Yay protectionism!
http://youtu.be/7mHMRro0QM0
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/life/article/174721--butter-shortage-in-norway-as-christmas-looms
QuoteButter is now selling on Norway's top auction website,with a 250 gram piece starting at around 13 U.S. dollars, roughly four times its normal price.
The residents of the world's second-richest per-capita country cannot even hope for help from a friendly neighbour who is rolling in butter.
Top dairy producer Denmark lies just across a narrow sea channel, but its stores of creamy butter will be kept out of the country by the high import duties of Norway, the only Nordic nation that does not belong to the European Union.
It has a kept thousands of milk farmers in business so yea, Yay protectionism.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lurpak.com%2Fuploads%2F130772050531556%2Foriginal.png&hash=e539319cd43b89d77e78f92cdff42221945263d2)
Come on Norwegians...you know you wan't it!
Butter for Oil!
Well in that case, you should mandate that everything in Norway be manufactured in Norway. Why stop at butter? More jobs for EVERYBODY!
Quote from: JonasSalk on December 13, 2011, 01:37:39 PM
Well in that case, you should mandate that everything in Norway be manufactured in Norway. Why stop at butter? More jobs for EVERYBODY!
The other manufactoring industries are so stunted they don't have much political clout to speak of. The farmers and fishermen are a powerful political factor.
Why is JonasSalk back? :(
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 13, 2011, 04:06:55 PM
Why is JonasSalk back? :(
Marty has been cutting back on stupid comments so someone had to fill the gap.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2011, 04:24:55 PM
Marty has been cutting back on stupid comments so someone had fill the gap.
I'll head over to the WWI thread to do my part. :showoff:
Misread the thread title as "Norwegian Butler Shortage".
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 06:00:20 PM
Misread the thread title as "Norwegian Butler Shortage".
:D Me too.
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 06:00:20 PM
Misread the thread title as "Norwegian Butler Shortage".
heaven knows they're rich enough for it
Quote from: Tyr on December 13, 2011, 07:22:49 PM
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 06:00:20 PM
Misread the thread title as "Norwegian Butler Shortage".
heaven knows they're rich enough for it
Too rich to have to buttle for a living? ;)
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 13, 2011, 04:06:55 PM
Why is JonasSalk back? :(
The forum is suffering from a crazy right-wingers shortage, so we recalled him and KwangTiger. :P
There is a shortage of something every year. Usually it gets blamed on the planners inability to predict the future, but always it is a result of giving the farmers cooperative a monopoly on some kind of product.
In this case the old farmers coop "Tine Norske Meierier" has a legislated role as market regulator - basically a legislated monopoly. Somehow it is imagined that Tine will act for the consumer. Otherwise the butter market is protected by steep toll barriers and even Tine's competetors have to use Tine's network of subsidized dairies and Tine has to accept them. But, we have found that Tine gets away with prioritizing it's own production over competetors - a horrifying abuse of the monopoly given the perishable nature of dairy goods. This is a disgrace. However this system is maintained by norwegian bigotry and individual norwegians are willing to saccrifice their own free choice to force all their countrymen to maintain norwegian farmers. The arguments are typically food security (yes Soviet subs are about to cut the food supply to Norway in case of conflict) and what is called "culture landscape" - yes tourists like to see pretty little farmhouses.
So on the whole the result is that norwegian farming uses more capital on the inputs cost more than it's products. Let me repeat the net result of all the hard work of norwegian farmers is negative. In effect the norwegian farmer is destroying value, BEFORE he takes his own salary. Subsidies to farmers are greater than income from farming.
This system is totally ridiculous.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 13, 2011, 07:43:08 PMThe forum is suffering from a crazy right-wingers shortage, so we recalled him and KwangTiger. :P
Depends on how you define right-wing. Republicans at my school think I'm a lefty. Then again, they're Republicans and almost by definition complete morons.
How much butter are you allowed to carry if you drive across the border?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 07:55:53 PM
How much butter are you allowed to carry if you drive across the border?
The rules say 6000 NOK worth of goods toll free for travel. A 500 gram package of butter should cost about 30 NOK or US$6. Two days ago a Russian was caught with 90 kilos of smuggled butter or jus under the limit at 30 per half kilo at 5400 NOK and had his butter confiscated.
This is what happens when you let the producer own the market... :weep:
Quote from: JonasSalk on December 13, 2011, 07:50:08 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 13, 2011, 07:43:08 PMThe forum is suffering from a crazy right-wingers shortage, so we recalled him and KwangTiger. :P
Depends on how you define right-wing. Republicans at my school think I'm a lefty. Then again, they're Republicans and almost by definition complete morons.
Are you going to Bob Jones University?
I sympathise with the Norwegian approach. We should have something similar for Euro farmers, ideally on a national or regional level though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 13, 2011, 09:09:52 PM
I sympathise with the Norwegian approach. We should have something similar for Euro farmers, ideally on a national or regional level though.
The rest of Europe should have shortages of basic foodstuffs like Norway?
Quote from: citizen k on December 13, 2011, 09:50:44 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 13, 2011, 09:09:52 PM
I sympathise with the Norwegian approach. We should have something similar for Euro farmers, ideally on a national or regional level though.
The rest of Europe should have shortages of basic foodstuffs like Norway?
I think he means that all Europeans should suffer. Except for farmers, of course.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 13, 2011, 09:09:52 PM
I sympathise with the Norwegian approach. We should have something similar for Euro farmers, ideally on a national or regional level though.
Just imagine.. the UK department of agriculture and rural development empowers the farmers coop in the UK to set production targets for foodstuffs AND set the tolls on the imports of agricultural products. Also, the farmers coop gets an effective monopoly and control over the imports of non-basic agricultural products like bananas and maize. Furthermore, the oversight of this system is run by the MAFF, but the minister is from the Countryside Alliance which was needed to gain the majority in parliament.
The fundamental problem is that to protect the norwegian farmer (the worlds second least efficient farmer after the japanese farmer) from fair competition from other countres high punitive tolls are set on all goods produced by norwegian farmers, the butter toll was 200%, but was reduced to 25% for the duration of the shortage. This means that to keep the system functioning and market mechanics cannot be used planning is required and every year the idiot bureaucrats of the Ministry of Agriculture fuck something up. This year it was butter at christmastime - The Axis of Incompetence opens up another front in the War on Christmas.
Friedrich Hayek is laughing in hell and telling marx "I told you so beeyootch".
