Bloomberg business news reports, with some surprise:
Norway rejected pleas from the country’s oil industry to help contain wage growth that producers say is hampering competitiveness in western Europe’s largest crude exporter.
A government-appointed commission on oilrigs and drilling concluded last month Norway must cut labor costs and ease regulations to ensure petroleum isn’t left in the ground.
And if Norway's oil is left in the ground in 2012, it will quickly curdle and have to be thrown out. (Or is that milk I'm thinking of?)
So they must cut wages. I forget what the question is, but in the globalist press, cutting wages is always the answer.
Yet, a Norwegian politician appears to believe that Norwegian voters like it when he doesn't crumple to oil companies's demands:
“As a country and as a sector, we should never compete on security, health and environmental standards, or hourly wages for personnel,” Norway Oil Minister Ola Borten Moe, 36, said in a Sept. 11 interview. “We live in a country with real-wage increases. We have for many, many years, and I hope that continues.”
Posts
135 comments:
The deamnds from the oil companies are pure bullshit - and they know it.
Oil is a high capital, high skilled, low labor intensity business , ie comparatively few veery skilled workers are responsible for producing millions of dollars worth of output, the money literally flows up from the ground, all the ingenious workers do is to figure out how to put in pipes to tap it.
It's not like stitching together underpants (competing with millions of other underpant stitchrs worlddwide) in a sweatshop somewhere.
The Norwegian guys are smart enough to call the greedy pigs bluff.
Being a "conservative" in Norway means actually wanting to conserve Norwegian affluence, not trying to enrich the wealthiest, least loyal 1%.
"And if Norway's oil is left in the ground in 2012, it will quickly curdle and have to be thrown out. (Or is that milk I'm thinking of?)"
But the price of oil will do nothing but go down, they have to drill baby drill to get what little return they can right now.
"...in the globalist press, cutting wages is always the answer..."
In the media, the only answers are 1) printing money, 2) bigger and more intrusive government and 3) more government spending.
I suppose printing money is a race to the bottom for wages denominated in that currency, but when everybody is printing more or less at the same it is hard to see whose currency goes down the fastest.
Communism!
Perhaps the first case ever of Rotting in the Oil Fields.
As everyone knows, oil companies are having a hell of a time making a profit these days.
Norway Oil Minister Ola Borten Moe, 36
36?!?
That's young even by Clinton/Obama/Rubio standards.
Recently you were saying, "I define human biodiversity to involve not just diversity between people but within a person as well; most notably, age."
If you [or some fellow traveller in the HBD-o-sphere] had a lot of time on your hands, then maybe you could calculate some country-by-country statistics on heads-of-state ages, cabinet minister ages, major CEO ages, supreme court justice ages, etc.
Higher wages!? String 'em up!
Oh, you mean that working folks LIKE higher wages?
Gee, it's almost like norway is a ....gasp!....democracy!
Wait, I thought america was a democracy, too. Is the democracy word being thrown around about america by the media constantly and by politicians constantly and by our teachers constantly? Yup!
But Norway is a democracy and america is clearly not.
Hey, here is a big fat clue, kids: read the writings of the man who is known as the 'father of the constitution' and see what he said about democracy when he was designing the american constitution! Whattaya think?
James Madison, aka father of the constitution, said, in federalist paper 10, that democracy was not right for america. Hey, whattaya know!
Of course, madison, who, when he came into his inheritance, was worth about 100 mill in today's dollars, he wouldn't want democracy, now would he?
And how did he and the other founding aristocrats make america into a not-democracy? Well, read federalist paper 10, my little lambs! It says in that there fed paper 10 that madison was gonna protect rich folks like himself by keeping the majority from uniting and discovering their common interests. How did he say he was gonna do that? Read on, lambkins!
Madison wrote (in fed paper 10, the secret notes to the constitutional convention and in his letter to Jefferson) that the way to rule america was to divide and rule the majority by increasing the number of factions in the voting districts by enlarging the voting districts. That was why the founding aristocrats installed the present constitution that created enlarged voting district for federal offices of president, senator and representative. Larger districts have more factions. Say it again for me: Larger==more factions. Good!
Now, also in them there fed papers and writings by madison, he said he was gonna create separation of powers and check and balances to keep all them nasty majority from using their own government against rich people like madison. So he created what we now call the strong checks and balances, seperation of powers federalist republic. All to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." So wise and perfect was Madison. All bow before our wonderful founding aristocrats.
Now Norway is different. Small. Heterogeneous. A Parliamentarian gov't structure, not a strong checks and balances, seperation of powers federalist republic. In parliamentarian gov'ts the power of the govt is put into the hands of the politicians in the lower house. The lower house can do everything. Period. And the lower house voting districts are SMALL. Smaller is better for the majority, but bad for rich folks.
So that way the majority can control better control the gov't. Oh, gosh, it's horrible over there. It the tyranny of the mob! The horror, the horror. An undivided tyranny of white people....Save them from that horrible democracy! It's mob rule over there!
Don't worry, lambkins. The rich folks are using the edu-propaganda system to guilt the norwegians into letting in more nonwhites into norway. That means more factions in norway. More faction equals....wait for it...less democracy! And also them rich folks have created a large federal govt over there called the EU. Larger means more faction, lambs. And more factions means less unity among the voters. Less unity means less control by that nasty majority.
See, I told ya everything was gonna be all right....
Now, you may return to your regularly scheduled pseudo-political discussion...and to your regularly scheduled pseudo-democracy called...America....
oh, beautiful for spacious skies....
Duh, of course they are clinging bitterly to such outmoded beliefs as the need for decent wages for workers. The population is nearly 90% Scandinavian, and so there is a stunning lack of diverse perspectives and debate. It is a stagnant society. They need more immigration. And fast. Otherwise they will be left behind.
Ola Borten Moe. A traitor to international corporations. Not to mention a racist anti-Scots-Irishite bigot and Lutefisk-eating surrender monkey. We'll defeat this eurotrash yet, in the name of love for everyone.
From Josh Green at the Atlantic, circa May 2011, "Sarah Palin's Secret Success":
"Through sheer force of will (and a willingness to cooperate with Democrats), she (Palin) managed to solve, at least for a time, the problem that lay at the heart of Alaska's politics for a generation: how to break the oil companies' grip on the state and capture a fair share of their profits for Alaskans. Palin's major achievement was winning an oil tax that did just that and was called Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES). While reporting the piece, I came to think of it as her "secret" success because, while there is nothing hidden about it, no one, including Palin herself that I can see, pays it any mind -- even though it has helped bring Alaska a $12 billion budget surplus, an achievement most presidential hopefuls would brag about incessantly (and justifiably)."
Link: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/sarah-palins-secret-success/238648/
John McCain and the GOP everybody!
The Norwegians have put a lot of the oil money into a soverign wealth fund (over £100 bn). Personally I suspect that most of that investment would be safer staying in the ground than in $s or nationalisable foreign industries.
Sounds like a perfect takeover target for Romney/Bain, maybe obama can make a speech about the importance of immigration, and the neocons can do what neocons do. Then Norway can be considered a "normal" country.
Anyway, I was watching a Polish news program and apparently lots of Polaks are going to Norway for skilled work such as welders, ship builders, engineers, etc.
