World Forums

Norway goes to the polls on 12th September. I'm sure as the election draws closer, the growing interest in it will merit a separate thread.

http://www.akershus-f.kommune.no/index. ... le_id=7588

On this website from the electoral commission for the county of Akershus is the list of the Liberal Party's nominees for the 16 Akershus seats in the Norwegian Parliament. Check out who's at no. 14.

Boye, what's the feel in Norway? Which way is it trending along the Conservative - Liberal axis??

Well, in general, politics in Norway are very consensus-oriented. Because governments tend to be minority governments, solutions are often found in the centre of the left-right axis.

There are seven major parties (from left to right on the axis): Socialist Left Party, Labour Party, Centre Party, Liberal Party, Christian People's Party, Conservative Party and Progress Party. In addition, the nationalist Coastal Party and the quasi-libertarian Democratic Party are represented in the current parliament.

Traditionally, the Labour Party have formed a government alone, or variations of the parties to the right of Labour have formed a coalition.

This time, however, the Labour Party campaigns on a platform of formalised cooperation with the Socialist Left Party and the agro-nationalist Centre Party in what could well turn out to be a majority government coalition, to drive the sitting coalition of the Liberal Party, the Christian People's Party and the Conservative Party out of power. In an unusually polarised election, those are the two government alternatives this year. The Progress Party suffers isolation on the right wing, but will give its nod to what it considers the lesser evil.

The sitting government is a minority coalition whose existance is partly owed to the Progress Party which has got some concessions in return, but the government has also been able to navigate for support in Parliament on a case-to-case basis, cooperating with both the Labour Party and the Socialist Left Party, on e.g. budget balance and environment policy respectively.

Re-election for the sitting government will lead to more centrist policies over the next four years, while the coalition on the left could lead to a dramatic shift leftwards as the centre of gravity in that coalition is far to the left of the modern and reformist wing of the Labour Party. Even trade unions have voiced concerns about the Socialist Left Party's participation in government, and have warned Labour over allowing the Socialist Left to get their hands on the business and finance portfolios in a new government.

BTW, regarding your question, the centre of gravity in Norwegian politics is much more to the left in Norway than in the USA. The right-wing Conservatives of the Republican Party will find few friends in mainstream Norwegian politics. The Conservatives in Norway often label themselves as liberal-conservatives, and I think it illustrates some of the difference on social issues between Norwegian and American Conservatives that the Conservative Finance Minister is a gay living in a socalled 'partnership' (civil union) with another man.

Boye

I think it's incorrect to compare liberals, conservatives and whatever other political labels people use from one country to another. Doesn't make sense, at least to me.

Never mind the original meaning of the "liberal" word (the way it came into existence, thanks to English and Scottish political philosophers and economists) and how so many people confuse such words as "conservative" and "republican". Those words aren't identical.

As to gays...Well, it depends...I see no reason why a gay cannot be conservative, providing he's able to think independently, not to be a part of the so-called groupthink.

On the other hand, for Andrew Sullivan who thinks he's conservative, but isn't, his attitude toward any politician is determined by, homosexuality, simply because he's a gay and suffering HIV to boot.

Well, I may or may not understand his concerns, but at least 95% of men aren't homosexuals and cannot be blamed for having different priorities.

Leo:

I agree that comparing political labels from one country to the other doesn't always make sense. In Scandinavia, there are three parties named Venstre or Vänstern. The Norwegian party is liberal, the Danish party is moderate-liberal, leaning towards conservative, while the Swedish party is far-left socialist.

As for liberal, I usually use the word with its original meaning. Liberalism is both social liberalism and market liberalism, meaning government shouldn't intervene in your private life or give preference to some lifestyles over others, and government should not intervene in the marketplace unless to correct market failure.

The Norwegian Liberal Party comes close to that, although some ugly agro-protectionism is deep rooted in the party. Beyond that, the Norwegian Liberal Party is the strongest protector of civil liberties in Norwegian politics, it favours what I like to call a progressive flat tax, it is critical of government ownership in for-profit business, it wants various complicated social programmes replaced by a concept of guaranteed minimum income for those that do not qualify for unemployment benefits, and its business policy is formulated on the basis of "what's good for small business is good for big business, but not necessarily vice versa"

Well, I may or may not understand his concerns, but at least 95% of men aren't homosexuals and cannot be blamed for having different priorities.

Yes, but it is not homosexuality per se that is the issue here. Rather, it is discrimination. If homosexuals had the same rights as heterosexuals, then sexual orientation wouldn't be a political issue.

