Norwegians become crown millionaires

[Canell]

Norwegians become crown millionaires as sovereign wealth fund hits benchmark | ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Dope!

 

[PeteEU]

Yea but a million crowns aint much... when you pay those insane prices in Norway

 

[joG]

Norwegians become crown millionaires as sovereign wealth fund hits benchmark | ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Dope!

So it goes.

 

[joG]

Yea but a million crowns aint much... when you pay those insane prices in Norway

They should share their natural resources with the poorer Europeans! !!

 

[RGacky3]

They should share their natural resources with the poorer Europeans! !!

The rest of europe shouldn't have gone along With Neo-Liberal EU policies.

 

[joG]

The rest of europe shouldn't have gone along With Neo-Liberal EU policies.

But those policies helped get so many politicians get their jobs. But those policies were liberal only in the US meaning of the word . In the original meaning they were the contrary.

 

[loader]

Freedom to Andres Behring Breivik!

 

[RGacky3]

But those policies helped get so many politicians get their jobs. But those policies were liberal only in the US meaning of the word . In the original meaning they were the contrary.

De-regulating of the Financial system? Privitizations of the 90s? Dismanteling of the Unions, allowing Capital to be totally mobile while labor isn't? No they were pretty neo-liberal.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

So this fund doesn't invests in places that are productive instead of in Norway, how very Corporate.

 

[joG]

De-regulating of the Financial system? Privitizations of the 90s? Dismanteling of the Unions, allowing Capital to be totally mobile while labor isn't? No they were pretty neo-liberal.

Deregulation? The finance sector was and is highly regulated. Anyone that tells you differently has never had anything to do with it or is lying.
The idea you could control capital flows is both quaint and inhuman, given the fact that the capital flow enabled more than 1,5 billion starving people to come into jobs.
When unions shrink in open societies you will usually find that the reason is that they no longer fill a need.

 

[RGacky3]

Deregulation? The finance sector was and is highly regulated. Anyone that tells you differently has never had anything to do with it or is lying.
The idea you could control capital flows is both quaint and inhuman, given the fact that the capital flow enabled more than 1,5 billion starving people to come into jobs.
When unions shrink in open societies you will usually find that the reason is that they no longer fill a need.

The Financial sector has always been regulated, but in the 1990s you had massaive deregulation across europe, privitizing banks, allowing Commercial banks more flexibility, freeing up Capital and so on.

You can Control Capital flows .... you know who does this very well? Germany, With Co-Determination and local Control over industry, i.e. the country doing the best in the EU so far.

Or when unions shrink you'll find decades of a buisiness class desperately trying to eliminate them, through any means necessary, including using the state.

The fact is the same, much of western Europe in the late 80s and 90s, when through drastic economic liberalization, and it is now feeling the consequences .... Norway, (luckily) did not go as far as others.

So this fund doesn't invests in places that are productive instead of in Norway, how very Corporate.

It's called diversification, it's a Sovereign fund, not a Public Works banks ... and it also invests in Norway.

 

[WCH]

They should share their natural resources with the poorer Europeans! !!

Right. After 50 years, they end up spending 20 trillion dollars with ZERO results. 8)

 

[joG]

The Financial sector has always been regulated, but in the 1990s you had massaive deregulation across europe, privitizing banks, allowing Commercial banks more flexibility, freeing up Capital and so on.

You can Control Capital flows .... you know who does this very well? Germany, With Co-Determination and local Control over industry, i.e. the country doing the best in the EU so far.

Or when unions shrink you'll find decades of a buisiness class desperately trying to eliminate them, through any means necessary, including using the state.

The fact is the same, much of western Europe in the late 80s and 90s, when through drastic economic liberalization, and it is now feeling the consequences .... Norway, (luckily) did not go as far as others.



It's called diversification, it's a Sovereign fund, not a Public Works banks ... and it also invests in Norway.

I'm afraid that your take on regulation of the financial markets is off the wall. There is no question that the regulations were bad and control sloppy. But I have been dealing with regulation in Germany for years and believe me, there is more than required and it is often contradictory so that nobody knows what it really does. And yes, the Germans have controlled capital flows,. But it is much to their detriment and very much at the center of the problems of their pension system.

