• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Norway Elects a Conservative as Its Premier

What do you expect Obama to do. He is limited by congress.

What would you have done differently?

Blown the hell out of Libya trying to save my ambassador; letting the stock market collapse so that it reset itself to equity values; let the housing market collpase, taken all the foreclosed properties and given them to poor people--take your pick. I am Old Testament in my politics. Call it tough love if you prefer.
 
Blown the hell out of Libya trying to save my ambassador; letting the stock market collapse so that it reset itself to equity values; let the housing market collpase, taken all the foreclosed properties and given them to poor people--take your pick. I am Old Testament in my politics. Call it tough love if you prefer.
Well, not all of those are left wing. But lets go through them

Blown the hell out of Libya trying to save my ambassador - Congress will say no
letting the stock market collapse - Ben Bernanke will say no
let the housing market collpase - How exactly? By destroying the economy?
Taken all the foreclosed properties and given them to poor people - Then the banks will collapse and people will lose their deposits. Also, Congress will never accept that.
 
Last edited:
History proves you wrong. Massive wage increases actually leads to the opposite, meaning lower wages. The reason is because massive inflation harms the economy.

And what makes you think executives will take a cut in profits and executive pay. They are not doing a charity, when inflation is high they are going to increase their salaries too.

How does history prove me wrong? Show me data that shows that higher wages mean LOWER living standards, it's total nonsense, higher wages, leads to some inflation, but not more than the increase in wages.

What makes me think that executives will take a cut in profits? it's obvious, if more of the revenue has to go to the workers, they don't have a choice ... they CAN raise prices to try and make up for it, but you have competition.

Increased wages does NOT necessarily mean an increase in demand for staples, yes the employer has to pay more, but that doesn't mean a total increase.

The fact that you have higher wage countries having higher living standards proves that.

No, all leftiest do not want it to be easy to set up businesses. It is much harder to set up a business in California than in Texas. Leftiest want regulations of start ups to prevent predatory companies, and that increases red tape. And start up is only one of their indicators. Do leftists want to reduce labour regulations, making it easier to fire employees? Do leftists want to reduce regulations on trade, allowing foreign companies to outcompete local products? Do leftist want to reduce government? Do leftist want lower taxes? Do leftists want to reduce public ownership and have weak unions?

Cause that is what the index is measuring. The argument that Norway has right wing policies due to left wing policies makes zero sense. No, what you care about is results. You see that Norway has the best welfare state in the world, and hence brand it left wing. But they have the best welfare, because the system is not totally left wing. I however look at policies, and Norway is in the middle in Europe. For instance France is to the left of Norway. In France they adopted a 75% tax rate. The only party who want to do something similar in Norway, got 1% of the vote. You said Norway has really high taxes, but not really. For 167% of average income, Norway has a tax rate of 43%. Belgium is at 61%. Norway is number 14 of 34 in the OECD.

Relative to the rest of Europe Switzerland does not have strong unions or a very large public sector. But their wages is higher. That seem to conflict with your theory that big government increase wages.

California isn't really leftist, it's liberal socially, but economically it's pretty buisiness oriented.

Yes leftist want SMART regulations, but when SMART regulations lead to higher wages, a saftey net, less predatory behavior, it's easier to make a start up. If Walmart is in your town and it's unregulated, it's gonna be near impossible for you to open up a store, if Walmart isn't allwoed, it's gonna be easier, it's easier to start a buisiness if there is a good middle class with disposable income ...

Leftists want smart trade, sometimes they want foreign companies in, sometimes not, leftists want government to do somethings and not other,s leftist want to lower some taxes and raise others, leftists want generally srong unions and public ownership.

Unlike neo-liberals leftists dont' see the world in black and white.

My argument isn't that Norway has right wing policies, my argument is that Norway is friendly for markets and start ups BECAUSE of decades of social-democratic reforms.

The Welfare state IS a left wing policy, you say any smart economy would nationalize their natural resources (like oil), then how come when Chavez or Morales does it they're communists, and when Norway does it, it's just smart? Norway for decades had the largest bank, telecom company, and other companies nationalized. Norway has lots of cooperative model buisinesses, Norway still has the largest comapny (by far) nationalized. THe state controls 31% of publicly listed companies and has a large state in others (with large influence) (controling about half the economy), Venezuela has a lower unionization rate, not a much higher natinalization rate, and not really a larger welfare state, Venezuela has lower taxes as well.