I don't think you people have understood how truely massively inefficient norwegian agricultur is. For X NOK of inputs the farmer produces less than X in outputs and the farmer still has not gotten any earnings to feed his family and pay for the electrical bill. The average subsidy per farmer is higher than the average wage per farmer. By working har for a year the average norwegian farmer destroys value.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 13, 2011, 09:09:52 PM
I sympathise with the Norwegian approach. We should have something similar for Euro farmers, ideally on a national or regional level though.
The EU CAP is bad enough. We should liberalize agriculture, not increase protectionism.
I want Britain to import butter from New Zealand free of tariffs and quotas :bowler:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 14, 2011, 02:52:13 AM
I want Britain to import butter from New Zealand free of tariffs and quotas :bowler:
Vote NO for the incoming Tory referendum on Europe :D
They will try and avoid a referendum as there would be a massive vote to leave.
One can't help wondering how much of the behaviour of Merkozy and Cameron at the recent summit was theatre for their electorates.
We should withhold American grain and starve the world until our demands our met.
All the large danish producers have refused to aid norway. not out of spite, but because they cannot up butter production this fast as they have already planned their productions and fatted milk (or cream) is in short demand.
Also, due to draught both Sweden and Finland have a butter shortage, and seeing they are EU and have no toll limits all excess production is going that way.
Further, Norway only wants to lower toll for a short period and as one producer commented, "Why should we reschedule everything for only 1 months production? If they want us to enter their market we will do it, but only as a strategic initiative, not for 1 month only"
V
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 14, 2011, 02:52:13 AM
I want Britain to import butter from New Zealand free of tariffs and quotas :bowler:
In Pre-EU days NZ didn't do much butter exports iirc. A similar thing to what happened in NZ happened in Iceland well before the bank crash. Farm subsidies were slashed and many marginal farms were deserted. The remainin farms now run a much more efficent and environmentally friendly service both supplying the local market in meat and dairy and establishing an export market in lamb and multiplying the business of exporting Icelandic Horses many times over.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3747430.stm
QuoteNew Zealand's hardy farm spirit
By John Pickford
BBC, New Zealand
Twenty years ago, the New Zealand government announced it was stopping all subsidies for farmers. At the time, those farmers thought the effects would be disastrous, but things panned out rather differently.
When you ask a question as a reporter and get blank silence back it usually means, in my experience, one of two things: either you are heading up the wrong track completely or you are on the threshold of some interesting territory.
It happened to me in Karamea, a remote rain-washed valley facing the Tasman Sea on the north-west coast of the South Island of New Zealand.
I had been talking to Bevan and Caroline, a young farming couple who had just finished the morning milking of their 180 dairy cows.
As we sat round the kitchen table drinking coffee, the conversation turned to the high value New Zealand dollar, which in 2004 has made trading conditions difficult for the country's food exporters.
It was impressive how well informed these young dairy farmers were about the global economy and financial markets, and how developments in the wider world can influence their ability to make a living in remote Karamea.
Alien mindset
This, I thought, would be a good moment to raise the topic of farm subsidies, or rather of their absence in New Zealand.
Twenty years ago a quiet revolution swept through this country when they were abolished.
Subsidies were once as significant a proportion of farm income in New Zealand as they are today in the European Union and the United States.
But since 1984, New Zealand's farmers have had to get along without any direct financial support from the government.
"How do you manage?" was my question to Bevan and Caroline.
"How is it you are able to farm without subsidies, when so many subsidised farmers in a country like Britain are struggling?"
" The older generation had recalled how creative some farmers had been with the government cash on offer "
That was when I became acutely conscious of the hum of the washing machine.
But seeing their nervous glances to one another as they struggled for an answer, it dawned on me that these young New Zealand farmers were not being evasive; they just could not conceptualise what having subsidies might mean.
They could talk fluently about the impact of international currency movements on their markets. But subsidies?
They did not know and they did not want to know.
Creative cash
We got the conversation going again by moving up a generation.
"Oh yes", they said, trying to be helpful, "we remember our parents talking about that, perhaps you should ask them about subsidies."
In fact I had already, over a few beers the previous evening at the small motel they now run in their retirement.
And the older generation had talked and talked, and chuckled quite a bit when they had recalled how creative some farmers had been with the government cash on offer.
" Dairying is now a bigger foreign exchange earner than sheep for New Zealand "
There was what had officially been known as the "livestock incentive scheme" - a direct payment to encourage farmers to increase the size of their flocks - and was soon nicknamed the "skinny sheep scheme".
And there was the case of the farmer who had named his smart new boat SMP, after the "supplementary minimum prices" subsidy, the backbone of the system.
They can laugh about them now, but these and the many other subsidies on offer in the late 70s and early 80s were providing some New Zealand farmers with up to 40% of their income.
Today government financial support for farmers amounts to less than 1% of average farm income across New Zealand.
And most farmers are thriving without the subsidies.
'Revolutionary moment'
Their removal, far from destroying New Zealand agriculture, appears to have re-energised it.
Agriculture contributes slightly more now to the total economy than it did in the era of subsidies and there is plenty of evidence the land is being farmed more creatively.
Twenty years ago the wine industry was too small to be measurable. Today in some areas grapes have replaced sheep as the main source of revenue.
" I met several younger farmers like Bevan and Caroline who could barely get their heads round what subsidies were! "
Dairying is now a bigger foreign exchange earner than sheep for New Zealand and there are more than two million farmed deer across the country.
And the farmers themselves?
Well I did not meet a single one who wanted to go back to subsidies.
But I met several younger farmers like Bevan and Caroline who could barely get their heads round what subsidies were!
The chief architect of New Zealand's quiet revolution - to many nervous farmers at the time he was the revolution's Robespierre - was a politician called Roger (now Sir Roger) Douglas.
Twenty years ago, as finance minister of a new Labour government, Douglas announced the budget that would bring the subsidies era to an end.
In another remote corner of New Zealand's South Island, I was given a vivid child's eye view of that revolutionary moment.
Ewan, an agricultural consultant in his 30s - so too young to have experienced subsidies firsthand - remembers his father emerging gloomily from the sitting room where he had been listening to the "Douglas Budget" on the radio.
"They've just stuffed the farmers," he had said.
Well, 20 years on, far from "stuffing" New Zealand's farmers, the withdrawal of their subsidies turns out to have revived them.