 

[RGacky3]

I'm afraid that your take on regulation of the financial markets is off the wall. There is no question that the regulations were bad and control sloppy. But I have been dealing with regulation in Germany for years and believe me, there is more than required and it is often contradictory so that nobody knows what it really does. And yes, the Germans have controlled capital flows,. But it is much to their detriment and very much at the center of the problems of their pension system.

No it isn't, the regulations may have had problems, but the Uk, France, Italy, Spain and so on ALL radically deregulated their Financial markets, and the creation of the EU made extremely free flowing Capital.

I mean just imagine if Norway privitized the oil industry in the 70s as many neo-liberals wanted ...

 

[Canell]

So it goes.

Weren't you a Norwegian?

 

[d0gbreath]

If they could move Norway further south, I'd contemplate citizenship.

 

[joG]

No it isn't, the regulations may have had problems, but the Uk, France, Italy, Spain and so on ALL radically deregulated their Financial markets, and the creation of the EU made extremely free flowing Capital.

I mean just imagine if Norway privitized the oil industry in the 70s as many neo-liberals wanted ...

I cannot speak for every country, but if you want to talk Spain, you will find that regulation and not deregulation was the cause of the blowout and that is other regulation that is crushing france.
And what exactly do you think would have been bad, had Norway sold the oil industry?

 

[joG]

Weren't you a Norwegian?

Nope. Don't think so. As far as I know, that is one of the few European countries that didn't feed my bloodline.

 

[RGacky3]

I cannot speak for every country, but if you want to talk Spain, you will find that regulation and not deregulation was the cause of the blowout and that is other regulation that is crushing france.
And what exactly do you think would have been bad, had Norway sold the oil industry?

Not exactly, in Spain you had a housible bubble much like the United States caused by the ability of banks to lend high risk loans without risk to themselves and bet against them.

With France, France has always had regulation, what it's lost, what's changed, is the mass privitizations that happened in the 90s, and the financialization of the economy.

Had Norway sold their oil industry Norway would have been as poor as it was before the oil industry , it would end up essencially (as many other countries are) being a vassel state to Big Oil.

There have always since the end of WW2 been social democratic policies in europe, what changed in the 90s was massiave privitizations and financialization of the economy and deregulation specifically of the Financial economy (when it comes to other regulations, I agree there are many nonsense ones, but the Financial ones are the important ones).

 

[joG]

Not exactly, in Spain you had a housible bubble much like the United States caused by the ability of banks to lend high risk loans without risk to themselves and bet against them.

With France, France has always had regulation, what it's lost, what's changed, is the mass privitizations that happened in the 90s, and the financialization of the economy.

Had Norway sold their oil industry Norway would have been as poor as it was before the oil industry , it would end up essencially (as many other countries are) being a vassel state to Big Oil.

There have always since the end of WW2 been social democratic policies in europe, what changed in the 90s was massiave privitizations and financialization of the economy and deregulation specifically of the Financial economy (when it comes to other regulations, I agree there are many nonsense ones, but the Financial ones are the important ones).

In Spain a major reason for the bubble in real estate and this is different than in the States, was that the financial industry was so regulated that it was not allowed many investments. So the money sloshing around the system was funnelled into a narrow sector fueling the bubble.

In France the misbegotten social legislation and poorly structured privatization forming monopolies instead of markets dragged down capital productivity and limited investment.

The idea that the financial industry in Germany was less regulated in 1980 than in 2000 is absurd. Why insider trading, front running, price fixing and other fine things were the ways in which bankers compensated themselves. Rules like SEC 405 were totally unknown in the Germany of the 1970s.

 

[PeteEU]

I cannot speak for every country, but if you want to talk Spain, you will find that regulation and not deregulation was the cause of the blowout and that is other regulation that is crushing france.
And what exactly do you think would have been bad, had Norway sold the oil industry?

That is entirely incorrect on Spain. It was not following the regulations that caused most of the problems.

First off the building boom was caused by greed among the countries elite, mostly linked to the right wing PP party. They used corruption at local level to grant illegal planning permissions or by-pass/ignore them all together. Then they used local caja's (savings banks) to fund the building boom. The trick was here, that most caja's were historically linked to the church or political parties. These caja's were often except from banking regulations that the big banks were forced to follow, but stood for a majority of the lending and the deposits. That is why Bankia was such a problem. It was a merger of 8 problem caja's, with the biggest (and oldest bank in the world), Caja de Madrid being the biggest problem. Caja de Madrid was/is the PP party's (currently in government) bank, and court documents in corruption cases clearly show that the PP party in Madrid used the bank as a personal ATM for pet building projects.

Had the caja's followed the banking regulations in Spain, the same regulations that the Banco Santander and BBVA followed, then they would never have gotten into trouble. Had the local planning laws been followed then the building boom would not have been so massive. Had the politicians acted on what they admitted was happening, then Spain would not have gotten into the hole they are in at the moment. But as always, the politicians either were corrupt (both legally and morally) or did not have the balls to stand up to the system. Even today, the present PP government is still corrupt, with cases involving the Prime Minster himself coming out, and they were elected in with a massive majority, despite being responsible for most of the problems. But hey they are forcing their new abortion bill down on the people, a very unpopular change. Sadly there wont be elections for a few more years, but the PP at them moment would stand to loose over 1/3 of their seats.

Now saying this, there is a lot of stupid regulations in Spain (and France and Italy) and that has been put in place to protect local industries and go back to before the EU was around. Getting rid of these regulations should be priority nr. 1 for those countries, but it aint because of the local politics involving industries and unions who conspire to keep the regulations in place to keep their stranglehold on power.

But it is not only in these countries, but in all countries to a certain degree. In the UK planning laws are more crazy than in Spain, or car dealerships in the US preventing competition. Every country has its problems that it often refuses to deal with.

 

[RGacky3]

In Spain a major reason for the bubble in real estate and this is different than in the States, was that the financial industry was so regulated that it was not allowed many investments. So the money sloshing around the system was funnelled into a narrow sector fueling the bubble.

In France the misbegotten social legislation and poorly structured privatization forming monopolies instead of markets dragged down capital productivity and limited investment.

The idea that the financial industry in Germany was less regulated in 1980 than in 2000 is absurd. Why insider trading, front running, price fixing and other fine things were the ways in which bankers compensated themselves. Rules like SEC 405 were totally unknown in the Germany of the 1970s.

That isn't what happens in a system where Capital is free, (such as the EU), that's totaly nonsense, People don't just throw Money into Bubbles because there is nothing else to do. The Capital in Spain was free ... it could have gone to other markets, it could have left Spain With no reprecussions ... but it went in housing becuase there were massiave profits to be made and risk could be put on someone else.

The social legislation has been around all the time, the privitization forming monopolies is WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PRIVITIZE .... always, if not monopolies then oligopolies, but that isn't what dragged the market Down, the market got dragged Down by the massiave financializaiton of the economy, and de-inustrialization by Capital becoming mobile and wanting quick profit over slow Investment.

As far as Germany, Germany kept much of its regulations, but it still suffered from the same problem, InFact Germany casued it in large part by pushing deregulation in other countries while not engaging it for itself fully, i.e. protecting it's own industry while demanding other countries don't do the same.

What you're talking aobut With front running price, fixing and so on is CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, not unknown in countries that went through de-regulation and liberalization as well ...

The real problem in both the US and Europe was the fact that Captialism does not take into account externalities, HUGE externalities, and the systemic risk it creates.

 

[joG]

That isn't what happens in a system where Capital is free, (such as the EU), that's totaly nonsense, People don't just throw Money into Bubbles because there is nothing else to do. The Capital in Spain was free ... it could have gone to other markets, it could have left Spain With no reprecussions ...

I am afraid you can tell your cronies and less well informed people such stuff. Personally, having been in charge of capital markets for continental Europe and so also for Spain, I know this to be wrong.

 

[joG]

That is entirely incorrect on Spain. It was not following the regulations that caused most of the problems.