So lets see, Norway and Venezuela, about the same amount of nationalization, Norway has more unions, a larger welfare state and higher taxes, you also have plenty of cooperatives in Norway, I'm not sure if Venezuela has more or less, but I'd be very suprised if they have more.

No, Venezuela economy is total garbage and even on relative poverty Venezuela does not do well. BTW, their absolute poverty rate is miuch higher than indicated, because the black market and offical currency do not match.

That was proven to you before where I gave you actual data, and you did not respond to any of the data. Also Brazil is in no way as left wing as Venezuela.

The poverty rate was DROPPING, it looks pretty good ... I don't know why the poverty would be more with teh black market, but actualyl the poverty rate if anything is less, due to higher access to healthcare and subsidies.
Wrong Numbers

Chile's poverty rate is basically the same.

I thought you said you did not look at rethoric. Those social democratic leaders in Chile are keeping Pinochet right wing policies. Just look at economic freedom rankings and Chile is way above the rest.

So Chile is very right wing, Venezuela is very left wing, and Brazil is somewhere in between. So how come Chile is doing so much better than Venezuela, and brazil is somewhere in between. If socialism worked so well, then Venezuela should be the best performing economy.

No, look at their actual policies, Chile has one of the largest companies, nationalized, along with other companies like one of the largest banks.

So if the government owns a lot, then you are left wing? I am more interested in actual policies, such as labour regulations, welfare, crime sentences, business regulations, minimum wage, taxes, etc.

yes ... socialized industry (public control) is basically very socialistic, WAY more than regulations and welfare and waxes.

Tax and welfare isn't really a socialist idea, it's just regulated capitalism. Socialism is democratizing the economy
 
How does history prove me wrong? Show me data that shows that higher wages mean LOWER living standards, it's total nonsense, higher wages, leads to some inflation, but not more than the increase in wages.

What makes me think that executives will take a cut in profits? it's obvious, if more of the revenue has to go to the workers, they don't have a choice ... they CAN raise prices to try and make up for it, but you have competition.

Increased wages does NOT necessarily mean an increase in demand for staples, yes the employer has to pay more, but that doesn't mean a total increase.

The fact that you have higher wage countries having higher living standards proves that.
Of course high wage countries have high wages. What I said is that high inflation countries do not have high wages. The countries with the highest nominal wage growth, like Venezuela do not have high wages at all. If you look at the black market rate, which is the rate you have to use since the offical currency is limited, then Venezuela has a minimum wage of $70 per month.

However, Japan or Germany has not seen many wage increases the last decade, but has very high standard of living.

And you truly don't understand economics or businesses if you think inflation reduces executive pay, because of competition. Competition is not a larger burden when you have high inflation.


California isn't really leftist, it's liberal socially, but economically it's pretty buisiness oriented.

Yes leftist want SMART regulations, but when SMART regulations lead to higher wages, a saftey net, less predatory behavior, it's easier to make a start up. If Walmart is in your town and it's unregulated, it's gonna be near impossible for you to open up a store, if Walmart isn't allwoed, it's gonna be easier, it's easier to start a buisiness if there is a good middle class with disposable income ...
The economic freedom ranking do not care if its smart or dumb. If Walmart is not allowed, then your economic freedom ranking will drop.

Norway is in the middle of Europe, in a social democratic continent. If Socialism was so great, and Norway is your preferred country, then why is Norway in the middle.

I also I notice you dodged my comment about Switzerland. How come the country furthest to the right in Europe, has the highest wages. That doesn't seem to fit very well into your theory that government can just increase wages on command.



you say any smart economy would nationalize their natural resources (like oil), then how come when Chavez or Morales does it they're communists, and when Norway does it, it's just smart?
You are putting way too much emphasis on public ownership. Neither I or your fellow socialists only care about public ownership. And my criticism towards Chavez has never been nationalization. My main criticism of him is the price controls and his hate towards private businesses.

The poverty rate was DROPPING, it looks pretty good ... I don't know why the poverty would be more with teh black market, but actualyl the poverty rate if anything is less, due to higher access to healthcare and subsidies.
Wrong Numbers

Chile's poverty rate is basically the same.
30% and 15% is not nearly the same. And I have higher expectations of countries. If you already are a **** country, then I expect more than marginal improvements.

And if you don't know how black market influences the absolute poverty rate, then you really shouldn't have opinions about economics, because that is middle school level economics.