It has restored the "pioneer spirit", I was told on more than one occasion, that helped our great-grandparents build the country.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2011, 03:12:12 AM
We should withhold American grain and starve the world until our demands our met.
Argentina indeed needs all the new markets it can get.
I'm surprised that the Kiwis ever bothered much with farm subsidies, they have a pretty strong comparative advantage in the sector. Though I dimly recall that they did have some pretty left wing and interfering governments back in the past :hmm:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 03:49:51 AM
Argentina indeed needs all the new markets it can get.
They don't want them. They're taxing exports to keep the domestic price of food down.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 07:30:24 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 03:49:51 AM
Argentina indeed needs all the new markets it can get.
They don't want them. They're taxing exports to keep the domestic price of food down.
It can't be always 1982 :(
Russia stepping in would be fun as well then.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 07:36:45 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 07:30:24 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 03:49:51 AM
Argentina indeed needs all the new markets it can get.
They don't want them. They're taxing exports to keep the domestic price of food down.
It can't be always 1982 :(
Russia stepping in would be fun as well then.
The export taxes they have are part of a attempt to reduce the ammount of land under soy cultivation for export. So they tax the soy exports to keep beef production competetive.. this keeps argentine steak prices low and the voters happy... fucks up the economy, but keeps the locals happy...
Quote from: Viking on December 14, 2011, 07:47:34 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 07:36:45 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 07:30:24 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 03:49:51 AM
Argentina indeed needs all the new markets it can get.
They don't want them. They're taxing exports to keep the domestic price of food down.
It can't be always 1982 :(
Russia stepping in would be fun as well then.
The export taxes they have are part of a attempt to reduce the ammount of land under soy cultivation for export. So they tax the soy exports to keep beef production competetive.. this keeps argentine steak prices low and the voters happy... fucks up the economy, but keeps the locals happy...
Yeah, I have heard of that. I was just making a reference to Carter's grain embargo, for Ide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_grain_embargo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_grain_embargo)
QuoteTangible effects of the embargo were negligible, with the Soviet Union simply acquiring grain from alternative sources in South America and Europe
ergo Argentina mostly for South America
Yikes, I'm so glad I don't live in Norway. Here we can be a stick of deep fried butter for just a couple of bucks.
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2011, 09:38:21 AM
Here we can be a stick of deep fried butter for just a couple of bucks.
lol
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2011, 09:38:21 AM
Yikes, I'm so glad I don't live in Norway. Here we can be a stick of deep fried butter for just a couple of bucks.
usually it costs US$5, but the planners fucked up and the farmers don't like the plebs getting the idea that furriner butter isn't poisoned... so ...
Edit: I read DG's post as "Here we can buy a stick of butter for just a couple of bucks" and that is what I was replying to.
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2011, 09:38:21 AM
Yikes, I'm so glad I don't live in Norway. Here we can be a stick of deep fried butter for just a couple of bucks.
So you get both Oil and Butter :lol:
V
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 09:26:56 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 14, 2011, 07:47:34 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 07:36:45 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 07:30:24 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 03:49:51 AM
Argentina indeed needs all the new markets it can get.
They don't want them. They're taxing exports to keep the domestic price of food down.
It can't be always 1982 :(
Russia stepping in would be fun as well then.
The export taxes they have are part of a attempt to reduce the ammount of land under soy cultivation for export. So they tax the soy exports to keep beef production competetive.. this keeps argentine steak prices low and the voters happy... fucks up the economy, but keeps the locals happy...
Yeah, I have heard of that. I was just making a reference to Carter's grain embargo, for Ide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_grain_embargo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_grain_embargo)
QuoteTangible effects of the embargo were negligible, with the Soviet Union simply acquiring grain from alternative sources in South America and Europe
ergo Argentina mostly for South America
:(
Then we turn to my contingency plan. Did you know our national inventory of Harpoon missiles numbers some 6000?
Let them eat margarine!
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2011, 10:54:31 AM
Let them eat margarine!
made with canola :goodboy: . Fear not danes, canada will be your savior. and all it'll cost you is that island in the middle of nowhere you keep trying to claim as yours. damn dirty danes.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2011, 10:50:58 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 09:26:56 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 14, 2011, 07:47:34 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 07:36:45 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 07:30:24 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 03:49:51 AM
Argentina indeed needs all the new markets it can get.
They don't want them. They're taxing exports to keep the domestic price of food down.
It can't be always 1982 :(
Russia stepping in would be fun as well then.
The export taxes they have are part of a attempt to reduce the ammount of land under soy cultivation for export. So they tax the soy exports to keep beef production competetive.. this keeps argentine steak prices low and the voters happy... fucks up the economy, but keeps the locals happy...
Yeah, I have heard of that. I was just making a reference to Carter's grain embargo, for Ide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_grain_embargo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_grain_embargo)
QuoteTangible effects of the embargo were negligible, with the Soviet Union simply acquiring grain from alternative sources in South America and Europe
ergo Argentina mostly for South America
:(
Then we turn to my contingency plan. Did you know our national inventory of Harpoon missiles numbers some 6000?
I hope they work better than the Exocets sold to Argentina.
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 11:00:51 AM
made with canola :goodboy: . Fear not danes, canada will be your savior. and all it'll cost you is that island in the middle of nowhere you keep trying to claim as yours. damn dirty danes.
We have plenty of butter. In fact, we could easily fill that island up with lurpak.
Just like the Anglo-Saxons of old HVC does not bother to differentiate between Danes and Norwegians.
Quote from: Liep on December 14, 2011, 11:28:31 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 11:00:51 AM
made with canola :goodboy: . Fear not danes, canada will be your savior. and all it'll cost you is that island in the middle of nowhere you keep trying to claim as yours. damn dirty danes.
We have plenty of butter. In fact, we could easily fill that island up with lurpak.
you guys need better brand names. Lurpak does not sound palatable at all :D
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2011, 11:29:29 AM
Just like the Anglo-Saxons of old HVC does not bother to differentiate between Danes and Norwegians.
When he starts cleaving skulls with his battle-axe, one hopes he'll be more discriminating. :D
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2011, 11:29:29 AM
Just like the Anglo-Saxons of old HVC does not bother to differentiate between Danes and Norwegians.
they speak funny and are tall. they get lumped in togther with the swedes (and in a pinch the dutch)
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 11:33:05 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2011, 11:29:29 AM
Just like the Anglo-Saxons of old HVC does not bother to differentiate between Danes and Norwegians.
they speak funny and are tall. they get lumped in togther with the swedes (and in a pinch the dutch)
It's pretty standard to see danes and dutch being mixed up in various internet forums, usually by Americans...
