Obama, the right winger

[Tom Joad]

Seeing Obama as Norwegians See Him | CommonDreams.org

Seeing Obama as Norwegians See Him

by George Lakey

I just returned from a research trip to Norway where the people I interviewed often brought up the topic of our new President. The first was Kristin Clemet, the director of a conservative think tank. "This spring on a delegation to Washington I was struck again," she said, "by how different the political spectrum is in Norway from your country. Here, Obama would be on the right wing." I checked her view with others -- academics, politicians, activists all over the Norwegian spectrum -- and all but one agreed. In Norwegian terms, our President's positions are very conservative.

When Norway hit a major financial crisis in the early '90s (from a real estate bubble and speculating banks), the Norwegians decided against bail-outs. Three of the biggest banks were simply taken by the government, their senior management fired, their stockholders sent packing. The government nursed the seized banks back to health over time while the economy made a quick recovery. The other troubled banks were left to declare bankruptcy or find new capital. Norway's action sent a clear message to the banks: mismanagement and greed don't pay. The result is that today its own financial sector is clean and only needs to deal with the impact of other countries' disasters. Norway's strategy was very far from Obama's bank-friendly game plan.

When Norwegian oil was discovered, the country decided not to risk putting their new treasure in private ownership. Norwegians were therefore able to lead the world in environmental responsibility and to avoid boom/bust impact on their seacoast cities. Most important, Norway has been stashing the oil profits in a public, socially responsible "Pension Fund" that will support the Norwegians' famously high living standard for many generations to come.

Half a century ago Norway already had a universal health care system that is simplicity itself. There's a single payer (the government) and minimum red tape, something like Medicare but for everyone and better. The entire political spectrum supports this. By contrast, Obama says he backs the failed U.S. private insurance scheme and his team is wobbling on his own modest proposal to add a public option. So I would have to say to thoughtful Republicans: even if you don't like the Nordic blend of capitalism and socialism, with its virtual abolition of poverty, free university education, and enlightened environmentalism, you're only confusing the issue when you try to label the President with the "S"-word. You may think his policies are wrong, but in Norway even conservatives would say the Democrats and Obama don't go nearly far enough.

[Alpha]

Norway also has stagnant GDP growth, a declining domestic population and a negligible national security capability.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Alpha

Norway also has stagnant GDP growth, a declining domestic population and a negligible national security capability.

If what you say is true, and considering you're the source that's a damn big if:

Then:

Economic growth =Stagnant, ie. The pie is staying the same size.

Population = declining, ie less people to eat the pie.

Therefore everyone is getting a bigger piece of the pie.

Negligible national security capability = Are they in danger of being attacked, invaded, taken over?

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

If what you say is true, and considering you're the source that's a damn big if:

Then:

Economic growth =Stagnant, ie. The pie is staying the same size.

Population = declining, ie less people to eat the pie.

Therefore everyone is getting a bigger piece of the pie.

Yes, but in the long-term countries succeed in increasing the standard of living for their populations by increasing the GDP, not by reducing the size of the population.

Negligible national security capability = Are they in danger of being attacked, invaded, taken over?

No, they rely on other countries to shield them from dangers to their international interests. The United State can't operate on that model because we're the shield.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Alpha

The United State can't operate on that model because we're the shield.

Really?

We're saving the Norwegians?

From what?

Oh, and please, don't give me any of that B.S. that they feed you in the Air Farce Reserve.

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Really?

We're saving the Norwegians?

From what?

Oh, and please, don't give me any of that B.S. that they feed you in the Air Farce Reserve.

Anyone who might profit from doing them harm. Russia comes to mind.

[Yorkist]

Originally Posted by Alpha

Anyone who might profit from doing them harm. Russia comes to mind.

How would Russia profit from doing Norway harm?

[Underhill]

Originally Posted by Alpha

Yes, but in the long-term countries succeed in increasing the standard of living for their populations by increasing the GDP, not by reducing the size of the population.

I think you have that backword. I think in the short term countries increase the standard of living by increasing the gdp. In the long term, reduced population will probably have a much bigger affect on the standard of living.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Alpha

Anyone who might profit from doing them harm. Russia comes to mind.

Ah, I see.

So in your mind Norway is able to enjoy their high standard as a European welfare state because Uncle Sam protects them from the evil Russians.

Without said protection they would either be gobbled up by the Russians, or have to spend so much of their wealth on military power that they would fall into a nation of abject poverty with Camden-like slums in their cities and crappy trailers doting their countyside.

Tell me Alpha, how many of these Euro-commie welfare states is Uncle Sam subsidizing with his long range bombers and missles?

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Alpha

Norway also has stagnant GDP growth

Eh??? according to the IMF

1 Qatar 85,868
2 Luxembourg 82,306
3 Norway 53,451
4 Singapore 51,142
5 Brunei 50,117
6 United States 46,859

or the world bank

1 Luxembourg 78,559
— Macau 59,451
2 Norway 58,141
3 Singapore 49,288
4 United States 46,716

Growth Norwegian in GDP

2000 0.8
2001 2.7
2002 1.6
2003 1.6
2004 0.6
2005 3.3
2006 4
2007 4.6
2008 4.9

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/NO.html


you were saying???

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Eh??? according to the IMF



or the world bank




Growth Norwegian in GDP


https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/NO.html


you were saying???

Not surprising. With Alpha you have to consider the source.

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

If what you say is true, and considering you're the source that's a damn big if

[Alpha]

Do you understand what stagnant means? Of course, you also don't understand what "widespread" means...

[Volker]

Obama is a right winger by German standards, too. With all his "we must win the war in Afghanistan" and "the world needs American leadership" ramblings he is rather the 1930-ies nutjob than a 21th century politician.

[Justin]

Population = declining, ie less people to eat the pie.

Therefore everyone is getting a bigger piece of the pie.

For a socialist state, especially one in which inflation is created artificially by the government, population decline is a very, very bad thing.

[Yorkist]

Originally Posted by Justin

For a socialist state, especially one in which inflation is created artificially by the government, population decline is a very, very bad thing.

That's a rather bald and inaccurate statement. Decline of the working population is a bad thing, just as an increase in the non-working population is a bad thing.

[Justin]

How is your statement much more specific? Its understood that general population decline will lead to a decline in the working population. Sounds to me like you're just trying to be argumentative.

[Yorkist]

Originally Posted by Justin

How is your statement much more specific? Its understood that general population decline will lead to a decline in the working population. Sounds to me like you're just trying to be argumentative.

Not at all. I'm actually alluding to a current problem here in the UK. Because of improved health in the general population, people are living longer. We have a 'cradle to the grave' welfare system, which is obviously put under strain if it has to support more people for longer. At the same time, the birth rate has dropped, meaning that the only way to keep our working population at levels which will sustain the non-working population is through immigration. It's not an uncommon problem in European countries.

[Volker]

Originally Posted by Justin

For a socialist state, especially one in which inflation is created artificially by the government, population decline is a very, very bad thing.

Why? Norway makes a lot of money with oil and they invest this money in state owned funds.