No, look at their actual policies, Chile has one of the largest companies, nationalized, along with other companies like one of the largest banks.

yes ... socialized industry (public control) is basically very socialistic, WAY more than regulations and welfare and waxes.

Tax and welfare isn't really a socialist idea, it's just regulated capitalism. Socialism is democratizing the economy

Believe it or not, but most people in the world care about a lot more issues than public ownership.
 
Last edited:
Of course high wage countries have high wages. What I said is that high inflation countries do not have high wages. The countries with the highest nominal wage growth, like Venezuela do not have high wages at all. If you look at the black market rate, which is the rate you have to use since the offical currency is limited, then Venezuela has a minimum wage of $70 per month.

However, Japan or Germany has not seen many wage increases the last decade, but has very high standard of living.

And you truly don't understand economics or businesses if you think inflation reduces executive pay, because of competition. Competition is not a larger burden when you have high inflation.

I didn't say high wage countries have high wages, I said high wage countries have higher living standards. Venezuela has high inflation (not so much more than usual though) for a variety of reasons, not because of high wages.

Really German wages havn't risen Bruegel | German wages grow faster than euro area average ??? Common now.

I didn't say inflation reduces executive pay, you're arguing against a strawman. I said higher wages won't lead to high inflation ....


The economic freedom ranking do not care if its smart or dumb. If Walmart is not allowed, then your economic freedom ranking will drop.

Norway is in the middle of Europe, in a social democratic continent. If Socialism was so great, and Norway is your preferred country, then why is Norway in the middle.

I also I notice you dodged my comment about Switzerland. How come the country furthest to the right in Europe, has the highest wages. That doesn't seem to fit very well into your theory that government can just increase wages on command.

Because, the "economic freedom" rankings are total nonsense, infact the whole concept of "economic freedom" is nonsense.

I don't know much about Switzerland, but hey, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, there could be all sorts of factors.

You are putting way too much emphasis on public ownership. Neither I or your fellow socialists only care about public ownership. And my criticism towards Chavez has never been nationalization. My main criticism of him is the price controls and his hate towards private businesses.

hatred toward private buisiness? How about policies ... what Policies.

Chavez' nationalization was what everyone hated ....

30% and 15% is not nearly the same. And I have higher expectations of countries. If you already are a **** country, then I expect more than marginal improvements.

And if you don't know how black market influences the absolute poverty rate, then you really shouldn't have opinions about economics, because that is middle school level economics.

I get how the black market influences poverty rates, but really there's nothing to saw about it, since you don't know how much it's influencing it, or if it is more or less than other economies.

Because you expect more improvement doesn't mean anything, it's improving ...

Believe it or not, but most people in the world care about a lot more issues than public ownership.

Ok ...
 
I didn't say high wage countries have high wages, I said high wage countries have higher living standards. Venezuela has high inflation (not so much more than usual though) for a variety of reasons, not because of high wages.
Oh.. really sherlock, high wage countries have higher living standards. What a suprise!

The problem is you said first 100% wage increase for everyone, won't lead to any inflation. When I showed how ridiculous that is, you agreed there will be some inflation, but you claimed most of it will translate into actual wage increases. So how come Venezuela with the highest wage increases in the world is not a high wage country?

Really German wages havn't risen Bruegel | German wages grow faster than euro area average ??? Common now.
Really? You are just embarrassing yourself with the German comment. Even people who don't care about politics know Germany was holding wages down. Of course they are not doing that right now, but I said I last decade.

So try not to embarrass yourself again and answer why is German standard of living high, when they have kept wages down. That doesn't seem to fit your wage increase theory. And what about Japan, no wage increases but high wages.

I didn't say inflation reduces executive pay, you're arguing against a strawman. I said higher wages won't lead to high inflation ....
Um... yes you did.

It would lead to some inflation, but not inflation that would outweigh the wage increase, Yes you'd have double wages for the people producing goods and services too, but you wouldn't have people spending double the amount of money, also you'd simply have to take a cut in profits and executive pay.

Because, the "economic freedom" rankings are total nonsense, infact the whole concept of "economic freedom" is nonsense.

I don't know much about Switzerland, but hey, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, there could be all sorts of factors.
It doesn't matter if you think it is nonsense. It measures economic freedom after how the right is defining it, and Norway is the middle. If Socialism was so great, and Norway is your preferred country, then why is Norway in the middle.

Oh.. right, so it is just luck that makes Switzerland rich. Why should anyone believe your theories when real world is proving you wrong?



hatred toward private buisiness? How about policies ... what Policies.