Supposedly the companies pay really good wages and take care of immigrant poles. They do have various assimilation programs such as mandatory Norwegian lessons and such. But, it was a one sided report I wonder how the Norwegians truly feel about this.
According to a friend of mine who works in Norway now:
The wage increases for petroleum industry workers is one reason everybody is going on strike in Norway: The petroleum industry workers because they have the power to stop the economy, and everybody else because they object to the growing inequality between oil workers and everybody else.
http://dailyreckoning.com/the-mongolia-of-america/?utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20dailyreckoning%20%28The%20Daily%20Reckoning%29&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner&utm_source=OB&utm_medium=CPC&utm_campaign=OutB
Its nice to see Norway´s faults being debated internationally. First of all, I must say - you can`t take Norwegian politicians seriously. Usually they say one thing, and deny it months later, after realizing they promised something they couldn`t keep.
Every year Norwegians usually have their wages raised by 0.5-5% every year (personally I had mine raised by 15%...Godlike) whereas the GNP-standard is raised by aprox 0.5-1.5% more than the wages.
The largest wageincreases in Norway are in the oilindustry. If you work on an oilrig, even as a floor-cleaner, you get a minimum of 120.-130.000USD a year, and the averageg oilrigpay is around 165-170k a year. They`re working for 2 weeks, then they have 4 weeks off.
The average pay for the rest of Norway is aprox 65.000 USD.
The oil-industry have their own agenda when they plea for cut in wages...
Ola Borten Moe wont be elected next year. Too much dumb sh*t going on, honestly.
http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/ancient-history/best-ancient-armies-quiz.htm#mkcpgn=otbn1
Got only 12 right.
There will be oil rotting in the fields!
Obama is vulnerable on Afghanistan and Wall Street but Gop is silent cuz it's a bigger whore for war and the wall.
Don't you think the US auto industry would've been in a better shape today if they managed to curb the growth in wages and benefits back in the 70s?
Did you miss this part: "A government-appointed commission on oilrigs and drilling concluded last month Norway must cut labor costs and ease regulations to ensure petroleum isn’t left in the ground."
It's not oil companies, it's a government commission who wants to cut wages. The oil industry in Norway belongs to the state. Even a Socialist-controlled government cannot abolish the law of supply and demand.
Norway isn't quite as bad as Sweden on the immigrant front, but still...
In 2010, the immigrant community grew by 57,000, which accounted for 90% of Norway's population growth; some 27% of newborn children were of immigrant background.
The Demographic Death Monster stalks the streets of Norway. Still, one must commend them for their policies around wages. Now if only Norwegians weren't turning into a suicidal death cult, like the rest of Europe.
Strangely enough, today's issue of the New Scientist magazine ( aquirky and estimable British science based weekly, which is respectable - totally unlike that trashy, popmpous 'Economist'), harps on about Steve's pet peeve - the mass immigration of low IQ Mexicans (aand others)into the USA and their subduing effect on the US economy.
Seems like the 'cause and effect' scientific mob at the 'New Scientist' have got their knickers in something of a twist over America's impending economic doom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW_TQpaId90&feature=plcp
"I'm Dreaming" (Tribute to Randy Newman)
wow, that's super weird
From my experience, Norwegians view quality over quantity. It's an expensive country, but things are done well, and you get what you pay for.
We have many such politicians in the US. Sadly they are a minority even among democrats and our president is not one of them.
Issue shouldn't be higher or lower but reasonable.
"it will quickly curdle and have to be thrown out. (Or is that milk I'm thinking of?)"
Did you do any moonlighting as a writer for Arrested Development, Steve?
Steve sometimes you sound like a leftist about wages. Granted, the cheap labor in La lead to a lot of low skilled Latins but the average White person in La is doing better than he did in the 1950's, he's more of a professional. The average house size is much bigger and I knew a lot of whites in Gardena back around 1965 that lived in Apartments and Mobile Homes not tract houses.
Cutting wages almost always is the answer. Lower wages juices economic growth, and it's hard to argue with the logic of compounded growth.
Let's say cutting wages 20% increases per capita GDP growth by 0.5%. In just 36 years workers will be making more with the wage cuts than they would have if the economy didn't cut wages.
In 100 years workers in the economy that cut wages will be making two thirds more. And the gains will accrue to a larger population (presuming positive population growth).
From a utilitarian perspective this kind of logic is hard to argue against.
Economists aren't old fuddy-duddies who are scheming with powerful corporations. There's compelling reasons to cut wages to maintain international competitiveness.
Just less pakitanis and nigerians, please.
Even the NY Times figured it out -- albeit in the travel section, not the politics section. Someone get the travel writer to apply his insights to America -- heaven forbid.
Why is Norway So Expensive?
Most people assume Norway costs so much because of its high tax rates. Not so, said Nils Henrik von der Fehr, chairman of the economics department at the University of Oslo. Taxes play a supporting role — there is a 25 percent value-added tax on most products, for example — but the real reasons are labor costs and agricultural protectionism.
“The most important factor is the way our labor market works: centralized bargaining,” Mr. von der Fehr said. “One has made an effort to have an egalitarian wage structure. While people like me are not well paid compared to our colleagues in other countries, people at the lower end earn much more. You don’t have cheap labor in Norway.
“All the things you want as a tourist — hotels, restaurants — are labor-intensive,” he said. “That’s why it’s nice for us to be a tourist in the U.S.: everything you want is cheap because of the abundance of cheap labor.”
"Another factor is the high tariffs on agricultural imports that keep Norwegian farms in business: “We have perhaps the most protected agricultural system in the world,” he said. “It’s not a particularly easy place to grow anything. Farms are small and the season is short.”
How dare they?
" cutting wages is always the answer."
The GOP used to talk differently. In the Gilded Age they were for high tariffs. When Dems called for lowering the tariff the GOP response was they did not want to lower American workers income by putting them into competition with "millions of European paupers" according to Charles Beard in this book:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34253
If the oil stays in the ground, how does it get translated to higher wages?
Off topic, but here's an article that slips into virtually every logical fallacy in the immigration debate. Regulars of this blog will lol/groan:
http://world.time.com/2012/09/20/what-if-rich-countries-shut-the-door-on-immigration/
Communists. Obviously they should be striving for an economy where workers' inflation-adjusted (or "real") hourly compensation lags productivity growth, year after year. That utopia has a name, America.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110224.htm
Well, obviously their evil socialism and economic illiteracy is the reason why Norway is the most miserable and hellish country on earth. Meanwhile, Somalia has prospered and had high living standards for all, thanks to the lack of oppressive government regulation.
Oh, wait...
This Ola fellow sounds like your type of politician:
>> Since the turning towards the left of the Centre Party in the 2000s, Borten Moe is regarded as being among the "centrist" wing of the party,[5] and has been claimed to have the ambition of moving the party back towards the right.[6] He holds many traditional Centre Party issues strongly, such as opposition to the European Union, holding that "I think that we, within the frame of the Norwegian nation state has the opportunity of building a best possible society". He also believe that too much power, funds and competence has been centralised to the area around the capital Oslo.[3]
In October 2009, he traveled to Denmark to study the asylum policies of the country. He then said that the number of asylum seekers coming to Norway was way too high, and that Norway should learn from the policies of Denmark, and generally tighten the Norwegian asylum policy.[7] In 2010 he said it was extremely important that Norwegians discuss which values Norwegian society should be based on in the future. He stated as the basic foundations; democracy, human rights, respect for individuals and equality between sexes, and considered it dangerous to think about these values as platitudes. He also compared radical Islam to Nazism, and regarding the granting of asylum to terrorists, he questioned if one would have given asylum to extreme-right Germans after World War II when they also risked death penalties in Germany.[8] <<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ola_Borten_Moe
Risto
During the Cold War the high standard of living of the average American was a point of national pride. The typical American factory worker could own his own home on its own plot of land. That home would contain such comforts as a television, fridge, and automatic dishwasher. He'd drive to work in his own car. This was why we deserved to triumph over communism.
