The U.S. Economy: Stand by for more worse news

By definition, anarchy is the moral ideal. Personally, and pragmatically, I would support a limited representative government. But, I'm personally not suggesting anything in particular here. I'm just curious as to your opinion.

Wiki states that since 1998 the fund has been allowed to invest up to 40 percent of its portfolio in the international stock market. In June 2009, the ministry decided to raise the stock portion to 60 percent. In May 2014, the Central bank Governor proposed raising the rate to 70 percent. The Norwegian Government planned that up to 5 percent of the fund should be invested in real estate, beginning in 2010. A specific policy for the real estate investments was suggested in a report the Swiss Partners Group wrote for the Norwegian Ministry of Finance.

So, the individual people who run this fund happen to in this case work as a part of a governmental agency - okay. So, that's their claim of property rights over the oil deposits. But, that aside, I really don't see any difference between the Norwegian SWF and, say, any other hard-nosed capitalistic hedge fund?

From the BBC:
They play the long game on the trading floor. When Facebook announced it was going to float on the stock market, the analysts here went to work.
The trading floor is calm, considered, even slightly academic. Wall Street this is not. There's no panicked selling of stocks as markets plunge. Their mission, by government mandate, is slowly and carefully to build up wealth to help fund this country long after the oil and gas reserves run out. "That was what happened in the 2008-2009 period," Mr Slyngstad continues. "Many other investors were forced to sell. We had the privilege to not only sit on our assets, but to accumulate more."

*PROGRESSIVE DEMAGOGUERY*

Okay, so the Norwegian SWF makes investments around the world - but all of the profits flow out of the rest of the world and into Norway. And with that money they can command goods and services used to help maintain their global dominance - which in this case is investment into education of their future employees. Is that fair? Equitable? I mean, it's not like Norwegians invented Facebook, or get their hands dirty digging coal out of the ground in China or blacken their lungs turning tar in Canada into fuel. Yet, this small number of people (0.1% / Norwegians) get to reap the financial rewards of other people's hard labor and natural resources.

Is that Progressive Socialism?
It seems more like dumb luck really - at least for the average Norwegian who just happened to be born into a rich country.

How are they any different from some snot nosed rich banker's kid born with a silver spoon in his/her mouth? That kids gets to go to the best schools, commands the best goods and services, will probably get a great job in the future - yet has done nothing but be born into a rich family. How exactly are Norwegians any different? They just happen to born into a country with a rich SWF (run by bankers/investors). And because of this they get better schooling, better goods and services than even the people who's companies they invest into.
Again, is THIS socialism? Or is this capitalism? Hard-nosed Capitalism?
Norwegians aren't even paying for their direct neighbors to have better social services - everywhere else in Europe, people are cutting back on social services. This means that profits made in France, in a french company, go to pay for Norwegian kids to have better education because Norway is able to buy equity in French companies. Norway then turns around and has the gall not to give that money back to the people of France - they refused to join the Euro specifically NOT to share in their profits. Is that fair? Is that equitable? Is that progressive? And, get this, because Norwegians will be better educated than French children, they'll probably end up out-competing them in the white color job market. It'll be Frenchman picking the veggies and milking the cows and Norwegians enjoying the 5 star dinning.

*FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM*

Of course, I absolutely think the Norwegians should enjoy the fruits of their oil bonanza and no, they do now 'owe' anything to the French. They're not stealing from the French, but instead investing IN France and are actually helping the French people. Without their profiting, there'd be no capital to invest into and create a successful French company. That's WHY they sell shares, stocks or offer bonds. The profits that Norwegians make a signal that what they are doing (at least in a free-market) is virtuous. Why? Because it's hard to make a profit in a free-market. If you do so, you're either very clever and have come up with something people want, or you're extremely efficient at utilizing the least amount of resources to maximize the products that can be made. Yes, it is possible to use up a resource in the free-market, IF YOU own it. But, most people don't do this unless they're stealing or have just invaded some other people's lands and have no respect for that people's property rights (see: Native Americans and the lose of the Buffalo).