Chavez' nationalization was what everyone hated ....
No it wasn't. People hated his anti-business climate and his price controls. And that is what made him so left wing. You obviously have one tits towards nationalization, but in reality it is considered a small issue. And in fact sometimes the right supports it. Allende's nationalization of the mines was supported by all parties. His anti-business politics were not.


I get how the black market influences poverty rates, but really there's nothing to saw about it, since you don't know how much it's influencing it, or if it is more or less than other economies.
:lamo

PS: Black market and black market currency is not the same.
 
Last edited:
Oh.. really sherlock, high wage countries have higher living standards. What a suprise!

The problem is you said first 100% wage increase for everyone, won't lead to any inflation. When I showed how ridiculous that is, you agreed there will be some inflation, but most of it will translate into actual wage increases. So how come Venezuela with the highest wage increases in the world is not a hige wage country?

I didn't say there wouldn't be inflation, I said the inflation woudln't out do the wage increases (all other things being equal).

In Venezuela, you have large inflation, but tha isn't caused by people getting paid more ....

Really? You are just embarrasing yourself with the German comment. Even people who don't care about politics know Germany was holding wages down. Of course they are not doing that right now, but I said I last decase

Sure, Germany also has lots of industry, a big share of the european market, job security, co-determinatino laws, there are many different factors.

Liar, Liar, pants on fire.

It would lead to some inflation, but not inflation that would outweigh the wage increase, Yes you'd have double wages for the people producing goods and services too, but you wouldn't have people spending double the amount of money, also you'd simply have to take a cut in profits and executive pay.

Yes ... I didn't say the INFLATION would lead to that, I said wage increases would ...

It doesn't matter if you think it is non-sense. It measures economic freedom after how the right is defining it, and Norway is the middle. If Socialism was so great, and Norway is your preferred country, then why is Norway in the middle.

Oh.. right, so it is just luck that makes Switzerland rich. Why should anyone believe your theories when real world is proving you wrong?

I did'nt say luck, I said there are plenty of factors.

I have no idea why Norway's in the middle, and I don't care, I support socialized industry, of which Norway has a lot, progressive tax system, which Norway has, a welfare state, which Norway has, and cooperatives, of which Norway has a lot.

If you want to change the goal posts to make socialism something else then fair enough, that's just semantics.

No it wasn't. People hated his anti-business climate and his price controls. And that is what made him so left wing. You obviously have one tits towards nationalization, but in reality it is considered a small issue. And in fact sometimes the right supports it. Allende's nationalization of the mines was supported by all parties. His anti-business politics were not.

Are you kidding me? People lost their **** when Chavez nationalized .... They have price controls on things all over the place, people loose their **** when nationalization happens.

:lamo

PS: Black market and black market currency is not the same.

ok ... Show me data that shows how it's affecting the inflation rate more than other countries.
 
I didn't say there wouldn't be inflation, I said the inflation woudln't out do the wage increases (all other things being equal).

In Venezuela, you have large inflation, but tha isn't caused by people getting paid more ....
If wage increases are not what is leading to inflation, then what is it?

And all historic knowledge go against you. The 70s were a high inflation, high wage increase decade. The real wages performed really badly in that period.

In real life, and not in your socialist dream world. Massive wage increases just lead to inflatiion.

Sure, Germany also has lots of industry, a big share of the european market, job security, co-determinatino laws, there are many different factors.
So now Switzerland, Germany and Venezuela are exceptions from your wage rule. What about Japan, are they another exception. Are all countries in the world exceptions?

I have no idea why Norway's in the middle, and I don't care, I support socialized industry, of which Norway has a lot, progressive tax system, which Norway has, a welfare state, which Norway has, and cooperatives, of which Norway has a lot.
Norway doesn't have hardly any cooperatives. And no LO is not a cooperative. Norway is far from being a socialist country, and would think your 100% wage increase theory is ridiculous.

Why do look up to a country who is way to the right of you?

Are you kidding me? People lost their **** when Chavez nationalized .... They have price controls on things all over the place, people loose their **** when nationalization happens.
No, they don't. Take a look at how business magazines criticizes Venezuela. You won't hear anything about nationalization of oil, cause hardly anyone care. They criticize Venezuela for lack of democratic rights, anti-business climate and price controls.