"If homosexuals had the same rights as heterosexuals, then sexual orientation wouldn't be a political issue."

Depends on who you're listening to...

It's like saying that if women were equal to men no one would be raising the issue of unequal pay. So, if you're listening to feminists, it would be true. It's not my intention to argue on behalf or against such people at the moment, only to stress that such things aren't considered settled if you listen to both sides.

"government should not intervene in the marketplace unless to correct market failure."

It's more complicated than you made it to be (probably you don't even think the way it appeared in your post). There are plenty of intelligent and thoughtful objections raised in the business community to measures undertaken by Eliot Spitzer, to allegedly correct market's failures.

Leo:

It was not my intention to give a carte blanche for government intervention by simply pointing to some alleged market failure. What I meant to say was that government intervention in the market place should only take place when there are good reasons for doing so. Preventing monopoly is one such reason.

Boye

In the age of Morgans and Rockefellers it was easier to tell a monopoly when you saw one.

Some people think (not entirely unreasonably I must admit) that Microsoft wields monopolistic power. Does it? I would beg to disagree, but that's not the point I was trying to make at the moment. I only meant to say that in our age it's a complicated issue, more complicated than it probably ever has been.

So is government's intervention. Suffice it to say that only most die-hard libertarians (Ludwig von Mises's modern followers, to be more exact) nowadays allow for no shades of grey. For them it's either a pure capitalism, which is a virtue, or anything less than 100% pure must be evil by definition.

In other words, capitalism does have its own built-in problems, equally what government does is far from perfect. Finding the right balance is never an easy job, it's a continuing process.

To give you a better example, I do agree that brokers screwing up investors royally should be punished accordingly. But then I'd like to pause for a minute (actually much longer) and take a penetrating look at what good new disclosure rules regulating mutual funds do to the market's efficiency and investors. Trust me, the issue is VERY complicated, to say the least.

Some people think (not entirely unreasonably I must admit) that Microsoft wields monopolistic power. Does it? I would beg to disagree, but that's not the point I was trying to make at the moment.

Well, if not a monopoly, it has a near-monopoly in operative systems. The bundling of other products with Windows has been ruled by the ECJ to be abuse of dominant position. I think that was a correct decision.

So is government's intervention. Suffice it to say that only most die-hard libertarians (Ludwig von Mises's modern followers, to be more exact) nowadays allow for no shades of grey. For them it's either a pure capitalism, which is a virtue, or anything less than 100% pure must be evil by definition.

Well, perfect competition is a rare phenomenon. It exists in some (but not all) commodity markets, such as electricity. But while perfect competition is difficult to ensure, the focus should be on facilitating effective competition and to intervene against anti-competitive behaviour such as price fixing and against abuse of dominant position (such as bundling, predatory pricing etc.) and finally breaking up monopolies.

To give you a better example, I do agree that brokers screwing up investors royally should be punished accordingly.

Indeed. There are few crimes that cause so much economic damage as manipulation of financial markets.

Boye

In my, and not just mine, opinion the main purpose of any anti-trust law is to serve and maintain interests of consumers. And while I'm still trying to avoid discussing Microsoft's policies, the company manages just that - serving interests of consumers.

It's besides the point to discuss merits of the Linux operational system, suffice it to say that:

a. it's cheap and widely available

b. it's of no use for a great majority of consumers, not currently anyway.

Bundling? With all the bundling no one's preventing consumers to buy or download products made by companies other than Microsoft.

True monopoly should be concerned with the availability of any given product. If it's available from only one manufacturer or service provider, then it's a monopoly.

And as far as Europe is concerned, why should Microsoft be made responsible for the failure of European software companies to develop competing products?

This foolery eerily reminds me of affirmative action. It's like "Afro-Americans are underrepresented on the Wall Street"....Yeah, and Jews are underrepresented in NBA...

Let's be honest about it. For too long Bill Gates completely stayed out of politics, politicians made him pay for that unexcusable offense and found willing collaborators among Bill Gates' competitors.

To stray a little from the subject, do states' Attorney Generals in the United States pursue tobacco companies in courts of law because they care for people's lungs or because they don't mind filling states' coffers and enriching well-connected lawyers?

Bundling? With all the bundling no one's preventing consumers to buy or download products made by companies other than Microsoft.

The problem with bundling is that it puts other software producers at a disadvantage because the products of their competitor is included with every new PC. Consumers believe that they get these extra products for free, but of course they don't. They pay extra for those products, without the option to deselect them, and without the option to buy a rival's product instead. Because Windows has obtained the status of infrastructure because it is the platform which everyone uses, it is important to ensure that Microsoft does not abuse the dominant position of Windows to obtain a dominant position for other software as well. This is about consumer interests, because if Microsoft by bundling everything with Windows, monopolises the market for all standard software ranging from internet browsers to media applications, then the consumer stands to lose.