Profit in a free-market signals that what the Norwegians are doing - they should do more of. AND, they're good at it, and people like it and are willing to pay them for more of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You do realize those markets are regulated and, according to you, therefore not free?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

More of Norway's noble humanistic character shows in quote below. Note they are offering to displace some of their own sales of oil and natural gas, to make their main fossil fuel customer more "green."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Alta Dam is Norway 110 meters high.
They seem to be offering this facility to Europeans as a "pumped hydro/electric storage facility." Perhaps only for excess wind and solar energy generated without immediate local demand?

Norway has 937 hydroelectric-generating plants provide the country with 96 percent of its electricity—making it the world’s sixth-largest hydropower producer, but again on a per capita bases, no one else is even close. They also export electric energy in solid form, called aluminum, which make great energy saving due to it strength to weigh ratio in vehicles.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. a system where the biggest tough guy in your area can rape your wife (or gangs of them if you try to get help resisting) does not sound very "moral" to me.

Nor do I except they don't use bribes or invest in socially harmful companies, like producers of cigarettes.

"Dominance" ?? That is not what they have or strive for but they do more for peace, and its keeping by supplying many more UN's Blue Beira troops than any other nation on a per capital basis. All as documented in my prior post, plus, to go absolute, (instead of "per capital") Norway sends more food to the starving people than either France or Germany, most years. - This is part of what they do with SWF's global earnings.

So in that sense, the SWF "Being my brother's keeper" makes me think their SWF is not a "hard nosed capitalist" fund but its return on capital is very good compared to most.

 

Yes, that's correct. Perhaps I should have stated relatively freer-markets.

No one is holding a gun to the head of the CEO of the Norwegian SWF and forcing him to "invest"/divert capital into particular Government-regulated businesses all around the world. From Japan or Singapore to France or Greece. And, depending on the Government, the regulations themselves can greatly differ. The 'Free' part comes with the choice he has as to which businesses he'd like to invest the Norwegians money into via equity purchases. If this were a Progressive Socialist-run fund, most of the money would be invested into various Greek businesses, you know to "Create Jerbs" - like building sporting stadiums that will only be used once and then left to rot.

 

That's not Anarchy.

I'm not sure what you mean by the way of 'bribe'? Is a SALE a bribe? Why would a buyer need to "bribe" a seller in a free-market? Or the other way around? In a free-market a trade either does or does not take place. Sure, in our hyper-regulated State-dominated tax-money fueled unfree-markets, yes, bribing a Senator is repeating massive profits (spoils) for the military industrial complex, the banking/ScamStreet, and now the DiseaseCare industry. So, yes, if you're bribing the State thugs to give you a slice of their tax scam, I can see how that's harmful. Right now we're running around $18.3 T worth of bribes.

As for cigarettes, while I don't like to smoke, I don't see why an adult can't chose to smoke if they want to. Or drink wine. Or go skydiving. Or snowboarding. Or drink beer. Or smoke pot. Or over indulge in sugary foods. That's just a part of being human.

Choosing not to invest capital into a cigarette company doesn't delineate the SWF from being capitalists. Or a "hard-nosed" capitalist. They invest money with the full intention of realizing a profit. Profits they make in France are taken out of France and used in Norway. That's capitalism.

My point is that when framed from a different point of view, it's easy enough to use language like the word 'dominance' to completely misinform (bamboozle) the reader/listener. As a matter of fact, this has happened to you. You're confusing anarchy with barbarism. Anarchy is moral. Barbarism is immoral. Raping a woman in an Anarchy would ALWAYS by definition be both immoral AND illegal. Raping a woman in a State of Barbarism would be immoral, but as there are no Laws, it wouldn't strictly be illegal. Raping a woman in a Republic may or may not be legal, but would always be immoral. Female slaves were legally raped in the USA for over a century. Immoral, but perfectly legal.