Are there any significant cultural differences between, uhm, those two?
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on December 14, 2011, 11:37:08 AM
It's pretty standard to see danes and dutch being mixed up in various internet forums, usually by Americans...
Well you Euros keep calling southerners 'Yanks' :P
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on December 14, 2011, 11:37:08 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 11:33:05 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2011, 11:29:29 AM
Just like the Anglo-Saxons of old HVC does not bother to differentiate between Danes and Norwegians.
they speak funny and are tall. they get lumped in togther with the swedes (and in a pinch the dutch)
It's pretty standard to see danes and dutch being mixed up in various internet forums, usually by Americans...
the ones one i confuses, and only is portuguese, is the swiss and the swedes. sound too damn similar.
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 11:42:57 AM
the ones one i confuses, and only is portuguese, is the swiss and the swedes. sound too damn similar.
So it's English you have a problem with? :P
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2011, 11:37:55 AM
Are there any significant cultural differences between, uhm, those two?
Dutch boys stick their fingers in dykes.
I saw a porn clip of that once.
Quote from: Liep on December 14, 2011, 11:44:03 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 11:42:57 AM
the ones one i confuses, and only is portuguese, is the swiss and the swedes. sound too damn similar.
So it's English you have a problem with? :P
Shush you, he can't help being a 3rd worlder.
Quote from: Liep on December 14, 2011, 11:44:03 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 11:42:57 AM
the ones one i confuses, and only is portuguese, is the swiss and the swedes. sound too damn similar.
So it's English you have a problem with? :P
Jesus Hillary. :lol:
Quote from: Viking on December 14, 2011, 10:15:30 AM
usually it costs US$5, but the planners fucked up and the farmers don't like the plebs getting the idea that furriner butter isn't poisoned... so ...
Edit: I read DG's post as "Here we can buy a stick of butter for just a couple of bucks" and that is what I was replying to.
Actually we get a pack of 4 sticks for a couple bucks. $5 for a stick of butter seems rather extortionate.
Quote from: Liep on December 14, 2011, 11:44:03 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 11:42:57 AM
the ones one i confuses, and only is portuguese, is the swiss and the swedes. sound too damn similar.
So it's English you have a problem with? :P
my crappy english is a whole other issue :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 11:47:00 AM
Quote from: Liep on December 14, 2011, 11:44:03 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 11:42:57 AM
the ones one i confuses, and only is portuguese, is the swiss and the swedes. sound too damn similar.
So it's English you have a problem with? :P
Jesus Hillary. :lol:
:blush:
The important issue here, though, is if this will in any way affect the Norwegian women's handball team. Will they be depressed enough for us to beat them in the WC?
I thought this was going to be to do with the issue of the digitally remastered version of Last Tango In Paris.
Isn't Norway a part of the EEA? I thought it's like the EU, when it comes to tarriff-free zone? :huh:
Quote from: Viking on December 13, 2011, 07:47:49 PM
There is a shortage of something every year. Usually it gets blamed on the planners inability to predict the future, but always it is a result of giving the farmers cooperative a monopoly on some kind of product.
In this case the old farmers coop "Tine Norske Meierier" has a legislated role as market regulator - basically a legislated monopoly. Somehow it is imagined that Tine will act for the consumer. Otherwise the butter market is protected by steep toll barriers and even Tine's competetors have to use Tine's network of subsidized dairies and Tine has to accept them. But, we have found that Tine gets away with prioritizing it's own production over competetors - a horrifying abuse of the monopoly given the perishable nature of dairy goods. This is a disgrace. However this system is maintained by norwegian bigotry and individual norwegians are willing to saccrifice their own free choice to force all their countrymen to maintain norwegian farmers. The arguments are typically food security (yes Soviet subs are about to cut the food supply to Norway in case of conflict) and what is called "culture landscape" - yes tourists like to see pretty little farmhouses.
So on the whole the result is that norwegian farming uses more capital on the inputs cost more than it's products. Let me repeat the net result of all the hard work of norwegian farmers is negative. In effect the norwegian farmer is destroying value, BEFORE he takes his own salary. Subsidies to farmers are greater than income from farming.
This system is totally ridiculous.
I wish the EU wasn't sinking, so it could bring the unruly Norway peasants to their knees and cut through them like a hot knife.
I wish I could laugh at Norway, but we have a very similar system when it comes to dairy. :Embarrass:
What does a stick of butter cost up your way?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 04:32:51 PM
What does a stick of butter cost up your way?
That's not a polite question to ask in mixed company. :bowler:
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2011, 04:31:14 PM
I wish I could laugh at Norway, but we have a very similar system when it comes to dairy. :Embarrass:
Except the Canadian Dairy Commission is a crown corporation and not a farmer's co-op. It owns no production or processing facilities as far as I'm aware.
The protectionism may be similar though. I know it was a huge deal when NAFTA was coming in.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 04:32:51 PM
What does a stick of butter cost up your way?
Lol.
Edit: FUCK YOU MONGERS.
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2011, 04:44:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2011, 04:31:14 PM
I wish I could laugh at Norway, but we have a very similar system when it comes to dairy. :Embarrass:
Except the Canadian Dairy Commission is a crown corporation and not a farmer's co-op. It owns no production or processing facilities as far as I'm aware.
The protectionism may be similar though. I know it was a huge deal when NAFTA was coming in.
But it does set production quotas, and we have fairly high tariffs on imports.
Yi - I think its about $4-$5 for a pound of butter.
Quote from: mongers on December 14, 2011, 04:38:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 04:32:51 PM
What does a stick of butter cost up your way?
That's not a polite question to ask in mixed company. :bowler:
Is this about
Last Tango in Paris again? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 14, 2011, 11:48:54 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 14, 2011, 10:15:30 AM
usually it costs US$5, but the planners fucked up and the farmers don't like the plebs getting the idea that furriner butter isn't poisoned... so ...
Edit: I read DG's post as "Here we can buy a stick of butter for just a couple of bucks" and that is what I was replying to.
Actually we get a pack of 4 sticks for a couple bucks. $5 for a stick of butter seems rather extortionate.
Yes, welcome to norway.
I use.....