Within a few short years of the end of the Cold War, the narrative did a complete 180. Suddenly those well-off American workers were the cause of all problems. Suddenly they needed to work a whole lot harder for a lot less money. Suddenly the "elites" decided that the typical American worker needed to be a lot more like the typical worker in China, Malaysia, Mexico and Taiwan than like the American worker of the preceding decades and centuries. Suddenly the very phrase "American worker" went from being one of approbation to one of condemnation.
It's enough to make you miss the Cold War.
A government-appointed commission on oilrigs and drilling concluded last month Norway must cut labor costs and ease regulations to ensure petroleum isn’t left in the ground.
Sounds almost like US farmers worried about "crops rotting in the fields", doesn't it? Except that oil doesn't rot, or curdle. It just sits there for millenia, until you need it badly enough, which is usually in times of greater demand and higher prices.
Which should reveal the big question the story overlooks: why the rush to get the oil out now, when everyone in the world thinks it will be worth much more later?
Draw your own conclusions.
OT, but hilarious and pathetic:
"Mitt Romney Dons Brownface For Forum With Mexicans"
http://wonkette.com/484700/mitt-romney-dons-brownface-for-forum-with-mexicans
Wonkette is hilarious and pathetic, that's true.
So are all the lefty trolls who infest every blog on the right in the two months prior to a Presidential election.
Sure if I had a century of oil/gas in my backyard, a tourist mecca and a homogenous population, I wouldn't compete either.
If the oil stays in the ground, how does it get translated to higher wages?
It will be worth more money two years, five, years, ten years from now than it is today. That translates to higher wages over time.
Unless you meant "If it stays in the ground in perpetuity ..", but even a Prole Economist can't be that dumb, can he?
As an expat in Norway in the oil industry I may have a different perspective. Norwegian oilfield workers are the best paid in the world. 2 weeks on, 4 weeks off with 4 weeks of vacation in the summer and all holidays on top of that.
The reason the statement was made was to indicate that actual daily oil and gas production in Norway has been on a fairly steep decline the past few years. The reason is not that the oil is not there, it is that the costs are prohibitively high to get it given government regulations, technical difficulties and labor costs.
Statoil, owned but not operated by the Norwegian government has efforts in the GOM, Africa, US shale plays, etc. All lower cost than offshore Norway.
The government here is correct. No one is going to take huge financial risks on sure things in the ground if the costs involved outweigh opportunites elsewhere. There are a hell of a lot of opportunities elsewhere with tremendously lower cost.
As an expat in Norway in the oil industry I may have a different perspective. Norwegian oilfield workers are the best paid in the world. 2 weeks on, 4 weeks off with 4 weeks of vacation in the summer and all holidays on top of that.
The reason the statement was made was to indicate that actual daily oil and gas production in Norway has been on a fairly steep decline the past few years. The reason is not that the oil is not there, it is that the costs are prohibitively high to get it given government regulations, technical difficulties and labor costs.
Statoil, owned but not operated by the Norwegian government has efforts in the GOM, Africa, US shale plays, etc. All lower cost than offshore Norway.
The government here is correct. No one is going to take huge financial risks on sure things in the ground if the costs involved outweigh opportunites elsewhere. There are a hell of a lot of opportunities elsewhere with tremendously lower cost.
Lower wages juices economic growth
No, they don't.
Let's say cutting wages 20% increases per capita GDP growth by 0.5%. In just 36 years workers will be making more with the wage cuts than they would have if the economy didn't cut wages.
And yet, America has had significantly higher wages than, say, China, for the past two hundred and thirty years. According to your economic theory the result should be that America would be very poor and China would be very rich. According to your economic theory the result should be that the average Chinese person would be far wealthier than the average American person.
Libertarianism - the triumph of ideology over reality.
> Mitt Romney Dons Brownface
According to Orson Welles, this was referred to as "making down" in the Harlem theater of the early 20th century. (As opposed to "make up.") It's a nice, authentic term.
Using it in a sentence: "Mitt made down for his Univision appearance."
"Ola Borten Moe. A traitor to international corporations."
Norway's oil industry is dominated by Statoil, which, as its name suggests, was founded by the Norwegian government and remains largely state-owned today.
Granted, the cheap labor in La lead to a lot of low skilled Latins but the average White person in La is doing better than he did in the 1950's
That's because the average White person in LA in the 1950's is now dead, and his children have left LA, and left California, and moved to parts of the country where their wages are not as badly undercut by illegal Latino labor. What's left in LA are mostly the white elite and the brown underclass.
This is the "New York City model" of socioeconomics. The thing is, it only works for the elite. It works very well for them, but it sucks badly for the 90% of whites who are non-elite.
Don't you think the US auto industry would've been in a better shape today if they managed to curb the growth in wages and benefits back in the 70s?
The heinous impact of American unions on industry had MUCH more to do with disastrous work rules than with the cost of wages. That and insane pension schemes (which goes under benefits of course).
Gov regs did most of the rest. From fantasy-level rules on environmental impact to the inundation of lawyers and paper brought on by the EEOC and a hundred other species of freedom destroying "oversight."
Granted, the cheap labor in La lead to a lot of low skilled Latins but the average White person in La is doing better than he did in the 1950's, he's more of a professional. The average house size is much bigger and I knew a lot of whites in Gardena back around 1965 that lived in Apartments and Mobile Homes not tract houses.
If you're gauging quality of life by house size, then you are right, as far as your limited, ludicrous view goes.
> In the Gilded Age they were for high tariffs.
Chomsky points out that the early American government concentrated on high tariffs over competitive advantage, contrary to the standard advice of Adam Smith (and today's globalists) to new or developing nations. I.e., we embraced economic nationalism. It's an important reason our economy went from bottom to top in about a century.
If we had followed the usual globalist program, our history would have been closer to that of a dependent 3rd World country, the kind the IMF is always there to "bail out." Look where we're headed now.
astrodominant, please, this is iSteve. Uninformed commentary only on all matters economic.
> Let's say cutting wages 20% increases per capita GDP growth by 0.5%.
LOL. Nice try.
The reason the statement was made was to indicate that actual daily oil and gas production in Norway has been on a fairly steep decline the past few years. The reason is not that the oil is not there, it is that the costs are prohibitively high to get it given government regulations, technical difficulties and labor costs.
Statoil, owned but not operated by the Norwegian government has efforts in the GOM, Africa, US shale plays, etc. All lower cost than offshore Norway.
None of this has jack to do with the cost of oil in the Gulf. If Norway can get it's own oil out of the ground (or out of the sea) for less than the cost of extracting it, then they can and will make money. If it costs more money to extract it than it's worth, then it makes no sense to extract it.