I don't doubt it.
Many capitalists are very generous with their own personal profits (on the so-called 'right' and 'left'). That's the key difference. Socialism isn't 'generous', its stealing. You can't be 'generous' with other people's property (including money). Generosity comes from donating your own property (time and money).

Also, there's nothing incompatible with investing to make a profit AND helping people at the same time. That's the wonderful thing about free-market capitalism, BOTH people end up on the winning side. It's a win-win. If it wasn't a win-win, then the trade wouldn't happen. Because the trade does happen, it's a win-win. IMO basing society on win-win leads to all sorts of unknown cultural immeasurables. It's too bad we weren't a freer society in the USA, we'd be much richer both culturally and materially.

By hard-nosed, I meant the CEO of the Norwegian SWF only invests where profits can be realized. His job is the grow the fund by making yearly profits.

Incidentally, according to a 2013 Gallup poll, which asked people the following three charitable acts they had undertaken in the past month:
donated money to an organisation?
volunteered time to an organisation?
helped a stranger, or someone they didn’t know who needed help?

The USA topped the list, again.
Why?

 

The strong, not restrained by government, do what they like under anarchy, as most understand that term. You seem to have a different definition of anarchy. What is it?

In the corporate world, managers are supposed to make decisions that are only based on the betterment of the corporation, not their personal wealth. When a decision is based in part on money given to the manager for his/her personal use, that is a bribe.

Answer: to receive a Kick Back of part of the inflated sales price the buyer can pay. For example:

Brazil's Petrobrass, buys many things and at least 100 million dollars has gone to the top managers of Pertobrass, as "Kick Backs" just in the last few years. (Some have now been sent to jail - that never happen in the past; but now Brazil's economy is in very bad shape and the people are crying for blood.)* IE if seller A offers to deposit 10% of the inflated purchase price into the manager's private Swiss bank account, and seller B only offers 5%, then seller A got the contract from the buyer (Petrobrass) even though his pipe was of lower quality than seller B's was.

The buyer's bribe was to pay more than 200% of normal price for the purchase. The seller's bribe was to offer a kick back of part of the over payment, to the people who decide from whom to buy.

The best way to get rich quick in Brazil has been for decades to get elected to public office. For example a few years ago the mayors of local cities got free from the federal government more than 200 new ambulances. The maker of these ambulances received more than twice the normal sales price for each, and gave to the legislators who had voted for this distribution of ambulance to mayors at least the correct price of an ambulance. Almost all the members of the legislature did of course vote for the gift of ambulances to local mayors.

Nonsense. Giving away for kick backs the tax payer's money is very common in many countries. At the time when the excessive price for ambulance was paid, all Brazilains thought the government was being generous and helping met a local need for better health services. Fact that these taxpayers were paying >200% for the items was well hidden. Possibly in separate work orders for modifications, such as painting the city and mayor's name on the ambulance. Large "delivery charges" etc.

* On Sunday 16 of August at least 30 million people will take to the streets demanding that the president be impeached. I will be one of them. When commodity prices were two to four times higher than now, the government had funds for social welfare programs and corruption, but not now.

 

Yes, there appears to be a categorical error here in terms of definitions because what you are referring to is categorically defined as barbarism not anarchy. These definitions can be found in Immanuel Kant's Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View where he defines the four kinds of government:

1. Law and freedom without force (anarchy).
2. Law and force without freedom (despotism).
3. Force without freedom and law (barbarism).
4. Force with freedom and law (republic).

The word "Force" here refers to the initiation of violence within a geographical area by one group of humans (public employees) against a group of morally innocent humans (public employees or private citizens). The words "Morally Innocent" here refer to a person who has not acted in a manner Ethicists would categorize as immoral. Examples of morally innocent people would be a woman who was raped. Because rape refers to an act that is against an innocent person's will, a woman who is raped is therefor categorically innocent. Baby's also fall into this category - hence the term 'Baby'. Assuming property rights, and assuming one owns one's own body, laborer's who are forced to pay a tax on their labor are having their human rights violated - morally no different than a woman who is raped. Making rape 'legal' doesn't make it moral. Making slavery legal, doesn't make it moral. Making labor tax legal, doesn't make it moral. Stealing is also, by definition, immoral. It's why we have the word 'stealing' as opposed to 'donating' or 'selling'. Labor tax is stealing. It's immoral.