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org%2F10%2F2%2F5%2F1%2F5892741579956987.jpg&hash=ce132b41b64e14fa347d2de3fcdec78452c6b0fa)
I love the British version:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.polyvore.com%2Fcgi%2Fimg-thing%3F.out%3Djpg%26amp%3Bsize%3Dl%26amp%3Btid%3D16481250&hash=76832a4b557a0733e866e049fb38f928d915fbaa)
And the real fake butter has apparently been released in Germany this year:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shopblogger.de%2Fblog%2Fuploads%2F1x_2011%2FPreisschildimrotenA6RahmenIcantbvelieveiostsnotbutterdieersteWerbeaktionsmitdiesenArtikelseitwirihnimSortimenthaben3432238069.jpg&hash=0ecbe87d4e2585df6668b0f7d558f0bfa38790d2)
negative 99 cents? they pay you to take it? :D
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 14, 2011, 07:58:02 PM
And the real fake butter has apparently been released in Germany this year:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shopblogger.de%2Fblog%2Fuploads%2F1x_2011%2FPreisschildimrotenA6RahmenIcantbvelieveiostsnotbutterdieersteWerbeaktionsmitdiesenArtikelseitwirihnimSortimenthaben3432238069.jpg&hash=0ecbe87d4e2585df6668b0f7d558f0bfa38790d2)
USA! USA! USA!
Quote from: Habbaku on December 13, 2011, 10:07:03 PM
I think he means that all Europeans should suffer. Except for farmers, of course.
There are values beyond achieving the lowest price. One of those, I think, is securing and supporting a strong agriculture sector and I actually back that 'cultural landscape' element too.
I wouldn't want the Norwegian system, it's developed in response to their culture - for example we lack a farmers coop tradition. But maybe a single purchasing dairy board of some sort, guaranteeing a price over reasonably long periods allowing predictability and stability for farmers. The cost for the consumer would be higher - I'd suggest differences between retail and wholesale dairy - but if they, as voters, are okay with that then that's fine. It seems to be the case in Norway.
QuoteThey will try and avoid a referendum as there would be a massive vote to leave.
I think it's inevitable now. Has been since that debate provoked by the e-petition and the early day motion supporting a three-optioned referendum. We'll probably get one next time the Tories win a majority, if they manage that - given that they failed against Gordon Brown I'm not sure that's a certainty :lol:
I do think we need to decide if we're in or out and either commit or leave. Put like that I'm not massively sure which way I'd vote.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2011, 10:01:54 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 13, 2011, 10:07:03 PM
I think he means that all Europeans should suffer. Except for farmers, of course.
There are values beyond achieving the lowest price. One of those, I think, is securing and supporting a strong agriculture sector and I actually back that 'cultural landscape' element too.
I wouldn't want the Norwegian system, it's developed in response to their culture - for example we lack a farmers coop tradition. But maybe a single purchasing dairy board of some sort, guaranteeing a price over reasonably long periods allowing predictability and stability for farmers. The cost for the consumer would be higher - I'd suggest differences between retail and wholesale dairy - but if they, as voters, are okay with that then that's fine. It seems to be the case in Norway.
QuoteThey will try and avoid a referendum as there would be a massive vote to leave.
I think it's inevitable now. Has been since that debate provoked by the e-petition and the early day motion supporting a three-optioned referendum. We'll probably get one next time the Tories win a majority, if they manage that - given that they failed against Gordon Brown I'm not sure that's a certainty :lol:
I do think we need to decide if we're in or out and either commit or leave. Put like that I'm not massively sure which way I'd vote.
You're presuming the rest of Europe won't decide at some state that we should be Out. ;)
So, I'm still waiting for Norway to go Viking style, and hit up Sweden, or cross into Denmark and sieze butter supplies. The longboats sail again! :ph34r:
Quote from: KRonn on December 14, 2011, 10:36:38 PM
So, I'm still waiting for Norway to go Viking style, and hit up Sweden, or cross into Denmark and sieze butter supplies. The longboats sail again! :ph34r:
Butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.
Or at least until south of 55degrees.
Quote from: KRonn on December 14, 2011, 10:36:38 PM
So, I'm still waiting for Norway to go Viking style, and hit up Sweden, or cross into Denmark and sieze butter supplies. The longboats sail again! :ph34r:
These days do they take the ferry and clear out the supermarkets in port cities...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on December 15, 2011, 12:55:33 AM
Quote from: KRonn on December 14, 2011, 10:36:38 PM
So, I'm still waiting for Norway to go Viking style, and hit up Sweden, or cross into Denmark and sieze butter supplies. The longboats sail again! :ph34r:
These days do they take the ferry and clear out the supermarkets in port cities...
I think swedens three largest grocery stores are within 100 meters of the norwegian border. The boats to denmark are nothing more than floating wineshops. When slargos was living here in trondheim we too a trip to storlien to buy booze and bbq meat.
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 11:42:57 AM
the ones one i confuses, and only is portuguese, is the swiss and the swedes. sound too damn similar.
That's a Latin American Spanish confusion, false porkchop.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2011, 10:01:54 PM
QuoteThey will try and avoid a referendum as there would be a massive vote to leave.
I think it's inevitable now. Has been since that debate provoked by the e-petition and the early day motion supporting a three-optioned referendum. We'll probably get one next time the Tories win a majority, if they manage that - given that they failed against Gordon Brown I'm not sure that's a certainty :lol:
I do think we need to decide if we're in or out and either commit or leave. Put like that I'm not massively sure which way I'd vote.
Don't forget that the Boundary Commission will have set up the new constituencies by the next General Election, the old boundaries favoured Labour who would have got a majority of 30-40 seats if they had got the share of the vote that the Tories got in the last election.
I think I would now vote against EU membership. The fury at Cameron for not signing away fiscal sovereignty on the spot at 4am without even consulting Parliament or the people.........how can we make common cause with people who think like that?
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on December 15, 2011, 12:55:33 AM
Quote from: KRonn on December 14, 2011, 10:36:38 PM
So, I'm still waiting for Norway to go Viking style, and hit up Sweden, or cross into Denmark and sieze butter supplies. The longboats sail again! :ph34r:
These days do they take the ferry and clear out the supermarkets in port cities...