Let's say cutting wages 20% increases per capita GDP growth by 0.5%
Hey, then cutting wages by 40% should increase GDP growth by 1.0%!
And cutting wages by 80% should increase GDP growth by an incredible two percent!
please, this is iSteve. Uninformed commentary only on all matters economic
Uninformed commentary on matters economic is the only sort of commentary which libertarians are capable of offering.
"astrodominant, please, this is iSteve. Uninformed commentary only on all matters economic."
I think you misunderstand.
What Steve's commenting on isn't the terms and conditions of Norwegian oil men. He's commenting on the fact that a powerful minister thinks that rising wages are a Good Thing - an increasingly rare view in Western economies.
In the UK, for example, the Bank of England is quite clear. "Inflation" as in an increase in the cost of living is not a problem unless and until that is also accompanied by an increase in wages. THEN it's a problem.
Hey, if we're gonna lampoon make-up, then has anyone noticed how they no longer allow Obama to appear before a camera with those hideous "Rocky Horror Picture Show" purple lips of his?
Seeing those old videos that Mitt is now pushing - the ones with Obama talking up redistributionist politics - makes you remember just how grotesque The Color Purple really is.
Yet when Norwegians come to the USA they favor open borders and crazy leftism.
Funny dat.
As an expat in Norway in the oil industry I may have a different perspective. Norwegian oilfield workers are the best paid in the world.
Yeah? So who's to say they shouldn't be?
I strongly suspect that bankers and lawyers are rather well paid in Norway, but for some reason you're not asking the Norwegian government to force down their salaries.
Let's say cutting wages 20% increases per capita GDP growth by 0.5%. In just 36 years workers will be making more with the wage cuts than they would have if the economy didn't cut wages.
DR made the above comment which several commenters have critiqued. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but I thought DR wrote this as satire.
Question to DR: Was your original comment satire, or where you serious?
David, that picture of Mitt with the self tanner is, well, beyond comment.
"Uninformed commentary on matters economic is the only sort of commentary which libertarians are capable of offering."
Here's the 'about' for Will Wilkinson
"Hi there. I’m a writer based in Houston, TX. I blog about American politics for The Economist and study creative writing at the University of Houston."
I think you'll find that other 'Reason' [sic] type libertarians have similar economic backgrounds.
redneck scare is the new red scare.
David, that picture of Mitt with the self tanner is, well, beyond comment.
Funny, but in this video of the actual event, he doesn't look brown at all. He looks rather red.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/19/politics/romney-univision-forum/index.html
Photoshop strikes again.
"Don't you think the US auto industry would've been in a better shape today if they managed to curb the growth in wages and benefits back in the 70s?" - Wage growth stopped as a whole for the American economy back in 1972. Are we better off jobswise then we were back then?
I think they have a similar problem in Nigeria. Except its not wages they want to cut...its the workers!
Just some helpful links for commenters like me who don't know nuthin' about HTML:
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_font_style.asp
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_link
Come out of the closet Will!
Here's the 'about' for Will Wilkinson
"Hi there. I’m a writer based in Houston, TX. I blog about American politics for The Economist and study creative writing at the University of Houston."
I think you'll find that other 'Reason' [sic] type libertarians have similar economic backgrounds.
Yup, they have the economic background of never having worked in the free market in their lives.
Sorry, Steve, you are a good guy, and you write plenty of interesting stuff, but you just don't understand economics.
Yeah, Steve, if you'd just assume a world that doesn't exist, then you'd understand "economics".
How will shutting down oil production and putting these workers out of their high-paying jobs help them?
Sadly, Canada has been taking the exact opposite tack. The Canadian government caters to big business; wages are kept as low as possible (even allowing temporary foreign workers to drag down wages) and the profits go almost entirely to the 1%.
The link below is a good article; the magazine is sometimes good, but definitely has quite a lefty slant. The article has an interesting perspective as it is about a Norwegian oil industry regulator with experience in the Canadian oil industry.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/08/22/Rolf-Wiborg/
Starets
DR made the above comment which several commenters have critiqued. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but I thought DR wrote this as satire.
Question to DR: Was your original comment satire, or where you serious?
It's truly remarkable how many things which libertarians say read as satire.
'Why the heck shouldn't two men, or three men, or four men, six women, an orangutan and a cat, all "marry" one another?'
the cheap labor in LA lead(s) to a lot of low skilled Latins
Do causation much?
Uninformed commentary on matters economic is the only sort of commentary which libertarians are capable of offering. -- anonymous-- i.e., uninforming
Then North Korea, with no libertarians, indeed no liberty at all, and the most nationalistic and regulated economy on the planet, should be a paradise for workers.
No wonder they're parading all the time!
"White person in La is doing better than he did in the 1950's..."
Wait, what? And Steve's the leftist? Geez.
Annual per capita oil and gas production in Norway is valued at $12K. Oil and gas is estimated to create over 10 jobs outside of the O&G sector for each job in the sector itself. Norway's a pretty unique case, given that its per capita O&G production rivals the richest Arab state (on a per capita basis) of Qatar (home of al Jazeera), whose number is $17K. Norway, with its GDP per capita of $97K, is really the Qatar ($98K per capita) of Scandinavia.
Cutting wages almost always is the answer. Lower wages juices economic growth, and it's hard to argue with the logic of compounded growth.
Nobody's arguing against the logic of compound growth, rather against certain allegations of which factors are conducive to it.
Wages should be tied to productivity, and in market economies generally they are. But there's a bit of wiggle room involved, in some cases employees getting the better of the deal, in other cases employers. Employers like to cheat, though, by introducing immigrants, and therein lies the problem.
How will shutting down oil production and putting these workers out of their high-paying jobs help them?
Obviously it wouldn't. But industry lobbies have cried wolf so many times it's natural to suspect they're lying.
"Uninformed commentary on matters economic is the only sort of commentary which libertarians are capable of offering". -- anonymous-- i.e., uninforming
Then North Korea, with no libertarians, indeed no liberty at all, and the most nationalistic and regulated economy on the planet, should be a paradise for workers.
All you've shown is that, in addition to their other problems, libertarians can't think logically to save their lives. Your putting the word "then" between two statements does not magically mean that one follows from the other.
Wait, what? And Steve's the leftist? Geez.
I'd have to agree. There's a lot of pining for the heydays of the unions that imposed wages not justified by productivity and work rules that both slowed production and trashed product quality*. The UAW's extortion racket created a world in which mindless assembly line drones doing repetitive wrench-turning make triple the wages of skilled mechanics, and that's after several rounds of bankruptcy-induced Detroit wage cuts for the drones.
* That is presumably why Steve drives a Honda.
There's a lot of pining for the heydays of the unions that imposed wages not justified by productivity
Well, no, there's a lot of pining for the days when increased productivity on the part of workers led to better wages for those workers.
The median white male American worker makes the same today, in inflation adjusted dollars, as his dad did back in 1972. In spite of his productivity being a lot higher.
So stick your strawman where the sun don't shine and set it alight.
How will shutting down oil production and putting these workers out of their high-paying jobs help them?
Other than you, who is talking of shutting down oil fields and putting anybody out of work? Nobody in the linked article said anything of the sort. Stop tring to force the entire world into the template you learned from reading Atlas Shrugged.
So they must cut wages. I forget what the question is, but in the globalist press, cutting wages is always the answer.
Except for CEOs, and then increasing wages is always the answer.
