a slaughter fest. There was no time to build a car ferry, so every available boat was pressed into service, about 800 of them. The rest is history.

Climate change is driven by the laws of physics and doesn't care about the price of oil, or whether we have an alternative - only about the 40 billion tons of CO2 we will add in 2015.

The Moon landing and the Manhattan Project had funding, and an urgency, but they didn't have opposition, and they were tiny projects compared to what we need to do to mitigate climate change. Today we have to deal with the likes of the Koch brothers who spend millions in trying to cast doubt on the science, and Fox News. And there are so many more distractions globally, from ISIS to America's Got Talent.

Your "Step 1" is actually covered, or at least in theory. If the cost of climate change damage was factored into the price of fossil fuels, it would raise the price so much that fossil fuels would go extinct before you could blink. The IMF have estimated that fossil fuels are subsidised by $10 million a minute. Yes, you read that right, MINUTE. LINK

ReplyVote up (155)down (107)
Original comment
Latest comment:

All very interesting, but climate change is nothing like the history of the container.

It's more like Dunkirk in 1940. There were only a few days to evacuate troops trapped on the beaches of Dunkirk before German Panzer divisions would arrive for a slaughter fest. There was no time to build a car ferry, so every available boat was pressed into service, about 800 of them. The rest is history.

Climate change is driven by the laws of physics and doesn't care about the price of oil, or whether we have an alternative - only about the 40 billion tons of CO2 we will add in 2015.

The Moon landing and the Manhattan Project had funding, and an urgency, but they didn't have opposition, and they were tiny projects compared to what we need to do to mitigate climate change. Today we have to deal with the likes of the Koch brothers who spend millions in trying to cast doubt on the science, and Fox News. And there are so many more distractions globally, from ISIS to America's Got Talent.

Your "Step 1" is actually covered, or at least in theory. If the cost of climate change damage was factored into the price of fossil fuels, it would raise the price so much that fossil fuels would go extinct before you could blink. The IMF have estimated that fossil fuels are subsidised by $10 million a minute. Yes, you read that right, MINUTE. LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1096 days ago)

I still don't know what point you're making, so I don't know what I'm arguing against.

This started by you saying Kyle Kulinski should compare Norway with Saudi Arabia because they are both oil-rich nations with large social programs. So what? What's your point?

Kulinski was comparing the consequences of US free-market on America, compared to the consequences of Norway's welfare state on Norway.

ReplyVote up (115)down (135)
Original comment

I still don't know what point you're making, so I don't know what I'm arguing against.

This started by you saying Kyle Kulinski should compare Norway with Saudi Arabia because they are both oil-rich nations with large social programs. So what? What's your point?

Kulinski was comparing the consequences of US free-market on America, compared to the consequences of Norway's welfare state on Norway.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: noname (1095 days ago)

Norway can/should be compared to other large exporters of natural resources, like SA, UAE, Brunei, Australia, some African countries etc. and we can comapre how well they have used generated surplus and is it sustainable even after natural resources have dried up.

You can't/shouldn't compare it to US, because US economy is vastly different, and any conclusion reached is irrelevant.

However we can discus what tax/subsidy policy is right for US to achieve better (or reasonable) equality.

ReplyVote up (147)down (118)
Original comment

Norway can/should be compared to other large exporters of natural resources, like SA, UAE, Brunei, Australia, some African countries etc. and we can comapre how well they have used generated surplus and is it sustainable even after natural resources have dried up.

You can't/shouldn't compare it to US, because US economy is vastly different, and any conclusion reached is irrelevant.

However we can discus what tax/subsidy policy is right for US to achieve better (or reasonable) equality.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1095 days ago)

An argument often peddled against welfare states in favour of a free-market do-WTF-you-like economy, is that welfare states result in an inefficient lazy population that can't compete economically with hard working free-marketeers. Norway shows that it doesn't have to be that way.

The US is not in a good place and can learn a lot from Norway. We all can.

ReplyVote up (115)down (141)
Original comment

An argument often peddled against welfare states in favour of a free-market do-WTF-you-like economy, is that welfare states result in an inefficient lazy population that can't compete economically with hard working free-marketeers. Norway shows that it doesn't have to be that way.

The US is not in a good place and can learn a lot from Norway. We all can.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: noname (1095 days ago)

First argument is that state goes broke, or at least has financial problems, and this is true. It's hard to measure right amount of subsidies, that state can pay over long periods of time, without over reaching itself.