It has nothing to do with European software companies struggling to compete with Microsoft. Many of Microsoft's rivals that benefit from unbundling are, in fact, also American.

Nothing at all? Care to name European-invented operational systems?:)

Bundling...such a terribly loaded word....Guess what? Gillette razors work best with...you guessed it right - Gillette gel:)

So how much exactly did I pay for my Windows XP? Did Sony terribly mind preinstalling it for me? How exactly I, as a consumer, suffered from this alleged conspiracy plot?

P.S. Am I to believe that the European Union is acting on behalf of Microsoft American rivals's interests and indeed American consumers? You don't think I'm that naive, do you Boye?:)

Am I to believe that the European Union is acting on behalf of Microsoft American rivals's interests and indeed American consumers? You don't think I'm that naive, do you Boye?

Of course not. The EU is acting on behalf of European consumers. As you said yourself, anti-trust law is about consumer interests. That American rivals may benefit as well, is merely a side effect. That American consumers, as well, may benefit, is also a side effect.

Bundling is not illegal per se. Bundling which amounts to abuse of dominant position is. With Gillette there are alternatives. With Windows, for the home PC market, there really aren't any alternatives. Windows has a virtual monopoly, and if Microsoft is allowed to bundle all kinds of other applications with Windows, it will eventually get a virtual monopoly there as well. Just look at how Internet Explorer came to completely dominate the market for internet browsers after it was bundled with Windows.

Wrong. Explorer became what it did, because it was constantly improving, while Netscape wasn't. Surely Explorer is far from perfect, but consumers still can download Mozilla, Opera and other browsers.

Microsoft is being punished for being the most successful software company, as simple as that.

Microsoft and Intel are more than any other company deserve credit for making computers affordable to millions of people around the world while making billions of dollars for their shareholders. The decrease in computer hardware prices for the past 15 years has been nothing less than spectacular. Indeed consumers the world over benefited from it tremendously.

You say one platform dominating the market? How many competing platforms do you have for DVD technology, to name one example only?

How do consumers "suffer" being able to buy $30 DVD players?

Do you copy? Roger:)

Damn right. When I bought my first PC a decade ago it cost over £1,500 and was far from top of the range. Last PC I bought (Dell) cost me around a third of that, and runs extremely well.

I could care less about so-called "monopolies" and "bundling" if PCs are more affordable for everyone

Mind you, my XP Pro is pirated anyway

Marko

My friend bought a Dell laptop for his son for $1,100, including free printer and free shipping. He's been extremely happy with his purchase for about a month, until Dell had another sale and the same model was available for $800.

I wish cars followed the same price trajectory that computers do.

Where are European apparatchiks to protect my interests when I need them? I wouldn't mind a good Maserati for a Dell's price, even without free shipping:)

Wow. Never seen anything like that on the roads around these parts! I wonder if they'll accept a part-exchange with my bicycle?

Leo:

You say one platform dominating the market? How many competing platforms do you have for DVD technology, to name one example only?

The issue with Microsoft isn't with one platform dominating the market. The issue is with Microsoft using its dominance in one market to virtually monopolising other related markets. That's called abuse of market power, and it's illegal because it reduces competition, which goes against the interest of consumers, on which all anti-trust law is based.

If Nokia took control of all mobile phone networks and started giving away Nokia phones with new subscriptions (with of course a high subscription fee to compensate for the "free" mobile phone), then Motorola and Sony Ericsson would soon find it hard to sell their phones.

Marko:

Damn right. When I bought my first PC a decade ago it cost over £1,500 and was far from top of the range. Last PC I bought (Dell) cost me around a third of that, and runs extremely well.

I could care less about so-called "monopolies" and "bundling" if PCs are more affordable for everyone

Well, if the PC industry, as in PC hardware, was monopolised, then chances are prices would not fall that rapidly. Few people in business are interested in underpricing their products, and in the absence of competition, producers will charge a monopoly price.

Boye

You keep splitting hairs. If you cannot create anything useful that customers want in the same field I operate, it doesn't mean I'm "abusing" anything. It only attests to your own failures.

Leo:

You keep splitting hairs. If you cannot create anything useful that customers want in the same field I operate, it doesn't mean I'm "abusing" anything. It only attests to your own failures.

Well, if laws were formed in that attitude, there would be no anti-trust legislation at all.