Steve sometimes you sound like a leftist about wages.
I've always thought this too. He's also basically a leftist on foreign policy and the environment, and most issues other than immigration. Yet he chooses to align himself with conservatives who share almost none of his views, and often rants about the evil "SWPLs" who are generally in agreement with him on non-immigration issues. It's strange.
A Honda made in an assembly plant in Maryville, Ohio that was constructed in 1982 (thanks to the Reagan Administration).
"When the automobile industry in the United States was threatened by the popularity of cheaper more fuel efficient Japanese cars, a 1981 voluntary restraint agreement limited the Japanese to exporting 1.68 million cars to the U.S. annually as stipulated by U.S Government.
The Japanese automobile industry responded by establishing assembly plants or "transplants" in the United States to produce mass market vehicles".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_export_restraints
Wow, a lot of info here, at the site of a government agency I'd never heard of but which might actually do something really useful.
Turns out, pace astroguy, that the decline in Norwegian oil production is due to fields reaching maturity, and that the recent strike by there workers is over pensions (the government/companies want to raise the retirement age from 62 to 67 -- something I'm generally for, but 67 seems pretty old to be working on a North Sea oil derrick). Production is set to be ramped up due to recent discoveries, and reaching an agreement with Russia.
BTW Norway gets most of its own electricity from hydropower. Sounds like a country with its s**t together.
He's also basically a leftist on foreign policy and the environment, and most issues other than immigration. Yet he chooses to align himself with conservatives who share almost none of his views, and often rants about the evil "SWPLs" who are generally in agreement with him on non-immigration issues. It's strange.
I don't know his position on some social issues, but Steve comes across as being more in agreement with paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians than he does with anything leftist or SWPL.
Neoconservatives are not exactly conservative. So his disagreement with them on foreign policy and trade is not an indication that he is not politically on the right. If anything, neocons resemble leftists on many issues.
Here is a nice summary called Neocons 101. This piece is short and sweet and was originally published by the Christian Science Monitor about 9 years ago. It has since been lost down the memory hole. Fortunately someone at this small school saved it as a PDF.
Steve sometimes you sound like a leftist about wages
So only "leftists" think that governments should not seek to drive down the wages of the people? Really?
Some of you people are completely and utterly clueless about the political landscape.
The Left supports the will of the majority.
The white working class is the majority.
If you are for high wages, you are Left.
If you are for immigration, you are Right==> Immigration lowers.
If you are for affirmative action and other race spoils, you are Right because affirmative action and other race spoils are anti-white, and whites are in the majority.
There is no Left if there is not a solid bloc of voters.
I am a leftist and I support all the things that the white middle class wants: stopping mass immigration, stopping race spoils and affirmative action, stopping the control that rich investors have over regulation and foreign policy. I support high wages. The majority of america sells their Labor, and that is the perspective I support.
I am a leftist. And I support whites because I am mostly white. I support progressive taxation and controlling the rich. I support universal healthcare.
I support racial segregation because it enhances community solidarity and trust.
"Anonymous said...
Steve sometimes you sound like a leftist about wages
So only "leftists" think that governments should not seek to drive down the wages of the people? Really?
Some of you people are completely and utterly clueless about the political landscape."
Yes, it is pathetic. I was at a barbecue the other day with many conservative White middle class people and only a few were dimly aware of the difference between Paleo-Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives...
I guess people are too busy making a living to keep up and understand the differences and how the Republican party got hijacked.
I imagine the ignorance of your typical twenty something DailyKos or HuffPost reader is even more profound.
At least Taki Mag, Steve, and a few other sites are gettng more recognition lately or so it seems.
This is an actual comment in response to astrodominant (who, by the way, appears to be the only commenter with any first hand knowledge of the topic of the original post):
"If Norway can get it's own oil out of the ground (or out of the sea) for less than the cost of extracting it, then they can and will make money."
Go ahead, iStevers, keep telling yourselves that you've seen behind the curtain and you really know what's going on. In fact, start a newsletter, 'cause I'm sure there's a huge audience out there just dying to pay real cash money for insights like that.
Slightly off-topic, but this is why the middle class increasingly does not trust the Republican Party, and why Mitt Romney may lose in a year when he should win by a mile:
Microsoft has saved nearly $7 billion off its U.S. tax bill since 2009 by using loopholes to shift profits offshore, a Senate panel said in a report released Thursday...the company transferred nearly half of its net revenue from U.S. retail sales to a Puerto Rican subsidiary between 2009 and 2011. That saved the firm $4.5 billion in U.S. taxes, according to the panel...Microsoft Vice President of Worldwide Tax William J. Sample defended the companies' use of legal tax avoidance maneuvers, saying it helps them be competitive overseas and creates jobs in the United States.
Yes, it helps them create jobs in the United STates...which they give to H1B workers from India.
How can Microsoft claim $4.5 billion in profits in Puerto Rico? Have they even sold $4.5 billion worth of software in Puerto Rico in their entire 39 year history?
As I blogged a couple of years ago, you might think of Microsoft as a software company based in Redmond, but to the IRS, they are now a manufacturing colossus operating out of Puerto Rico, Ireland, and Singapore, with a money-losing R&D operation in Redmond.
Neoconservatives are not exactly conservative. So his disagreement with them on foreign policy and trade is not an indication that he is not politically on the right. If anything, neocons resemble leftists on many issues.
If neocons were liberal on foreign policy, then they would have been against the Iraq War, instead of for it.
Neocons don't really resemble leftists on much. Not on economics, foreign policy, or environmentalism, that's for sure. Actually paleocons tend to resemble liberals more than neocons do. Given that this is the case, and that probably 90% of self-identified conservatives are more neo than paleo, I don't see much basis in saying that neoconservatism is not "real conservatism".
@Steve:
Wasn't it a government-appointed committee--not the globalist press--that made that pronouncement?
And if Norway's oil is left in the ground in 2012, it will quickly curdle and have to be thrown out. (Or is that milk I'm thinking of?)
Touché.
As I blogged a couple of years ago, you might think of Microsoft as a software company based in Redmond, but to the IRS, they are now a manufacturing colossus operating out of Puerto Rico, Ireland, and Singapore, with a money-losing R&D operation in Redmond.
Which probably makes Bill Gates the most egregious leapfrogger ever - taking sheltered money and spreading it across the, more worthy, world. He is probably doing it out of the guilt he feels for screwing over Gary Kildall, a computer genius, not a crony capitalist. I wonder if Kildall, a navy vet, would have had more loyalty to his home.
"Neocons don't really resemble leftists on much. Not on economics, foreign policy, or environmentalism, that's for sure. Actually paleocons tend to resemble liberals more than neocons do. Given that this is the case, and that probably 90% of self-identified conservatives are more neo than paleo, I don't see much basis in saying that neoconservatism is not "real conservatism"."
Very good point, but I think it is a lot higher than 90%.
I recall reading polls over the years that many "conservatives" were actually against the wars and pro environment (most hunters are both strong supporters of environmental causes and conservative look it up)and, of course, against open borders.
Regarding free trade ... that came in with "New Democrats" like Clinton with NAFTA and GATT (opening world trade to China).
That was mother’s milk to the Neo-Cons because it helped their cousins on Wall Street in the finance industry to the detriment of American manufacturers and workers.