A once proud tradition is no more. Oh how the mighty have fallen. :(
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 14, 2011, 07:58:02 PM
And the real fake butter has apparently been released in Germany this year:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shopblogger.de%2Fblog%2Fuploads%2F1x_2011%2FPreisschildimrotenA6RahmenIcantbvelieveiostsnotbutterdieersteWerbeaktionsmitdiesenArtikelseitwirihnimSortimenthaben3432238069.jpg&hash=0ecbe87d4e2585df6668b0f7d558f0bfa38790d2)
Was that sign punctuated by a Martian?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 08:53:12 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 14, 2011, 07:58:02 PM
And the real fake butter has apparently been released in Germany this year:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shopblogger.de%2Fblog%2Fuploads%2F1x_2011%2FPreisschildimrotenA6RahmenIcantbvelieveiostsnotbutterdieersteWerbeaktionsmitdiesenArtikelseitwirihnimSortimenthaben3432238069.jpg&hash=0ecbe87d4e2585df6668b0f7d558f0bfa38790d2)
Was that sign punctuated by a Martian?
comma is a period over there.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 15, 2011, 04:57:44 AM
I think I would now vote against EU membership. The fury at Cameron for not signing away fiscal sovereignty on the spot at 4am without even consulting Parliament or the people.........how can we make common cause with people who think like that?
As a teacher once told us regarding votings in EU stuff (talking about fisheries and the usual Spanish position in them), every country likes to sell to its national audience that their position and requests were the only rational ones and in everybody's interests, and that everytime they're voted down it's because there's a huge international conspiracy against you, but that when a big meeting or several are held and at the time of drawing lines in the sand everybody is roughly in one side and your country ends up alone in the other most of the time then maybe this country should reflect on why this keeps happening again and again. I think this could also be applied to this issue.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 15, 2011, 03:42:30 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 11:42:57 AM
the ones one i confuses, and only is portuguese, is the swiss and the swedes. sound too damn similar.
That's a Latin American Spanish confusion, false porkchop.
come on, Suecia and Suica are damn close :lol: And i'm not a false pork chop, i'm purely "canadian" (whatever that means :D ) i just speak pork chop :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 15, 2011, 08:54:19 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 08:53:12 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 14, 2011, 07:58:02 PM
And the real fake butter has apparently been released in Germany this year:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shopblogger.de%2Fblog%2Fuploads%2F1x_2011%2FPreisschildimrotenA6RahmenIcantbvelieveiostsnotbutterdieersteWerbeaktionsmitdiesenArtikelseitwirihnimSortimenthaben3432238069.jpg&hash=0ecbe87d4e2585df6668b0f7d558f0bfa38790d2)
Was that sign punctuated by a Martian?
comma is a period over there.
It's not strange looking just because of that, though--there's also the use of a dash in place of a zero (or just a blank space) but I got that and the comma vs period thing. But the part I don't get is the weird placement of the quotation marks.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 15, 2011, 04:57:44 AM
Don't forget that the Boundary Commission will have set up the new constituencies by the next General Election, the old boundaries favoured Labour who would have got a majority of 30-40 seats if they had got the share of the vote that the Tories got in the last election.
I think that's partly just the nature of the Tory vote. Even in a very safe seat they turn out and vote. The boundary review doesn't entirely favour the Tories or Lib Dems:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/13/boundary-review-angers-tory-mps
QuoteI think I would now vote against EU membership. The fury at Cameron for not signing away fiscal sovereignty on the spot at 4am without even consulting Parliament or the people.........how can we make common cause with people who think like that?
I don't think the fiscal stuff affects countries not in the Euro or Euro-candidate (ie. us and Denmark). And the treaty's only been signed all the countries have to now ratify it. I think the Euro-fury is because it's easier to point to the UK than point out that no other French Presidential candidate supports it, that the FDP are on the edge of collapse over this treaty (I think the EFSF, ESM stuff), that the Danes and Irish may have to have referendums and that success in the Dutch, Slovak, Finnish and Czech Parliaments isn't guaranteed.
And for all the talk of principle I think that's ultimately why Cameron couldn't sign a full treaty. It would have failed in Parliament or failed at a referendum.
I also think the UK-EU spat is a massive distraction from the potential problems with the deal reached and real discussion of whether it'll work. In my view the protocol's largest effect will be to institutionalise large recessions in several countries.
QuoteAs a teacher once told us regarding votings in EU stuff (talking about fisheries and the usual Spanish position in them), every country likes to sell to its national audience that their position and requests were the only rational ones and in everybody's interests, and that everytime they're voted down it's because there's a huge international conspiracy against you, but that when a big meeting or several are held and at the time of drawing lines in the sand everybody is roughly in one side and your country ends up alone in the other most of the time then maybe this country should reflect on why this keeps happening again and again. I think this could also be applied to this issue.
What's the issue you think we should reflect on?
I don't think there's an international conspiracy, but I think our interests are starting to diverge.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 09:32:50 AM
QuoteAs a teacher once told us regarding votings in EU stuff (talking about fisheries and the usual Spanish position in them), every country likes to sell to its national audience that their position and requests were the only rational ones and in everybody's interests, and that everytime they're voted down it's because there's a huge international conspiracy against you, but that when a big meeting or several are held and at the time of drawing lines in the sand everybody is roughly in one side and your country ends up alone in the other most of the time then maybe this country should reflect on why this keeps happening again and again. I think this could also be applied to this issue.
What's the issue you think we should reflect on?
I don't think there's an international conspiracy, but I think our interests are starting to diverge.
In this case I'd say that the broader issue would be EU governance.
Which do you think that are the UK's interests?
Quote from: dps on December 15, 2011, 09:20:10 AM
It's not strange looking just because of that, though--there's also the use of a dash in place of a zero (or just a blank space) but I got that and the comma vs period thing. But the part I don't get is the weird placement of the quotation marks.
That's how quotation marks are done in continental Europe, I think. Definitely that's how it was done in Soviet Union.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 09:32:50 AM
What's the issue you think we should reflect on?
I don't think there's an international conspiracy, but I think our interests are starting to diverge.
But isn't that a part of every political body? I mean I expect Cornwall's interests are not perfectly aligned with those of Manchester.
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 09:59:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 09:32:50 AM
What's the issue you think we should reflect on?
I don't think there's an international conspiracy, but I think our interests are starting to diverge.
But isn't that a part of every political body? I mean I expect Cornwall's interests are not perfectly aligned with those of Manchester.
Some parts of the UK make huge financial sacrifices to help out other parts of the UK. The sacrifices we are prepared to make for other parts of the EU are far lower. IMO the EU project has run ahead of itself and is making demands of its people that they are not willing to make. I think that time will show that the UK is not the only offender in this, the new accord is an almost comical example of the triumph of hope over experience; it is basically a stricter version of the growth and stability pact which was ignored almost immediately even by Germany, so Greece will not be running a deficit once the new accord is signed? Pitiful nonsense.