Norway is exception, because of large natural wealth and relatively small population. I have mentioned SA, because it's even more dependent on oil, and low oil prices impact social contract that citizens of SA expect.

Lazy population argument... it's a myth, but still Norway is a bad example, large surplus expands other sectors and there is large influx of skilled labor in Norway, at that stage of economic development low unimployment rate is expected.

ReplyVote up (122)down (127)
Original comment

First argument is that state goes broke, or at least has financial problems, and this is true. It's hard to measure right amount of subsidies, that state can pay over long periods of time, without over reaching itself.

Norway is exception, because of large natural wealth and relatively small population. I have mentioned SA, because it's even more dependent on oil, and low oil prices impact social contract that citizens of SA expect.

Lazy population argument... it's a myth, but still Norway is a bad example, large surplus expands other sectors and there is large influx of skilled labor in Norway, at that stage of economic development low unimployment rate is expected.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1094 days ago)

You said: "First argument is that state goes broke, or at least has financial problems, and this is true." No it's not. Most of Europe is not broke. Greece is, but that's because of corruption, not because it's a welfare state. Then there's China, the OPEC countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada ...

I'm glad we agree about the lazy population argument.

Assuming government is not corrupt, a free-market is open to abuse at the very high end, by a small number of very powerful people, who will eventually buy government so they can be even freer to do WTF they want - which is what we see in the US.

Assuming government is not corrupt, a welfare state is open to abuse at the bottom end, a small number of people with no power, growing fat on the sofa watching TV all day - which has only a small effect on the overall economy, but does get people's blood to boil.

The free-market caused the 2008 crash, not the welfare state.

ReplyVote up (125)down (122)
Original comment

You said: "First argument is that state goes broke, or at least has financial problems, and this is true." No it's not. Most of Europe is not broke. Greece is, but that's because of corruption, not because it's a welfare state. Then there's China, the OPEC countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada ...

I'm glad we agree about the lazy population argument.

Assuming government is not corrupt, a free-market is open to abuse at the very high end, by a small number of very powerful people, who will eventually buy government so they can be even freer to do WTF they want - which is what we see in the US.

Assuming government is not corrupt, a welfare state is open to abuse at the bottom end, a small number of people with no power, growing fat on the sofa watching TV all day - which has only a small effect on the overall economy, but does get people's blood to boil.

The free-market caused the 2008 crash, not the welfare state.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: noname (1094 days ago)

All countries you mentioned (maybe not New Zealand, I don't much about it) are surrplus exporters of natural resources and China of everything imaginable.

Most EU countries have large soverign debt, so much so that they have shifted responsability for resolving crises to ECB, and that is not the job of ECB.

Crisis of 2008 was not caused by free-market in general, but deregulation of financial sector. I know these issues are packed in one by media, but they are not, financial sector is different (beast) than real economy, so different, stricter, rules should apply to it.

ReplyVote up (134)down (135)
Original comment

All countries you mentioned (maybe not New Zealand, I don't much about it) are surrplus exporters of natural resources and China of everything imaginable.

Most EU countries have large soverign debt, so much so that they have shifted responsability for resolving crises to ECB, and that is not the job of ECB.

Crisis of 2008 was not caused by free-market in general, but deregulation of financial sector. I know these issues are packed in one by media, but they are not, financial sector is different (beast) than real economy, so different, stricter, rules should apply to it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (1096 days ago)

As with any business shouldn't the profits go to those who spent the resources, risked the capital, did the work etc.? Just as in Norways case the state owns a large share of the oil business there, therefore it's only natural, but highly irregular, that the govt. would share those profits with the people.

ReplyVote up (136)down (140)
Original comment

As with any business shouldn't the profits go to those who spent the resources, risked the capital, did the work etc.? Just as in Norways case the state owns a large share of the oil business there, therefore it's only natural, but highly irregular, that the govt. would share those profits with the people.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1096 days ago)

Sure, profit should go to those who spent the resources, but oil is a natural resource. Does it belong to whoever gets there first, or to the people of the land/sea it is under?

Nationalising oil simply means it's the people who spend the resources, risk the capital, do the work etc. Therefore the people should get the profits, as they do in Norway.

ReplyVote up (124)down (138)
Original comment

Sure, profit should go to those who spent the resources, but oil is a natural resource. Does it belong to whoever gets there first, or to the people of the land/sea it is under?