Basically, through "free trade" Wall Street bankers could goad American manufacturers to ship work overseas or face declining stock prices and possible take over by companies willing to ship jobs overseas (hence generating a lot more work for globalist finance types who have no loyalty to your average citizen in the U.S.)
Remember it was Reagan who forced the Japanese auto makers to establish factories here by threatening to enact tariffs (before the Neo-Cons completed their putsch under Bush II and Karl Rove)
Somehow the Neo-Cons hijacked then Republican Party and that fact is buried in the MSM press which is controlled by the Scotch-Irish.
That’s why you have the popularity of Ron Paul and the Tea Party. People who would have ordinarily been attracted to conservatism for its non-nation building, protect our culture anti-immigration, non-interventionist, protect our industries message of the Paleo-Cons were attracted to Libertarianism because of its anti-finance and anti-war message. With Pat Buchanan style Paleo-Cons being replaced many of these people no longer felt they had home in the Republican Party (and they really don’t).
Since most of the leading New-Cons are of Scotch-Irish ancestry with friends and relatives dominating Wall Street and the MSM such machinations should not have been unexpected.
"Don't you think the US auto industry would've been in a better shape today if they managed to curb the growth in wages and benefits back in the 70s?"
According to Republican former star auto exec. Bob Lutz, the American auto industries woes were mostly caused by bad management, with greedy unions only taking a small share of the blame.
Neocons don't really resemble leftists on much. Not on economics, foreign policy, or environmentalism, that's for sure. Actually paleocons tend to resemble liberals more than neocons do. Given that this is the case, and that probably 90% of self-identified conservatives are more neo than paleo, I don't see much basis in saying that neoconservatism is not "real conservatism".
Paleos resemble what had been the traditional right in that they are for tariffs, non-intervention, restricted immigration, and for 'conserving' the principles of the Founding. They support smaller government as laid out in the Constitution.
Neocons, on the other hand, are really globalists and 'propositional-nation types' like neolibs. Those are not conservative traits. Neocons also support bigger government, don't want to engage in a culture war, and have no problem chipping away at the Constitution, e.g. Patriot Act.
Generally when paleos and leftists do agree on something as you mention, it is for completely different reasons and that in itself can be a source of contention.
For example, Justin Raimondo at Antiwar, is upset that the traditional right and antiwar left cannot get together to form a credible antiwar coalition. The lefties refuse to make nice with the paleos because the paleos are only antiwar since they are racists and don't want white men dying to help third worlders. The enlightened lefties are antiwar because they don't want white men dropping bombs on poor third worlders. Ergo they cannot associate with paleos despite both being against the war.
I do agree that 90% of conservatives, at least those who get the decent gigs at MSM outlets, are neocons.
However, the man on the street is a different story, and is most likely a hybrid. Most conservatives I meet at work and other social cirles are pro Israel. They supported the Iraq war nine years ago, though not so much now. But on most other issues they sound almost like Pat Buchanan. Whether it is immigration, trade, the UN, big government, etc, they are paleo. They are basically pro-Israeli paleocons which doesn't make much sense, but that is what they are.
"Cutting wages almost always is the answer. Lower wages juices economic growth, and it's hard to argue with the logic of compounded growth.
Let's say cutting wages 20% increases per capita GDP growth by 0.5%. In just 36 years workers will be making more with the wage cuts than they would have if the economy didn't cut wages.
In 100 years workers in the economy that cut wages will be making two thirds more. And the gains will accrue to a larger population (presuming positive population growth).
From a utilitarian perspective this kind of logic is hard to argue against.
Economists aren't old fuddy-duddies who are scheming with powerful corporations. There's compelling reasons to cut wages to maintain international competitiveness."
So when this mysterious effect going to kick in?
Your statement, like most neo-liberal economic theories, so full of unfounded assumptions and answered questions that it's almost meaningless. The only thing we can say for sure about this theory is that it's not true.
Steve,
Please disregard my previous post and post this one if you wish. I meant "lower than 90%" not "higher."
"Neocons don't really resemble leftists on much. Not on economics, foreign policy, or environmentalism, that's for sure. Actually paleocons tend to resemble liberals more than neocons do. Given that this is the case, and that probably 90% of self-identified conservatives are more neo than paleo, I don't see much basis in saying that neoconservatism is not "real conservatism"."
Very good point, but I think it is a lot LOWER than 90%.
I recall reading polls over the years that many "conservatives" were actually against the wars and pro environment (most hunters are both strong supporters of environmental causes and conservative look it up)and, of course, against open boarders.
Regarding free trade ... that came in with "New Democrats" like Clinton with NAFTA and GATT (opening world trade to China).
That was mother’s milk to the Neo-Cons because it helped their cousins on Wall Street in the finance industry to the detriment of American manufacturers and workers.
Basically, through "free trade" Wall Street bankers could goad American manufacturers to ship work overseas or face declining stock prices and possible take over by companies willing to ship jobs overseas (hence generating a lot more work for globalist finance types who have no loyalty to your average citizen in the U.S.)
Remember it was Reagan who forced the Japanese auto makers to establish factories here by threatening to enact tariffs (before the Neo-Cons completed their putsch under Bush II and Karl Rove).
Somehow the Neo-Cons hijacked then Republican Party and hence that fact is buried in the MSM press which is controlled by the Scotch-Irish.
That’s why you have the popularity of Ron Paul and the Tea Party. People who would have ordinarily been attracted to conservatism for its non nation building, non-interventionist, protect our industries message of the Paleo-Cons were attracted to Libertarianism because of its anti-finance and anti-war message. With Pat Buchanan style Paleo-Cons being replaced many of these people no longer felt they had home in the Republican Party (and they really don’t).
Since most of the leading New-Cons are of Scotch-Irish ancestry such machinations should not be unexpected.
DR,
So the way to ncrease wages is to cut wages.
You're the one who says this is a 'logical' thing to do - but a moment's thought tells us that it is the height of illogic, rather like trying to argue that 2+2=5.
You say that cut wages now will lead to higher wages 36 years in the future. Forget for the moment that most workers will be dead in 36 years, but if what you are saying is true (and it is not), the only logical implication is that wages need to be perpetually cut to 'juice' (as you put it) growth, and thus wages will never stand a chance of rising at any time, if 'growth is to be juiced' - think about it, I don't know if you're a fan of logical puzzles and games, but I recommend to you a good hard course of the harder GMAT questions - you might learn something.
Anyway, in any western economy the biggest portion of GDP is wages. As we all know cutting wages will cut aggregate demand thus deflating GDP.
"There's a lot of pining for the heydays of the unions that imposed wages not justified by productivity and work rules that both slowed production and trashed product quality*."
That pinning probably has something to with the fact that most people were better off in those bad old days.
Low product quality in the American auto industry had little of nothing to do with worker skill or industriousness and everything to do with deliberate decisions by management to cut quality to increase profits. They had unions in Germany and Japan too, you know.
As always with neo-liberals, your argument boils down to us believing your half baked theories over our lying eyes.
Put down the Economist and do some investigating about what worker's lives were like before unions. You might learn something.
DR said...
Cutting wages almost always is the answer. Lower wages juices economic growth, and it's hard to argue with the logic of compounded growth.
Let's say cutting wages 20% increases per capita GDP growth by 0.5%. In just 36 years workers will be making more with the wage cuts than they would have if the economy didn't cut wages.