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 09:59:00 AMBut isn't that a part of every political body? I mean I expect Cornwall's interests are not perfectly aligned with those of Manchester.
Just like Germany's and Greece's are divergent. It's at that point that culture steps in and democratic institutions step in and mediate the difference. Except, of course, in the case of the EU. There's no Europeanism and I don't think there will be - this has an effect in terms of the economic measures in the periphery. If you don't speak any language other than Portuguese, Spanish, Italian or Greek then despite the free movement of workers (a good side of the EU) you're trapped in the recession unlike in countries. But also there's no shared solidarity that exists within a country. And I think the democratic institutions of the Union are also too weak to share the pain and force Cornwall and Manchester to sacrifice for the other's sake.
QuoteIn this case I'd say that the broader issue would be EU governance.
I'm still not sure what you mean by governance I'm afraid. This doesn't change the structure or duties of the EU bodies from what I understand.
QuoteWhich do you think that are the UK's interests?
I'll think this over a bit to get a more full-ish answer.
Quote from: HVC on December 15, 2011, 09:15:45 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 15, 2011, 03:42:30 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 11:42:57 AM
the ones one i confuses, and only is portuguese, is the swiss and the swedes. sound too damn similar.
That's a Latin American Spanish confusion, false porkchop.
come on, Suecia and Suica are damn close :lol: And i'm not a false pork chop, i'm purely "canadian" (whatever that means :D ) i just speak pork chop :P
No, you don't. You speak an Anglo Canadian Azorean pidgin :contract:
Besides, it's
Suécia and
Suíça. :D
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 15, 2011, 10:11:05 AMI think that time will show that the UK is not the only offender in this, the new accord is an almost comical example of the triumph of hope over experience; it is basically a stricter version of the growth and stability pact which was ignored almost immediately even by Germany, so Greece will not be running a deficit once the new accord is signed? Pitiful nonsense.
I agree that this summit failed to produce anything like the comprehensive deal required - and that wasn't because the UK said 'no'. That's really just a distraction.
There is a strengthened S&GP which will probably not be terribly enforced and seems to be there to add some cyclical variability. The constitutional amendments requiring a structural deficit of 0.5% on the other hand seems absurdly strict to put into national constitutions. I agree with these points made by Martin Wolf:
QuoteA simple objection to these ideas might be that they are implausibly tough, as FT Alphaville notes. The Council does state that "steps and sanctions proposed or recommended by the Commission will be adopted unless a qualified majority of the euro area member states is opposed". Even so, I remain unconvinced that turkeys will vote for Christmas. Yet, suppose they do. This would mean that, on deeply uncertain estimates of structural deficits, the Commission – a body of unelected bureaucrats – would impose sanctions on elected governments, when the latter are under great pressure. What is the Commission going to do if they still fail to comply? Take them over? The answer, we now know, is: yes. This is a constitutional monstrosity.
Linked to this, what happens when a country hits a recession and the opposition promise some form of stimulus, the national equivalent of the Institute for Fiscal Studies works out that it'd break the EU rules. Should the party change their policy or, if they win, a democratically elected government change their policy? It doesn't seem right or plausible.
A little later Wolf continues:
QuoteBy definition, the sum of private and current account deficits must also fall towards zero. The private sectors of erstwhile capital-importing countries have moved towards surpluses, for a good reason: they are trying to reduce their debts, not least because their assets are falling in value. Thus the external deficit needs to fall. That can occur in a good or a bad way. The good way would be via increased output of exports and import substitutes; the bad would be via a deeper recession. The good way requires far higher imports in the core of the eurozone or far greater competitiveness for the eurozone as a whole. But little chance of either of these exists, under plausible expectations for demand and activity. That leaves the bad way: deep recessions, in which the government reduces its deficit by deflating the private sector yet more.
In brief, it is extremely difficult to eliminate fiscal deficits in the structural capital-importing countries, without prolonged recessions or huge improvements in their external competitiveness. But the latter is relative, so the needed improvements in the external performance of weak eurozone countries imply a deterioration in that of eurozone capital-exporters, or radically improved external performance for the eurozone as a whole. The former means that Germany becomes far less German. The latter implies that the eurozone becomes a mega-Germany. Who can believe either outcome is plausible?
This leaves much the most plausible outcome of the orgy of fiscal austerity: long-term structural recessions in vulnerable countries. To put it bluntly, the single currency will come to stand for wage falls, debt deflation and prolonged economic slumps. Can this stand, however big the costs of a break-up?
The eurozone has no credible plan to fix the flaws of the eurozone, apart from greater fiscal austerity: there is to be no fiscal, financial or political union; and there is to be no balanced mechanism for economic adjustment on both sides of the creditor-debtor divide. The decision is, instead, to try still harder with a stability and growth pact whose failures have been both predictable and persistent. Yes, Mr Cameron made a blunder last week. But that of the eurozone looks far bigger.
Quote from: DGuller on December 15, 2011, 09:58:43 AM
Quote from: dps on December 15, 2011, 09:20:10 AM
It's not strange looking just because of that, though--there's also the use of a dash in place of a zero (or just a blank space) but I got that and the comma vs period thing. But the part I don't get is the weird placement of the quotation marks.
That's how quotation marks are done in continental Europe, I think. Definitely that's how it was done in Soviet Union.
You know what sucks? Cyrllic cursive. How does a T become an M, a B become a D, or a D become a G, Guller? You tell me that. It's all fucked up.
Roman cursive is pretty shitty too but you rarely see it.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 15, 2011, 10:15:51 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 15, 2011, 09:15:45 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 15, 2011, 03:42:30 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 11:42:57 AM
the ones one i confuses, and only is portuguese, is the swiss and the swedes. sound too damn similar.
That's a Latin American Spanish confusion, false porkchop.
come on, Suecia and Suica are damn close :lol: And i'm not a false pork chop, i'm purely "canadian" (whatever that means :D ) i just speak pork chop :P
No, you don't. You speak an Anglo Canadian Azorean pidgin :contract:
Besides, it's Suécia and Suíça. :D
Anglo Canadian Lisbon, Nazaren, Azorean pidgin, thank you very much :contract: :D. and i don't know how to do the accents :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 10:13:14 AM
QuoteIn this case I'd say that the broader issue would be EU governance.