I think you should listen more to what right says, and less to what Chavez/Maduro claims the right is mad about.



ok ... Show me data that shows how it's affecting the inflation rate more than other countries.
First off, inflation rate? We talked about absolute poverty rate. Here is data that the black currency rate is much higher than the official currency rate.
Venezuela Plans New Foreign-Exchange System as Bolivar Falls - Bloomberg

Actually more recent data show the minimum wage has dropped down from $70 to $55 relative to the black market currency. Do you call that progress?
 
If wage increases are not what is leading to inflation, then what is it?

And all historic knowledge go against you. The 70s were a high inflation, high wage increase decade. The real wages performed really badly in that period.

In real life, and not in your socialist dream world. Massive wage increases just lead to inflatiion.

Yes the 1970s were a high inflation decade .... but that wasn't a decade of massaive wage increase either, in the US wages stagnated and profits jumped, there were many reasons for inflation in that period.¨

There are many reasons inflation can go up, increase in demand, decrease in supply, lower interest rates, more debt, monopolistic behavior, rise in capital costs and so on.

So now Switzerland, Germany and Venezuela are exceptions from your wage rule. What about Japan, are they another exception. Are all countries in the world exceptions?

Wait where in Venezuela have wages jumped significanly? People coming out of poverty doesn't mean a giant wage increase.

About Japan, they have stagnenet wages, and deflation, and (like germany) a strong export market, as well as similar labor/buisiness relations. Switzerland I don't know that much about. Germany I already talked about, Germany is a very unique case, it's not everday that you get added to your country a whole other country already industrialized with a highly educated and skilled labor force ready to work for cheap 20 years ago, along with a stable co-determinatino system.

I'm sorry it's not as easy as "country A has X and aslo Y, and Country B has X and also Y, so thus X causes Y." Economics is a little more complicated than that.

Norway doesn't have hardly any cooperatives. And no LO is not a cooperative. Norway is far from being a socialist country, and would think your 100% wage increase theory is ridiculous.

Why do look up to a country who is way to the right of you?

LO is a Union, Tine is a cooperative, Nortura, The Norwegian forest owners association is a copperative, Coop is a cooperative ... these are huge companies.

I live in Norway, and the Norwegian system is far to the left of the US, the UK, its left of Sweden, and other countries, and it does quite well. Especially when teh rest of the industrialized world was freaking out over the Crisis, the thing that kept Norway safe was the robust social democracy, and people like you want to dismantle it.

No, they don't. Take a look at how business magazines criticizes Venezuela. You won't hear anything about nationalization of oil, cause hardly anyone care. They criticize Venezuela for lack of democratic rights, anti-business climate and price controls.

I think you should listen more to what right says, and less to what Chavez/Maduro claims the right is mad about.

Alright dude, it's your word vrs mine here ... the buisiness class doesn't give a rats ass about "democratic rights" both you and I know that, as for price controls depends on the buisiness, what I hear yelled out the most is people saying Venezeula isn't safe for investment because the state doesn't respect private property rights, and will nationalize investments.

First off, inflation rate? We talked about absolute poverty rate. Here is data that the black currency rate is much higher than the official currency rate.
Venezuela Plans New Foreign-Exchange System as Bolivar Falls - Bloomberg

Actually more recent data show the minimum wage has dropped down from $70 to $55 relative to the black market currency. Do you call that progress?

That article isn't talking about the poverty rates .... It's talking about the Bolivar vrs the dollar rate. Look, of coarse you have problems in Venezuela ... serious ones, but compare pre-chavez to post chavez for MOST of poor Venezuelans.

BTW, if your gripe is with only price controls and the such, but you're not for privitization, and turning the commons into a for profit industry, lets hope that Høyre and FRP don't keep their promises.
 
Yes the 1970s were a high inflation decade .... but that wasn't a decade of massaive wage increase either, in the US wages stagnated and profits jumped, there were many reasons for inflation in that period.¨

There are many reasons inflation can go up, increase in demand, decrease in supply, lower interest rates, more debt, monopolistic behavior, rise in capital costs and so on.
You are totally wrong. At least get your facts right! The 70s was a high inflation, high nominal wage growth period.

Screen-Shot-2013-09-06-at-8.26.07-AM.png



Wait where in Venezuela have wages jumped significanly? People coming out of poverty doesn't mean a giant wage increase.
Every single year wages is growing by 10-30%. That's how wages has jumped significantly.

Of course real wages are not growing at all proving my point that government cannot force higher wages by pushing them up, it will just lead to inflation.