Anyway, an anarchy doesn't have to exist without a police force. As a matter of fact, because society evolved towards Nation States instead of Anarchical relationships, we really don't know if there'd be more or less police presence. Maybe there'd be more or maybe there'd be less. Or maybe police presence would oscillate with the constantly evolving voluntary relationships between people in society.

I'm fairly confident that, say in Japan, the police could be privatized and people could pay (say as part of their grocery story membership) and this small but simple change from publicly funded to privately funded would go totally unnoticed. Malls could pay for their own police. Many roads are tolled anyway - those could be privately (probably electronically) monitored (which they are). In essence, Japan could probably shift to an anarchical police force within a week and a year later no one would notice. Particularly if the government simply said: We're privatizing the police to make it more efficient and this is what's going to happen A, B, C, D, ..... And I highly doubt people would go ape-shit crazy and start trying to rape women. But, if they did, more police would be hired and the costs of tolls, groceries, clothes and etc... would increase to pay for it. It's really not that difficult of a concept.

I hope that clears things up in regards to anarchy (a lawful society) and barbarism (a lawless society).

If the end goal is a moral peaceful lawful society, then the end goal is anarchy. Not socialism, certainly not communism, not a democracy, not a republic, not even a limited republic. The end goal is a highly complex stateless society based on voluntary relationships. Assuming we don't blow our selves up, or melt the planet, I imagine this will happen eventually. 500 years? A thousand? A million? Who knows? But, eventually.

 

Yes, this happens in pretty much all companies. The key is NOT to have these companies be government owned (even partially) and instead be fully private so that when the corruption gets rotten enough they go bankrupt. There is no other way to do anything about it other than attempt to make as many transactions as transparent as possible. There is no other way to deal with this. Socialism certainly doesn't prevent a male manager from hiring an attractive woman (or man) over a more highly competent fugly one. It doesn't stop mates from hiring mates. I've seen the ole' "Yes man, Get along to Go along" so many times in my life as to be uncountable.

The most efficient means of dealing with corruption is to make sure the company is privately traded, there's free-market competition and allow it to go bust when the stench gets bad enough. There is NO other way.

 

Which is why I advocate for a limited small government - generally one with not too much tax payer's money and generally local.

Which is, again, why we need LESS tax payer's money going to government. We also need free-market money.

IN the USA, trillions of dollars go to pay for phony wars that murder millions of women and children. Literally, we pay to drop chemicals on entire villages of children - many times melting them to death or radiating them to death and overall making a total mess of their lives. All so that a few Government connected crony-crapitalists can make a lot of loot off the tax-payer.

IN the USA, we are forced to pay hundreds of billions for crap Government schools run by incompetent unimaginative bureaucrats sometimes making 4 times the average of the community they supposed 'service' by pumping and dumping graduates with a 50% functional illiteracy rate.

The problem with Public Institutions is that cannot go bankrupt and the rot only worsens until society itself goes bankrupt.

 

Most of the companies, if not all, doing the big kick backs in Brazial are 100% private with many stock holders as they have made million with construction for world cup soccer games last year and next years summer Olympics. - They have more opportunity than public employees to put their hands on 30 million dollars etc. Congress must appropriate funds, CEOs can just spend the corporate money. The CEOs of the two biggest construction companies, are struggling to stay out of jail, or are in jail - They have lost, been convicted, and are not making as much news now as those still trying to claim they did nothing wrong.

SUMMARY: As often, you have it just backwards.

 

One of us has it backwards.

In a free-market the Government wouldn't be bribed because the Government wouldn't be using tax payers money to subsidize a sporting franchise by building a stadium. A free market is when BOTH participants are private companies. National Socialism on the other hand is what your example is of. An example of Government employee using tax payers money to build a sporting complex and some of them where bribed.