Nationalising oil simply means it's the people who spend the resources, risk the capital, do the work etc. Therefore the people should get the profits, as they do in Norway.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (1095 days ago)

Not sure what you're trying to say here, surely all resources are natural are they not? Be it fish in the ocean, fertile land that farmers use etc. are you saying everybody should share in the profits on the backs of those fishermen who risk lives and assets and farmers who have tilled the land for generations etc.?

ReplyVote up (119)down (114)
Original comment

Not sure what you're trying to say here, surely all resources are natural are they not? Be it fish in the ocean, fertile land that farmers use etc. are you saying everybody should share in the profits on the backs of those fishermen who risk lives and assets and farmers who have tilled the land for generations etc.?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1095 days ago)

Everybody does share in the profits of fishermen or farmers, through taxes.

Norwegians chose to nationalise their oil, to great benefit of Norwegians. Americans chose to let private companies exploit their oil, arguably to the detriment of Americans.

Every industry/resource has its special circumstances. In energy, it makes sense to nationalise fossil fuels because they need to be faded out asap - crucially, before they run out. It would be almost impossible to fade out a private industry that can smell trillions of dollars underground, untapped.

In clean energies, it makes sense to deregulate and subsidise because the world needs clean energy, loads of it, and fast.

The lesson from Norway is that it is possible to nationalise an industry and use the proceeds to hugely benefit their people with better education, health, wages and employment figures. The downside is a few mega-rich end up only very rich. The caveat is that the government can't be corrupt, which is why it will never work in the US.

ReplyVote up (131)down (117)
Original comment

Everybody does share in the profits of fishermen or farmers, through taxes.

Norwegians chose to nationalise their oil, to great benefit of Norwegians. Americans chose to let private companies exploit their oil, arguably to the detriment of Americans.

Every industry/resource has its special circumstances. In energy, it makes sense to nationalise fossil fuels because they need to be faded out asap - crucially, before they run out. It would be almost impossible to fade out a private industry that can smell trillions of dollars underground, untapped.

In clean energies, it makes sense to deregulate and subsidise because the world needs clean energy, loads of it, and fast.

The lesson from Norway is that it is possible to nationalise an industry and use the proceeds to hugely benefit their people with better education, health, wages and employment figures. The downside is a few mega-rich end up only very rich. The caveat is that the government can't be corrupt, which is why it will never work in the US.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guesting (1094 days ago)

Several interesting points are made here. But, as a Norwegian currently overlooking Oslo outside my window, I'd like to make a few points:

The Norwegian welfare state is not new, and existed long before Norway found oil.

You may also consider the neighbouring Sweden, a country without oil, but with a similar welfare system.

Up until now, it has been easier for Norway to maintain its welfare system than it would have been without oil. However, the differences compared to the US are extreme, and due to politics and power, not due to oil.

Okay, that's it from me. Keep on discussing.

ReplyVote up (139)down (135)
Original comment

Several interesting points are made here. But, as a Norwegian currently overlooking Oslo outside my window, I'd like to make a few points:

The Norwegian welfare state is not new, and existed long before Norway found oil.

You may also consider the neighbouring Sweden, a country without oil, but with a similar welfare system.

Up until now, it has been easier for Norway to maintain its welfare system than it would have been without oil. However, the differences compared to the US are extreme, and due to politics and power, not due to oil.

Okay, that's it from me. Keep on discussing.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (1096 days ago)

Americans from the "upper middle class" down to those at the poverty level are to well fed, sheltered and clothed to appreciate the vastness of trillions of dollars withheld from them by a handful of deca billionairs that dictate how laws and taxes are written and applied.

ReplyVote up (131)down (132)
Original comment

Americans from the "upper middle class" down to those at the poverty level are to well fed, sheltered and clothed to appreciate the vastness of trillions of dollars withheld from them by a handful of deca billionairs that dictate how laws and taxes are written and applied.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1095 days ago)

i can't hear shit on this video!

not on boreme not on youtube

ReplyVote up (95)down (138)
Original comment

i can't hear shit on this video!

not on boreme not on youtube

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Peter Diamandis - Demonetizing everything post capitalism
Peter Diamandis - Demonetizing everything post capitalism
The sinister dangers of companies collecting our data
The sinister dangers of companies collecting our data
The Real News - Climate change is creating an infrastructure crisis
The Real News - Climate change is creating an infrastructure crisis
Yanis Varoufakis - Basic Income is a necessity
Yanis Varoufakis - Basic Income is a necessity
Richard Wolff - When the capitalist economy fails, blame foreigners
Richard Wolff - When the capitalist economy fails, blame foreigners