About Japan, they have stagnenet wages, and deflation, and (like germany) a strong export market, as well as similar labor/buisiness relations. Switzerland I don't know that much about. Germany I already talked about, Germany is a very unique case, it's not everday that you get added to your country a whole other country already industrialized with a highly educated and skilled labor force ready to work for cheap 20 years ago, along with a stable co-determinatino system.

I'm sorry it's not as easy as "country A has X and aslo Y, and Country B has X and also Y, so thus X causes Y." Economics is a little more complicated than that.
What I hear is just excuses. You said massive government forced wages increases is the key to prosperity. But when real life prove you wrong then you try to hide behind excuses such as that country has strong exports, or it is a unique case.

No, in reality your theory is totally wrong. The way to prosperity is to make the economy more efficient.


LO is a Union, Tine is a cooperative, Nortura, The Norwegian forest owners association is a copperative, Coop is a cooperative ... these are huge companies.
With the exception of TINE which is a farmers union. Those companies are not real cooperatives. When people talk about cooperatives, they are talking about people having real influence over the company and they all get equal share of the profit.

Many American companies have many owners too.

I live in Norway, and the Norwegian system is far to the left of the US, the UK, its left of Sweden, and other countries, and it does quite well. Especially when teh rest of the industrialized world was freaking out over the Crisis, the thing that kept Norway safe was the robust social democracy, and people like you want to dismantle it.
And you are extreme in Norwegian politics. I am Norwegian too, and you are far left compared to the people I know who is voting for the socialist party. They would laugh of the idea that 100% wage increase will lead to improved standard of living and not massive inflation. That should tell you something about how extreme you are. If you wander a little bit outside the Blitz community you will notice that.

And Norway is not that left wing, which been proved before. For instance France is clearly to the left of Norway. You just want to pretend Norway is that left wing, because Norway does well. In reality Norway is in the middle of Europe and you don't support Norwegian policies.

And talking about welfare. I support the Swiss model. You support the Venezuelan model. Which country has better welfare?

Alright dude, it's your word vrs mine here ... the buisiness class doesn't give a rats ass about "democratic rights" both you and I know that, as for price controls depends on the buisiness, what I hear yelled out the most is people saying Venezeula isn't safe for investment because the state doesn't respect private property rights, and will nationalize investments.
Of course if we are talking about investments, then that is true. Would you invest in a country where the state just seize your assets.

But that is a far cry from claiming that seizing the oil industry is the reason the right criticizes Venezuela. If you believe that, then you have listened too much to Chavez and too little to the business community.

That article isn't talking about the poverty rates .... It's talking about the Bolivar vrs the dollar rate. Look, of coarse you have problems in Venezuela ... serious ones, but compare pre-chavez to post chavez for MOST of poor Venezuelans.
And North Korea is a little bit better than the 90s. Marginal improvement is not impressive. What is impressive is to be the leader in growth, and Venezuela has been the loser in South America.

Now, back to the absolute poverty and black market currency. First off the article also talks about the black market currency rate, not just bolivars against the USD.

Lets show how you have been answering
- I state that because the black market currency rate is much higher than the official currency rate, then the absolute poverty rate is higher than indicated.
- You confuse black market currency with black market
- I laugh of you, and correct you.
- You start talking about inflation rate
- I remind you that we are talking about absolute poverty rate and give you the article which show the black market currency is much higher
- You are unable to understand the connection between the currency and the absolute poverty rate

Again, this is middle school knowledge. If you can't even understand how black market currency rate will affect the absolute poverty rate, then maybe you shouldn't talk about economics.
 
Last edited:
Norway's Conservatives to form coalition with anti-immigration party | World news | theguardian.com

The leader of Norway's Conservative party has announced she is forming a rightwing minority government, the first to include the anti-immigration Progress party.
The two-party coalition is expected to introduce stricter immigration policies. Many Norwegians have called for a reduction in immigration, and the Progress party has capitalised on that feeling.
In the general election on 9 September, the Conservatives and three centre-right parties won a majority, but only Progress agreed to team up with the Conservatives. Its leader, Siv Jensen, said it hoped to tighten asylum policies, secure more rights for the elderly and reduce inheritance tax.

The new government is scheduled to take office on 14 October. It will replace a moderate but left-leaning coalition led by the Labour party, headed by the outgoing prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg. It has governed Norway for eight years, and Labour will remain the largest party in parliament.
Norway looks to it's east and sees Sweden is in deep social problems thanks to immigration from africa and arabia... and they decided that they don't want any of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom