Norway that horrid place ;-)

[Coito ergo sum]

Sure, but the idea of socialism is that there is plenty for everyone. It's the rise or fall together idea. That sounds nice in theory, until one realizes that if 4 people are at dinner, and there is only enough food to feed 3 of them, and that 3 person quantity is spread around to all four, then all of them go hungry.

Not sure thats my idea of socialism, I think there is enough for no one to starve but thats not the same as thinking there is enough for everyone to live in total luxury.

As far as I'm concerned socialism is a believe in society and without that society nothing is impossible including capitalism

Capitalism is not a rejection of society, and it is not assumed within capitalism that there would not be a society. Socialism =/= belief in society; rather it refers to the vesting of ownership of the means of produciton and distribution of land, capital, etc. in the State. That is distinguished from capitalism because capitalism suggests that private individuals and organizations of individuals primarily own the means of production and distribution of land, capital, etc., rather than the State. Both exist within a society, with a government and system of laws and regulations.

[ronmcd]

Socialism, on the other, has to assume that there is plenty of resources so that they can all just be allocated to whoever supposedly "needs" them.

Where resources are plenty, in Norway, you can have a prosperous, yet socialist, society, since they have enough money to pay everyone's bills every year, no problem. There is no poverty, because if people don't want to work, they just get a decent apartment and a living that allows them to travel and have a nice life without working, and it doesn't break the budget. However, in a country that doesn't have enough money to do that for everyone, to try to do what Norway does would break the bank and the system would simple be unworkable, unsustainable -- it would die.

You seem to have a strange black and white view on the world, from my admittedly limited exposure to your posts. Norway isn't socialist, really, it is further down the left right scale than US for sure, but then so are most European nations. But it's not much different than other European nations. The choice isn't between capitalism and socialism, US Norway UK Canada Australia ... they are all a mix of both, just to varying degrees, and they are all grouped relatively close together on the scale.

So your claims that Norway is socialist and can only afford it because it is wealthy are nonsense. It is slightly more socialist than some countries, but still a mainstream mixed economy. And there certainly is poverty in Norway, like every country. The oil fund is not spent today on giving away freebies to the people so they don't have to work, as you seem to think. It's an investment for the future.

If Norway is socialist, so is the US.

(edit - completely arsed my quotes there)

[Jason]

Think how much oil Canada would have to drill for and export in order to have the same per-capita revenues generated? Canada has about 9 times the population of Norway. To produce that much oil, Canada would have to increase its oil production to about 24,000,000 bbl/day from its current 3,400,000 bbl/day. That's as much as the entire Arab League produces, and would put Canada just behind OPEC.

'They' are predicting we'll nearly double our output by 2030 (up to 6.2 million barrels a day) due to the increase in oil recovery from the oil sands. As the technology improves, and it will with economic factors driving it, I expect that to prove to be a conservative estimate. Also, since we have the 4th highest oil reserves in the world, we'll be making money hand over fist when the oil supply of those fast-pumping, low reserve, countries dry up. By my conservative estimate, Canada is set to become one of the richest nations in the world per capita in about 30-40 years. Just in time for me to kick back, retire, and buy some place nice. Like Hawaii.

[MrJonno]

Capitalism is not a rejection of society, and it is not assumed within capitalism that there would not be a society. Socialism =/= belief in society; rather it refers to the vesting of ownership of the means of produciton and distribution of land, capital, etc. in the State. That is distinguished from capitalism because capitalism suggests that private individuals and organizations of individuals primarily own the means of production and distribution of land, capital, etc., rather than the State. Both exist within a society, with a government and system of laws and regulations.

And there is nothing wrong with capitalism as a tool to pay for society, it goes wrong when capitalism is seem as the primary purpose , as something good in itself not just a source of taxes to pay for hospitals/libraries/tanks etc

[macdoc]

Yup _ I'm quite content to be a non-predatory sustainable capitalist.

The problem arises when non-sustainable, predatory clowns like banks get in cahoots with property swindlers and shady mortgage dealers.
Without oversight it will ALWAYS go into bubble land and leave people and society stranded.

Started a few years back....

On the death of France's most glorious king, Louis XIV, in 1715, few people benefited from the shift in power more than the intriguing financial genius from Edinburgh, John Law. Already notorious for killing a man in a duel and for acquiring a huge fortune from gambling, Law had proposed to the English monarch that a bank be established to issue paper money with the credit based on the value of land. But Queen Anne was not about to take advice from a gambler and felon. So, in exile in Paris, he convinced the bankrupt court of Louis XV of the value of his idea.

Law soon engineered the revival of the French economy and found himself one of the most powerful men in Europe. In August 1717, he founded the Mississippi Company, and the Court granted him the right to trade in France's vast territory in America. The shareholders in his new trading company made such enormous profits that the term "millionaire" was coined to describe them. Paris was soon in a frenzy of speculation, conspiracies, and insatiable consumption. Before this first boom-and-bust cycle was complete, markets throughout Europe crashed, the mob began calling for Law's head, and his visionary ideas about what money could do were abandoned and forgotten.

