Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
Statoil, natural gas suplies and coal are controlled and owned by the Norwegian State. They are highly successful and represent over 20% of GDP. The state has interests in the railways and various other large organisations, although to be fair some is being privatised.
Norway also has a smaller population many other natural resources and is a vast country stretching into the Arctic Circle. You cannot compare their country with ours,
Their mixture of State controlled industries and the private sector has worked well for them. There labour relations are excellent and their National Health, financed through taxation is one of the finest, if not best systems in the World.
The Norwegian State is one of theWorlds most succesful economies in spite of the fact that its natural resources are mainly owned by the State.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Now that`s full of substance.......................
# 8....``The UK can prosper on its own. It is simply absurd to claim it cannot given the prosperity of countries like Norway``
..................Ooops............
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Dave1 - without capitalism it would not be so successful. Name a economically successful economy that does not have an essentially capitalist system. - You cannot -
Back to Norway it certainly has many advantages with a small population and massive natural resources but, as you admit, it has seen the necessity to commence a programme of privatisation. More capitalism and less state control, following the model set by the worlds most successful economies will increase its prosperity. The state ownership model is increasingly under strain in the modern world. It was certainly a total disaster for the UK when we had excessive state control and an even bigger disaster for the old Soviet bloc.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Reg Hansell wrote:Now that`s full of substance.......................
# 8....``The UK can prosper on its own. It is simply absurd to claim it cannot given the prosperity of countries like Norway``
..................Ooops............
Out of the full context and you, as usual, provide zero substance.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
I am not anti-capitalist, far from it and para1 of your post I don't disagree with. What I am saying is that a mixture of capitalism and state owned companies can work. Statoil is immensely wealthy, when we were frittering away our oil revenues they were quietly building up the state coffers to the point where they have a considerable surplus. Statoil is very unlikely to be privatised, however railways, which incidentally put ours to shame, are likely if not already ripe for privatisation.
I also do believe that they have a socialist government. Maybe rather that the tit for tat politics we have, they actually get things done for the benefit of its people.
Which ever party is in power they seem to work with one and other, unlike ours who forget the people that live on this over-populated island and are more interested in squabbling between themselves.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
mine on the hot dg just an example
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
Your example is no doubt correct but the wages there are so much higher that what is expensive to us is cheap to them.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Dave1 wrote:I am not anti-capitalist, far from it and para1 of your post I don't disagree with. What I am saying is that a mixture of capitalism and state owned companies can work. Statoil is immensely wealthy, when we were frittering away our oil revenues they were quietly building up the state coffers to the point where they have a considerable surplus. Statoil is very unlikely to be privatised, however railways, which incidentally put ours to shame, are likely if not already ripe for privatisation.
I also do believe that they have a socialist government. Maybe rather that the tit for tat politics we have, they actually get things done for the benefit of its people.
Which ever party is in power they seem to work with one and other, unlike ours who forget the people that live on this over-populated island and are more interested in squabbling between themselves.
Dave - name one that worked, I mean really worked, as a state owned company in the UK.
What they did not do is build up a massive structural deficit in Norway as we did.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
and that's down to greedy bankers,lax rules via government,so some one has got there sums wrong.and its not browns fault either,it started way before that chap turning up.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
try not mention gordon brown brian, we know what will happen.
Guest 730- Registered: 5 Nov 2011
- Posts: 221
I think the £17.00 for a hot dog is rather exaggerated. According to the Visit Norway site here:
http://tinyurl.com/d66wc8z a hot dog costs from 25 to 35 Norwegian Krone. 35 Krone is £3.87, more than here but nowhere near £17.00.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
yes howard,we will be all standing in brown toffee.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Brian Dixon wrote:and that's down to greedy bankers,lax rules via government,so some one has got there sums wrong.and its not browns fault either,it started way before that chap turning up.
Errrrrm Brian - please explain how 'greedy bankers created the UK structural deficit?
Of course they did not. Brown did and it was structural by 2005. The deficit left over from the last recession was well on track to be balanced within the economic cycle in 2000, Brown then went on a spending splurge as his hands were no longer tied to Ken Clarke's spending plans. So Brian - Brown was fully responsible, fact not opinion.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
no not brown but your city cronies.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
So Brian - you have to explain yourself.
It is the government that determines public spending. It was the Blair/Brown government that decided to increase the deficit from 2000 and developed a structural deficit by 2005. No-one in the City was in charge of public spending.
So how do you somehow twist it to blame the City for this?
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
no explanation needed barry,just a case study of what money went where ever.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Brian - to keep on repeating an untruth does not make that untruth true.
If you make the assertion that you did, then you have to substantiate it but, of course you cannot. The reason is simple, it is the government that determines government spending policies and it was the government of Brown/Blair that decided on a spending spree from 2000 when the Clarke 'brakes' were removed. The City does not have that role, not even the Governor of the Bank of England.
You and the Labour Party might wish the City and banks can be blamed for the Blair/Brown errors but there is simply no basis for that fig leaf.
Some people may be mugs enough to believe you but most people are not so stupid as to be taken in.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
but there again barry,maggie sold of assets before brown/blair era.so brown/blair cannot be fully blamed for todays problem.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Brian, if a govt spends more than it collects in a year it creates a deficit. Successive govts have managed our finances badly which is why we are in so much debt.
Arguing that banks or bankers caused or can cause a deficit is plain madness.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
david,the trouble is the last 3 goverments haven't collected,they are to scared to in case the big earners bugger off.