First off the building boom was caused by greed among the countries elite, mostly linked to the right wing PP party. They used corruption at local level to grant illegal planning permissions or by-pass/ignore them all together. Then they used local caja's (savings banks) to fund the building boom. The trick was here, that most caja's were historically linked to the church or political parties. These caja's were often except from banking regulations that the big banks were forced to follow, but stood for a majority of the lending and the deposits. That is why Bankia was such a problem. It was a merger of 8 problem caja's, with the biggest (and oldest bank in the world), Caja de Madrid being the biggest problem. Caja de Madrid was/is the PP party's (currently in government) bank, and court documents in corruption cases clearly show that the PP party in Madrid used the bank as a personal ATM for pet building projects.

Had the caja's followed the banking regulations in Spain, the same regulations that the Banco Santander and BBVA followed, then they would never have gotten into trouble. Had the local planning laws been followed then the building boom would not have been so massive. Had the politicians acted on what they admitted was happening, then Spain would not have gotten into the hole they are in at the moment. But as always, the politicians either were corrupt (both legally and morally) or did not have the balls to stand up to the system. Even today, the present PP government is still corrupt, with cases involving the Prime Minster himself coming out, and they were elected in with a massive majority, despite being responsible for most of the problems. But hey they are forcing their new abortion bill down on the people, a very unpopular change. Sadly there wont be elections for a few more years, but the PP at them moment would stand to loose over 1/3 of their seats.

Now saying this, there is a lot of stupid regulations in Spain (and France and Italy) and that has been put in place to protect local industries and go back to before the EU was around. Getting rid of these regulations should be priority nr. 1 for those countries, but it aint because of the local politics involving industries and unions who conspire to keep the regulations in place to keep their stranglehold on power.

But it is not only in these countries, but in all countries to a certain degree. In the UK planning laws are more crazy than in Spain, or car dealerships in the US preventing competition. Every country has its problems that it often refuses to deal with.

At the time we were offering the financial institutions in Spain alternatives to their precariously growing real estate loan assets. They knew that they had a problem, but could not make significant investments in the alternatives because the financial authorities discouraged it massively. It worked along the same lines as similar discouragement by the BaFin in Germany. In Germany the restrictions were less broad.

 

[joG]

That isn't what happens in a system where Capital is free, (such as the EU), that's totaly nonsense, People don't just throw Money into Bubbles because there is nothing else to do. The Capital in Spain was free ... it could have gone to other markets, it could have left Spain With no reprecussions ... but it went in housing becuase there were massiave profits to be made and risk could be put on someone else.

The social legislation has been around all the time, the privitization forming monopolies is WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PRIVITIZE .... always, if not monopolies then oligopolies, but that isn't what dragged the market Down, the market got dragged Down by the massiave financializaiton of the economy, and de-inustrialization by Capital becoming mobile and wanting quick profit over slow Investment.

As far as Germany, Germany kept much of its regulations, but it still suffered from the same problem, InFact Germany casued it in large part by pushing deregulation in other countries while not engaging it for itself fully, i.e. protecting it's own industry while demanding other countries don't do the same.

What you're talking aobut With front running price, fixing and so on is CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, not unknown in countries that went through de-regulation and liberalization as well ...

The real problem in both the US and Europe was the fact that Captialism does not take into account externalities, HUGE externalities, and the systemic risk it creates.

Let's just take the free flow of capital you speak of . This is becoming slowly the case. In the 1980s and 1990s it was not the case. There were a very lot of domestic regulations in each country that prevented free flows. Take the capital requirements on assets held by banks as a simple example. A bank could hold Landesbank bonds at zero cost, as there was a guarantee by the Land not available to competing banks. This sucked up capital that would have otherwise been deposited elsewhere. When the guarantee was finally ruled illegal the Landesbanks had a grandfathered period in which the paper they issued was still covered. During this period they issued huge amounts and having to reinvest bought high yield paper they did not understand as they had had practically no experience and therefore had no organizational experience in production and handling. As they had lived in a protected environment of regulatory based subsidies their business models did not work. When the structured paper ran into problems they had serious problems that cost the taxpayers huge amounts of money . A number of the institutes folded in one way or another.

This is one of a large number of cases of problems caused by regulation preventing free flow of capital, while the reason the Landesbanks could not handle the structures was also caused by bad regulation.