In Millionaire, Janet Gleeson lucidly reconstructs this epic drama where fortunes were made and lost, paupers grew rich, and lords fell into penury -- and a modern fiscal philosophy was born. Her enthralling tragicomic tale reveals two great characters: John Law, with his complex personality and inscrutable motives, and money itself, whose true nature even to this day remains elusive.

good read and a cautionary tale

[macdoc]

Canada is set to become one of the richest nations in the world per capita in about 30-40 years. Just in time for me to kick back, retire, and buy some place nice. Like Hawaii.

not without a change in policy on keeping the money in Canada and doing the refining here.

With super low corporate taxes and ridiculous royalties we'd be far better off as citizens letting StatOil run the resource.

[JimC]

Would any non-delusional person like to nominate a fully socialist society in existence anywhere in the world today?

I thought not...

Plenty of mixed economies, but nowhere without free enterprise somewhere in the mix...

But of course, for some posters, there is an international conspiracy of socialist/marxist/liberals hiding under their beds, ready to take their precious freedoms...

Guns at the ready, they prowl the night, paranoid eyes agleam...

[MrJonno]

People who use the world freedom are like governemnts that put 'democratic' in their nations title , ie full of shit

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

I think maybe the CES idea of a good way to run Norway is if all the money is in the hands of one private individual - and the rest of the folks stand looking on in awe and applauding (and voting for him).......whilst being truly grateful for the fact that the turds they are eating are warm.

Personally I feel that the Norwegian model is the way to run a country using the capitalistic system - pretty much like a company, the citizens are the shareholders (and many are also employees) and whilst those at the top of the tree do get more nonetheless the whole purpose of the company is not for the CEO and freinds but for the shareholders.......to CES that probably sounds socialist.

What will Norway look like when the oil runs out? I dunno, but until then would seem sensible to spend part of the wealth for the benefit of selves (doing stuff they want) and also put some in the bank - I don't see any advantage to simply giving the wealth away.

Strange that all these so called "rich" countries have no money........

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

And there is nothing wrong with capitalism as a tool to pay for society, it goes wrong when capitalism is seem as the primary purpose , as something good in itself not just a source of taxes to pay for hospitals/libraries/tanks etc

For me that is the numb of the matter.

For folks like CES capitalism is an object of worship and kinda like a god needs to have people sacrificed to keep happy. CES often sounds like a Soviet era Communist true beleiver - everything would be ok if only true Communism could be acheived

I think for the sane amongst us that Capitalism has long been accepted as a valuable tool (harnesses the power of human greed and desire) - the debate is only over how to curb the natural excesses of capitalism (I would kill you over a dollar if the system allowed - now, that's pure capitalism - and from personal experiance it does work, but not without fundamental downsides for the wider society) and how to share the benefits amongst the society (if the members of the society collectively provide the capacity for an individual to prosper - then IMO only fair to charge them for that, it's the capitalist thing to do ).

[pErvinalia]

Now don't go injecting any of that right-wing "logic" into the discussion, CES. It's obviously because of their Socialist gummint.

It's been my theory for many Moons that socialism can only really work well in a "state of plenty."

I base that on the idea that capitalism is based on the assumption that resources are scarce, and that capitalism is a way to efficiently allocate scarce resources. When you have a free market, then prices will rise and fall with demand, generally speaking. As demand goes up, the price goes up until demand starts to fall again because the price gets to high and people look for alternatives or do without it.

Socialism, on the other, has to assume that there is plenty of resources so that they can all just be allocated to whoever supposedly "needs" them.

Where resources are plenty, in Norway, you can have a prosperous, yet socialist, society, since they have enough money to pay everyone's bills every year, no problem. There is no poverty, because if people don't want to work, they just get a decent apartment and a living that allows them to travel and have a nice life without working, and it doesn't break the budget. However, in a country that doesn't have enough money to do that for everyone, to try to do what Norway does would break the bank and the system would simple be unworkable, unsustainable -- it would die.

We should invade the bastards!!

[pErvinalia]

Canada is set to become one of the richest nations in the world per capita in about 30-40 years. Just in time for me to kick back, retire, and buy some place nice. Like Hawaii.

not without a change in policy on keeping the money in Canada and doing the refining here.

With super low corporate taxes and ridiculous royalties we'd be far better off as citizens letting StatOil run the resource.

There's an elephant in the room.

[JimC]

Canada is set to become one of the richest nations in the world per capita in about 30-40 years. Just in time for me to kick back, retire, and buy some place nice. Like Hawaii.

not without a change in policy on keeping the money in Canada and doing the refining here.

With super low corporate taxes and ridiculous royalties we'd be far better off as citizens letting StatOil run the resource.

There's an elephant in the room.

Get the heavy duty shovels ready, there'll soon be a fuck of a pile of steaming dung...

[pErvinalia]

[Brian Peacock]

Ouch!