In 100 years workers in the economy that cut wages will be making two thirds more. And the gains will accrue to a larger population (presuming positive population growth).
So if we go back to slavery, it will be Paradise
Very good point, but I think it is a lot LOWER than 90%.
I recall reading polls over the years that many "conservatives" were actually against the wars and pro environment (most hunters are both strong supporters of environmental causes and conservative look it up)and, of course, against open boarders.
Most conservatives are not neocon/libertarian on immigration, I'll hand you that, but on econ and foreign policy I don't think there are too many paleos out there. You can see from the comments on this blog, there are lots of libertarians and war-mongers around here, probably over 50% of the commenters, and I think iSteve is basically paleo heartland territory. Go to most conservative sites and see how much anti-war sentiment or opposition to free trade you find. You won't find much.
That’s why you have the popularity of Ron Paul and the Tea Party. People who would have ordinarily been attracted to conservatism for its non nation building, non-interventionist, protect our industries message of the Paleo-Cons were attracted to Libertarianism because of its anti-finance and anti-war message.
The bulk of the Tea Party was not anti-war, and I don't think either the Tea Party or Ron Paul are "anti-finance". E.g. the response to OWS from conservatives was nearly unanimously pro-Wall Street, especially from libertarians. The Tea Party was, on the whole, very neocon. Lots of MLK-worship there, too.
If neocons were liberal on foreign policy, then they would have been against the Iraq War, instead of for it.
Neocons don't really resemble leftists on much. Not on economics, foreign policy, or environmentalism, that's for sure. Actually paleocons tend to resemble liberals more than neocons do. Given that this is the case, and that probably 90% of self-identified conservatives are more neo than paleo, I don't see much basis in saying that neoconservatism is not "real conservatism".
Paleos have been hijacked by leftists. The traditional Lindbergh conservatives operated on the principle that we don't attack people who don't attack us, but we assert our interests abroad, and that we should maintain a strong defense to deter foreign attack. After Japan did Pearl Harbor, Lindbergh volunteered and served in the Pacific despite initially being rejected by the White House. Many of today's paleos seem to want to disarm completely, and make these bend-over-backwards justifications for the behavior of the heathen scum who act up against us. I'd say traditional Lindbergh conservatives form the majority of the party and have no truck either with paleos who want to disarm and grovel or neos who want to invade the world based on their unreasonable belief that inside every wog (shorthand for any given foreigner) is an American struggling to get out.
Perfectly put Anon at 3:39.
This post raises an interesting question, one I'd like to see Steve deal with in a future column (or even book): outside the United States, who does "The Jobs White People (Allegedly) Won't Do"
Who picks the grapes in Australia's thriving vineyards?
Who collects and washes the dishes at fancy Parisian restaurants?
Who does the roofing on hot summer days in Italy?
I'm looking for a serious, factual answer- do those countries have illegal aliens of their own? Some other underclass to whom they can give the grueling, low-wage jobs? Do they actually hire native-born citizens to do those jobs at a decent wage?
In other words, quite part from the oil biz, ARE there Jobs Norwegians Won't DO? And if so, who does them?
DR, whoever he is, just simply is not very bright.
He cannot see the obvious self-contradictions in his 'argument'.
Anonydroid at 3:39 am said: Many of today's paleos seem to want to disarm completely, and make these bend-over-backwards justifications for the behavior of the heathen scum who act up against us.
Hunsdon replies: Many? Disarm completely? Names, sir, I must have the names of these varlets! Pat Buchanan? (Or perhaps his evil twin brother Buchonon, from the mirror universe where Sheldon Adelson doesn't care about Israel?) Ron Paul?
This "I have in my hand a list of" nonsense didn't fly with McCarthy, you know.
what is a leftist?
DR said...
Cutting wages almost always is the answer. Lower wages juices economic growth, and it's hard to argue with the logic of compounded growth.
Let's say cutting wages 20% increases per capita GDP growth by 0.5%. In just 36 years workers will be making more with the wage cuts than they would have if the economy didn't cut wages.
In 100 years workers in the economy that cut wages will be making two thirds more. And the gains will accrue to a larger population (presuming positive population growth).
So if we go back to slavery, it will be Paradise
Who, whom? Lol!
Looking at Wikipedia, I find that of its 5 million inhabitants, 891 are members of the Scotch-Irish church, and about 1500 inhabitants belong to that ethnic group. In comparison, there are some 30,000 inhabitants of Pakstani ancestry.
I am not sure what the current views of the Tea Party are since it has been astro-turfed by Dick Armey, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Bachmann and others (I tell you early members are very unhappy about this).
I followed them closely when they first started (very early... way before Glen Beck and other MSM conservatives got on board), because I knew some of the early members.
I was hopeful that they might be bringing something new to the table ... but skeptical because I thought they would get co-opted and marginalized in some way (which is what has happened to a significant extent).
My impression at the time was that many of them were Ron Paul supporters, because of his anti -war polices (which a lot of people thought was a wasteful use of taxpayer money and immoral) and were also against "finance" (not capitalism) because they wanted the FED abolished or at least audited and were very strongly against the TARP bailouts of the big banks.
What the Tea Party is now that it has been Neo-Conned and marginalized is hard to say...
It's morphed into some version of Neo-Con light.
Regarding Paleo-Cons wanting to disarm and grovel (versus minding our own business)... The last president to have a significant Paleo-Con influence was Reagan with Pat Buchanan working for him...
I don't think most people consider Reagan as having an effete foreign policy.
Granted there were other influences in the Reagan White House, but there is a difference between the Neo-Con nation building cheer leading adventurism which we had under Bush II and minding our own business unless it is necessary to get involved ...that does not entail groveling and disarming as one poster suggested.
I agree that ISteve is probably Paleo heartland ... but I don't think most (over 50%) of the posters here support the wars or free trade (quite a few maybe but not most).
I mean when Whiskey posts his usual “we have to bomb them now" posts isn’t he poked fun at by most of the posters who come here regularly (i.e... shamelessly ridiculed… not that it causes him to pause or rethink his position much)?
I tend to agree with the poster who suggested that the average conservative … with the exception of strong support for Israel is probably mostly on board with traditional Paleo-Con ideas.
Not that most Paleo-Cons do not support or did not support Israel it’s just that their idea of support doesn’t entail war with the world’s entire Muslim population which now appears to be the default position of both parties it appears.
"cut wages by 20%"
There is a venerable, almost universally accepted, argument in economic history that population scarcity induced by the Black Death drove higher wages which drove innovation and real economic growth. This Sevket Pamuk (brother of Orhan) paper [pdf] further develops that argument: northwest Europe -- i.e. the economically dynamic area of the world -- managed to avoid wage decreases as the population rebounded after the plague.
Libertarians need to get out of the theory books and into some history.
"Low product quality in the American auto industry had little of nothing to do with worker skill or industriousness and everything to do with deliberate decisions by management to cut quality to increase profits. They had unions in Germany and Japan too, you know."
As Mickey Kaus (who knows the auto industry pretty well) has noted though, bloated UAW comp demands forced management to cut quality on lower-margin cars, in order to not lose too much money per vehicle. That's why when you got stuck with a Ford or a Chevy at Hertz on a business trip years ago the cars were so shitty -- weak acceleration, lots of cheap plastic in the interior, etc.