I have a question. Suppose the Olympics were 100% privately funded. Suppose this Private sporting organization wanted to host it's games in Brazil. Now, suppose the government of Brazil could not use tax payers' money to build any of the sporting stadiums. Instead, the Olympic owners had to find other private companies and contract the building of the stadium themselves. Then they'd have to charge tickets to recoup the costs. Tell me, exactly WHO would be bribing who exactly? Explain to me how in a capitalistic private free-market bribes are going to occur in the building of stadiums at the Olympics.

 

OK. Assume there is some 100% private corporation with shares owned by many, and its management thinks holding sports event on a grassy field will be profitable (by selling tickets to the public who want to watch such games).

Mr. M, one of the managers has been assigned the task of selecting a soding company to cover the newly leveled, raw dirt, field with sod (grass and a few inches of grass roots in dirt.). M places adds in newpaper, etc. that say X square meter of sod, insstalled by (Date) are needed.

Three companies respond, A, B, & C. All do have that soding capacity and have done even larger jobs along newly constructed roads with raw dirt slopes where the road cut thru the top of hills.

M can let three contracts or even only one. Both B & C offer, at the same lower price than A, to do the job well and on time, if they get the entire job. Mr C, the CEO of sod company C, takes M out to lunch (to discuss the required work in person) and gives small token sum of cash under the table, with comment there is much more to follow ( by direct deposit into a numbered Swiss bank account). Who do you think got the sodding contract? and why?

SUMMARY:
Bribes between two 100% private stock companies are quite common - your assertion that bribes between private companies would not occur, is very out of touch with reality.

 

Maybe this is the problem: I didn't assert bribery wouldn't happen between two private companies - yes, you're right, it happens all the time. You don't see a difference between this scenario where a private person attempts to bribe another private person, and the one you painted earlier between a public official/employee/servant being bribed by a private person?

In scenario #1 (public servant is bribed by private corporation): As long as there is continuation of the Government, then the public is being forced to pay for the stadiums AND the bribery. The government isn't a company, it doesn't go bankrupt, it simply raises taxes higher, sells more T-bonds, sells more municipal bonds, and cuts public services - thereby destroying the livelihoods of everyone in society. Not only that, but the public employee has no incentive to ensure the best stadium for money is being built. Not the cheapest (which may not last long enough to be worth the investment) and not the more expensive (which may be bloated and kitted out with unnecessary added expenses). Why does the public employee care what is being built? He doesn't. All he cares about is taking a bribe - which doesn't even have to be a direct payment, it could as easily be a job for a family member (see: Bill Clinton's daughter) or letting someone off the hook (see: John Corzine) or a direct job offer later in the 5 years time (see: many members of CONgress and/or government and the revolving door).

There is NO WAY to stop a private company from bribing a public official. It's impossible. Which ultimately destroys the lives of everyone in society - and IS destroying the lives of everyone in society. It's happening in the USA as we speak.

And get this, we also have a LOT of incompetent overpaid public employees who simply have no idea what they're doing. They might just as quickly pick the overpriced stadium WITHOUT being bribed at all! I see this happen ALL THE TIME. Multimillion dollar 'toys' various researchers buy that get used a couple times and then sit collecting dust 98% of the time (or even 100% of the time). What do they care? It's not THEIR money they're spending. But, guess who pays? The poorly educated under resourced medical student who's paying a fat 6 for a pretty crappy education. And why? Government regulatory-captured medical markets where rent-seeking pays very well. See? No bribes at all - just pure incompetence.