The reason why we have anti-trust legislation is that competition is a social good. Consumers benefit from competition, and it is because society values competition that courts can forcefully split companies, block mergers, invalidate contracts, and intervene against other actions that severely restrict competition. The purpose is not to protect competitiors, but to protect consumer interests.

This is not a European phenomenon. US anti-trust legislation is based on the same principles.

Boye

Care to name European mergers that were blocked in American courts?

When I hear the "social" word I want to throw up:)

The company I worked for last summer (BT) were being "forcefully split", Boye. In our meetings we used to laugh at the govt for their idiocy and simple-mindedness when it comes to such matters.

BT provide a decent enough service, so most people use them. There isn't a viable competitor in the British telecoms market, so BT have earned their dominant position as far as I'm concerned.

Either way, like Leonid says, that "social good" term unnerves me somewhat. If they continue to disintegrate BT, many good people will lose their jobs. I'm not sure to whose benefit that would be...

BT provide a decent enough service, so most people use them. There isn't a viable competitor in the British telecoms market, so BT have earned their dominant position as far as I'm concerned.

Nonsense. The BT was a government monopoly, and brought that dominant position with it after privatisation.

Of course BT doesn't agree when market regulators intervene, but the fact of the matter is that liberalisation of the telecom sector has brought better and cheaper services to consumers.

From the website of the US Department of Justice's Antitrust Division:

For over six decades, the mission of the Antitrust Division has been to promote and protect the competitive process — and the American economy — through the enforcement of the antitrust laws. The antitrust laws apply to virtually all industries and to every level of business, including manufacturing, transportation, distribution, and marketing. They prohibit a variety of practices that restrain trade, such as price-fixing conspiracies, corporate mergers likely to reduce the competitive vigor of particular markets, and predatory acts designed to achieve or maintain monopoly power.

(my emphasis)

Nice to know it...Would be even nicer if they pursued OPEC in courts of law. Yawn.

Boye, your arrogance really knows no bounds tonight. Their dominant position has little to do with being a "government monopoly". BT is a private company and having worked for them I can safely say I know something about the situation ;)

I know exactly what the government are trying to do to them. I've sat in meetings on the very subject. You haven't but choose to make a ridiculous defence of the govt's policies anyway.

Oh well.

Well, they did go after US oil cartels back in the day. Obviously, OPEC falls outside their jurisdiction.

If a global competition authority existed, it could deal with OPEC. But I have no illusions that a global competition authority is realistic, and the USA would probably be the first to oppose such an initiative.

Did you say "outside of their jurisdiction"???

So selling American-made computer programs in Europe is European courts' business, but not the oil imported by European countries?

That was sooo hilarious:)

Boye, your arrogance really knows no bounds tonight. Their dominant position has little to do with being a "government monopoly". BT is a private company and having worked for them I can safely say I know something about the situation

From Wikipedia:

In 1969 the GPO, a government department, became The Post Office, a nationalised industry separate from government. Post Office Telecommunications was one of the divisions.

In 1980/1981 Post Office Telecommunications was renamed British Telecom and became a state-owned corporation independent of the Post Office. In 1982 BT's monopoly on telecommunications was broken, with the grant of a licence to Mercury Communications. The privatisation took place in 1984, with the sale of 51% of the shares in the company (incorporated in 1984 as British Telecommunications plc) to the public in November.

The company changed its trading name to 'BT' in March 31, 1991. The remaining state holdings in the company were sold in 1991 and 1993.

Well done, Boye. And that proves what exactly? I don't believe that I ever said it had always been private.

So selling American-made computer programs in Europe is European courts' business, but not the oil imported by European countries?

That was sooo hilarious:)

I don't see what's so hillarious. The most the EU can do is to refuse access to the European market. How credible a threat is that against OPEC?

Boye

Your hypocricy is hilarious.

Marko:

So you don't see a link between the fact that BT had a 100% market share until 1982 as a government monopoly and the fact that BT still dominates the market?

Marko

See how it works... State-run post office is OK with European socialists, it's not a monopoly, but the allegedly dominant telecom is:)

Oh I agree with the privatisation (100% share is of course not good), but their attempts to destroy BT by cutting it into pieces are pathetic. Less government interference the better. Just let the market take its course.

As I said on the Britain thread, I think we should just leave it, Boye. We live in different worlds on matters such as these.

Leo:

What would be hillarious is if the EU threatened OPEC to boycott their oil. I don't think you fully appreciate how important oil is.

Very true, Leo. Which is why I cannot and will not debate Boye any further on the topic.