It's true that there are auto unions in Japan and Germany. But it's also true that when Japanese and German companies set up factories in the US, they deliberately avoided the UAW by hiring in the right-to-work South.
The problem isn't unions per se, but something about American unionism, particularly as exemplified by the UAW.
There are idiots in both the cheap labor and expensive labor camps. Cheap labor types are idiots because it's pretty obvious that countries with healthy economies and broad-based prosperity tend to have high wages. Expensive labor types are idiots when they don't realize that it takes profitable, high-margin businesses to sustain high-wage jobs, and insist on short-term greed that helps drive those businesses under (like the UAW).
Many of today's paleos seem to want to disarm completely, and make these bend-over-backwards justifications for the behavior of the heathen scum who act up against us.
I disagree. Not wanting to spend on 'defense' more than the next 20 countries combined is not exactly a sign that Paleos support disarmament. The overwhelming portion of the defense budget has nothing to do with defending America and more to do with running a de facto empire and lining the pockets of defense contractors.
Second, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging certain gripes your opposition has. For example, understanding that deploying your troops to Saudi Arabia would be a sore point among muslims, is not a bend-over-backwards justification for muslim behavior. It is just understanding that you should not unnecessarily provoke people by sticking your finger in a hornet's nest.
Remember though, on the real issue of defending America, no one beats the Paleos. In fact the neocons are effectively an enemy and have done much to sabotage any efforts to preserve the historic nation. That issue is of course immigration. And what is the point of spending a trillion dollars maintaining an archipelago of bases worldwide when America is no longer America?
"It's true that there are auto unions in Japan and Germany. But it's also true that when Japanese and German companies set up factories in the US, they deliberately avoided the UAW by hiring in the right-to-work South.
The problem isn't unions per se, but something about American unionism, particularly as exemplified by the UAW."
Germany has also for some time recognized that not all children are college material. They have well developed system of vocational training schools for skilled labor.
http://www.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/06__Foreign__Policy__State/02__Foreign__Policy/05__KeyPoints/Vocational__Training.html
Here in the US, anybody that doesn't go to college and work at a desk doing nothing is a loser. Unsurprisingly, it's hard to manufacture top quality products when nobody considers making such products a job worth doing or a job that their children should do. Of course if you want to make organic jam or brew crappy beer in Brooklyn, that's different.
John Doe
Paleos have been hijacked by leftists. The traditional Lindbergh conservatives operated on the principle that we don't attack people who don't attack us, but we assert our interests abroad, and that we should maintain a strong defense to deter foreign attack. After Japan did Pearl Harbor, Lindbergh volunteered and served in the Pacific despite initially being rejected by the White House. Many of today's paleos seem to want to disarm completely, and make these bend-over-backwards justifications for the behavior of the heathen scum who act up against us.
Given your expertise on the subject, it should be childs play for you to name some of the paleocons who want the US to "disarm completely".
Hop to it, sparky.
JustAClown said...The Left supports the will of the majority.
JustAClown is well named. The left is utterly opposed to the will of the majority. The left is composed of all sorts of "minority" groups, such as blacks and Jews, for whom the word "majority" is interchangeable with "Nazi's" and "slaveowners".
This is an actual comment in response to astrodominant (who, by the way, appears to be the only commenter with any first hand knowledge of the topic of the original post)
The topic of the original post is economics, not "Who lives or has lived in Norway?".
astrodominant gives no signs of understanding economics.
Neocons don't really resemble leftists on much. Not on economics, foreign policy, or environmentalism, that's for sure.
What exactly is it that you think neocons believe?
Neocons are "big government" Republicans. They are sometimes described as old FDR Democrats who moved to the Republican party after the Democrats went soft on the Cold War. Neocons support all the old FDR era programs, like Social Security. On economics, they're on the left flank of the GOP.
The same is true for foreign policy. It was the neocon wing of the GOP which strongly supported Obama's (illegal and foolish) war in Libya.
On "social issues" the neocons are again lined up more closely with the bulk of the Democratic party than they are with most Republicans.
The thumbnail description of neocons is : Very aggressive and interventionist in foreign policy - very liberal in terms of social issues - very supportive of more immigration - very much in favor of keeping the government as big as it currently is.
There's a lot of pining for the heydays of the unions that imposed wages not justified by productivity and work rules that both slowed production and trashed product quality*.
In that case you should have no difficulty in pointing to some specific examples of that "pining".
But you can't, because the argument you pretend to attack is entirely a strawman of your own construction.
Do libertarians not realize that high labor costs (like high profits) is not an issue? That there is nothing wrong with Norwegian oil workers making 120,000 a year on average?
Look, nothing about a free market society says that you have to work for as low a wage as possible. If you are in a position to withhold your labor in exchange for a higher wage, then it is perfectly consistent with free market principles to do so.
In fact, even colluding with others to withhold labor is perfectly consistent.
The only libertarian concern should be is if Norwegian wages are due to some grant of authority by the government, where the use of state power grants some privilege to Norwegian oil workers that others do not have. If that is not going on, then why is this a big deal?
The only libertarian concern should be is if Norwegian wages are due to some grant of authority by the government, where the use of state power grants some privilege to Norwegian oil workers that others do not have.
The so-called "libertarians" could impress the hell out of me if they would stop obsessing over how much money oil workers, miners, mechanics, waiters, waitresses, janitors, etc make and lose their belief that they know the "correct" wage which these people should make.
All sorts of people in Norway, America, and around the world make a lot of money due to being well-connected to governments. For the most part these people work in law, finance, real estate, and large industrial concerns. It would be easier to respect libertarians if they applied their principles equally and impartially. But it seems that the same libertarian who gnashes his teeth with rage at the thought of an oil worker or factory worker making $150k/yr is perfectly content with a lawyer or CPA making twice that.
Severn said...
JustAClown said...The Left supports the will of the majority.
======
JustAClown is well named. The left is utterly opposed to the will of the majority. The left is composed of all sorts of "minority" groups, such as blacks and Jews, for whom the word "majority" is interchangeable with "Nazi's" and "slaveowners".
-----------
you refer to the pseudoLeft. The TrueLeft supports the majority. The rich and powerful replaced the true left with the pseudo Left, the fake Left, the false Left over the last 100 years.
And plenty of gullible tadpoles gulp it up.
But not me.
@Steve Sailer
"Strange country, Norway, where politicians favor voters getting higher wages and don't worry about oil rotting in the fields, er, ground."
Oh, so now the government should set prices? How lovely! I think Adam Smith and David Ricardo would like to have a word with you.
Yeah, because that worked so well everywhere it was tried, like Latin America, Africa and the Phillipines. I mean, just look how great it worked for Argentina! 75 years of GDP stagnation, baby!
You are really going to the deep end, Sailer. Advocating populism is not only economically illiteracy: it is downright irresponsible.
And there is no "globalist" policy forcing the U.S to have a free labor market. We do live in a globalized World, but nations are still sovereign. Americans can have wages fixed by the government if they want to. Let's see hopw that works for ya!!!!!!!!
>population scarcity induced by the Black Death drove higher wages which drove innovation and real economic growth.<
Relative population scarcity drove early America's economic growth as well, according to Benjamin Franklin.
Everyone should read Franklin's "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc."
My latest stab at translating it is here.
order tramadol online tramadol hcl 100mg er - tramadol time release
Post a Comment