In scenario #2 (private employee is bribed by private corporation): Yes, bribes happen ALL THE TIME between private individuals. It may be the cute girl who comes to the MD's office to 'discuss' a new pharmaceutical product and 'invite' the doctor to come to a 'conference' in Tahiti to learn about about 'medical stuff'. Or it may be an outright bribe. ALL of the examples I listed above, including your example, can occur between two private businesses. AND? So what? All that happens is the businesses go bankrupt leaving the better managed businesses to their share of the markets. That does hurt share holders and employees. But guess what? Businesses go into and out of operation all the time. That's WHY we need a free-market, because letting poorly managed corrupt businesses go bust is a good thing for society. AND get this, small nimble business where the owner is making the decisions as to what to buy - you're not going to 'bribe' him or her because they don't want their own business going bankrupt! This means old bloated businesses, ones where they allow corruption, they CAN and maybe SHOULD go bust - making way for smaller new more innovative businesses.


In scenario #1 every single person in society is harmed.
In scenario #2 some people in society are harmed.

See the difference?

We're spending trillions and trillions of dollars, that translate into unknown amounts of wasted resources because corrupt government officials in the USA want to bribe their electorates with jobs, they spend money on phony wars - that kill real people. They give away 'free' schooling - 20% of whose graduates are functionally illiterate. We now host the largest non-violent prison population in human history - larger than the Soviet Gulags. We are now paying for a Police State that is spying on each and every one of our private online conversations. The US Government is the largest polluter in human history. It consumes more limited resources than any institution in human history. It bails out crony-Banks, essentially bailing out the richest 0.1% while sticking the next 5 generations with lifetimes of debts.


To compare the corruption between two private companies with the corruption of the public-private sector is to compare a firecracker going off on your palm with a nuclear bomb landing on your head.


Incidentally, bribery between two private individuals may or may not be immoral. Is a SALE immoral? Is offering dinner to a man or woman in hopes of having sex later that evening immoral? Is giving a child a candy to stop them from crying immoral? Is hiring beautiful people to market stuff immoral? Is giving someone the use of your vacation house in hopes they'll hire your kids in the future immoral? Maybe, maybe not. At least we could have a discussion on a case by case.

Forcing someone to work for you IS immoral - by definition. Even if you only steal 30% of what's in a person's wallet, it's still called stealing and its still immoral. Scenario #1 is immoral in addition to being aesthetically displeasing. Scenario #2 may only be aesthetically displeasing. Yeah, we don't like to 'see' or 'hear' about bribery taking place and we like the idea of a 'fair go'. But, that's not the way the real world works. Which is why LIMITED government is actually more realistic.

 

Some, but in scenario #1 it is mainly tax payers who are harmed. In scenario #2 all you buy the companies product or service with bribe increased price are harmed.

 

For more on Brazil's mostly* self inflicted woes (Socialistic leaning president, Dilma caused) See:
http://news.yahoo.com/allies-brazil...vacuum-economy-sinks-011501263--business.html

More here, less than a day old. Includes speculation as to who will become the new president after Dilma is impeached (0r resigns, with only 8% approval ratting):
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/w...s-as-scandal-engulfs-dilma-rousseff.html?_r=0

* The dramatic fall in commodity prices is also large part adding to the mismanagement woes.

 

So, according the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Chairperson and career academic Old Yeller... I mean Herr Yellen, the economy is blisteringly hot and overheating - its on fire! Thus, our Central Planners will "normalize" interest rates as part of their "Forward Guidance" as they anal bleach the economy clean of all those bad bad naughty people who have been reckless with their debts and now need to be spanked and punished to allow for intelligent entrepreneurs to restructure the economy.

LOL

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Enjoying the Great Recovery from the Great Recession?
Well, if you're in the top 1% (or a SlumLord renting to your grandkids) you probably are. Which is good.

All is right in Murica. Now get out there and vote Hitlary.

 

I assure you no one at the Fed thinks that.

They are thinking about raising the rate .25%. I think you need to get a grip...

The US is doing just fine in the recovery compared to the rest of the world. We do not live in nirvana so it is not perfect, though.

You are implying that Hillary Clinton is on par with Hitler? Are you insane or an idiot?

 

Don't forget the logical possibility: Both.

 

Oops, should have floated that option also.