I'm still not sure what you mean by governance I'm afraid. This doesn't change the structure or duties of the EU bodies from what I understand.
Maybe I could rephrase that and saying further integration instead of governance, which might not have been the best choice of word. Sorry if I'm a bit thick today.
Quote from: The Larch on December 15, 2011, 11:40:52 AM
Maybe I could rephrase that and saying further integration instead of governance, which might not have been the best choice of word. Sorry if I'm a bit thick today.
Not at all I just wanted to be sure.
I think you're right. British people in general don't want integration and they look at the great project of the last 20 years, the Euro, and that prejudice is reinforced. I don't think they're wrong. If we'd joined the Euro, as we almost did in the nineties, it would have been a catastrophe and the Euro wouldn't exist any more. The British sense is also that integration seems to work mainly in things that matter to other countries - our press are under the impression that we don't achieve a great deal in the EU in contrast with the French who are portrayed as playing the game very well.
Personally I've generally always supported the EU and integration, I think every treaty change has led to more democracy which justifies further integration and greater EU competencies. I think that this deal is an enormous step backwards, I find the anger at voters - whether Danish, Dutch, Irish or French - disagreeable but somewhat symptomatic of my problems with where the EU's going. The tension between an elite, technocratic system and popular choice seems inevitable given that what's happening is a body that originally regulated certain economic production and then predominately regulated the running of a common market is now being asked to take an active role in fiscal policy which is far larger, more emotive, more connected to the people and more important. In addition I don't like the way this is going through. Given that it's a very significant change I don't think it should be rushed through under the pressure of the market, but here we are.
In addition as well as the form of this stage of integration I think the content's wrong. As I've made clear I don't think this fiscal union will work, I think it'll increase the pain, recessions and austerity in many countries.
Having said all of that if the rest of the EU thinks this direction is right - I'm not sure they do - and that it's necessary then we should let you get on with it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 12:17:35 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 15, 2011, 11:40:52 AM
Maybe I could rephrase that and saying further integration instead of governance, which might not have been the best choice of word. Sorry if I'm a bit thick today.
Not at all I just wanted to be sure.
I think you're right. British people in general don't want integration and they look at the great project of the last 20 years, the Euro, and that prejudice is reinforced. I don't think they're wrong. If we'd joined the Euro, as we almost did in the nineties, it would have been a catastrophe and the Euro wouldn't exist any more. The British sense is also that integration seems to work mainly in things that matter to other countries - our press are under the impression that we don't achieve a great deal in the EU in contrast with the French who are portrayed as playing the game very well.
Personally I've generally always supported the EU and integration, I think every treaty change has led to more democracy which justifies further integration and greater EU competencies. I think that this deal is an enormous step backwards, I find the anger at voters - whether Danish, Dutch, Irish or French - disagreeable but somewhat symptomatic of my problems with where the EU's going. The tension between an elite, technocratic system and popular choice seems inevitable given that what's happening is a body that originally regulated certain economic production and then predominately regulated the running of a common market is now being asked to take an active role in fiscal policy which is far larger, more emotive, more connected to the people and more important. In addition I don't like the way this is going through. Given that it's a very significant change I don't think it should be rushed through under the pressure of the market, but here we are.
In addition as well as the form of this stage of integration I think the content's wrong. As I've made clear I don't think this fiscal union will work, I think it'll increase the pain, recessions and austerity in many countries.
Having said all of that if the rest of the EU thinks this direction is right - I'm not sure they do - and that it's necessary then we should let you get on with it.
I think that you also have to take something else into account, and it is that, even if the rest of the governments agreed to these new financial measures, it doesn't mean that they like them or want them, but it's more of a "something has to be done about this" kind of thing. These new era is not one where most countries are entering singing praises and happily ahead, but being dragged by the harsh current situation. Everybody would have wanted things to be different, and done well since day 1, but they're the way they are now and we have to deal with them in the current sad state of affairs.
Personally I'm not particulary angry about the UK not wanting to go ahead with this on the basis of the proposals themselves, as I'm not particulary thrilled about them either, but I think that the way it was handled could have been much better, as it made the UK seem like a bit of a prima donna, so to speak, and made way too easy for others to paint a bullseye for criticism on Cameron. For instance, I think that it was Sweden who also voiced similar concerns, but you don't see many consequences for them.
Edit: Regarding the press, I think that it's also a big issue for you as the way EU topics are presented by most UK media really distort public discourse and push it towards a jingoistic and emotional debate that is, ultimately, sterile in order to draw sensible solutions, and shapes public opinion in a way that makes any attempt to resort to direct input by the public senseless as the result would be almost surely negative to any question posed related to the UK and its relationship with the EU.
This Economist article is more or less in agreement with your points :
http://www.economist.com/node/21541840
Though I still think that the UK will be joined by other countries later. More importantly there will be another crisis before the accord takes effect (March 2012) and further action will be required.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 15, 2011, 12:56:02 PM
More importantly there will be another crisis before the accord takes effect (March 2012) and further action will be required.
I personally think that this is the most worrying issue of all. What this crisis has shown is that reaction times have shrunk so much that expediency is seen as the biggest requiriment for any economic decision in answer to the boogeyman that are "the markets", rather than consensus for its implementation or better shaping of the proposals. Governments have to react almost overnight with little time to think things over much, while political realities need much longer reaction times. What's the result? The rise of technocracy, diktats and one-size-fits-all solutions. They're fast, they look good for "the markets" and some of them *might* be right at the end of the day on occasions, but piss off lots of people as a result and stink of a deep bias in many situations.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 10:13:14 AM
And I think the democratic institutions of the Union are also too weak to share the pain and force Cornwall and Manchester to sacrifice for the other's sake.
That's true and given that I doubt the EU could survive a major crisis without doing serious integration and ensuring that it would have the legitimacy to do that.
Quote from: The Larch on December 15, 2011, 12:51:19 PMI think that you also have to take something else into account, and it is that, even if the rest of the governments agreed to these new financial measures, it doesn't mean that they like them or want them, but it's more of a "something has to be done about this" kind of thing. These new era is not one where most countries are entering singing praises and happily ahead, but being dragged by the harsh current situation. Everybody would have wanted things to be different, and done well since day 1, but they're the way they are now and we have to deal with them in the current sad state of affairs.
I agree and it's a very difficult situation - made more difficult by market expectations that were so lovingly stoked by press briefings in the build-up to the summit. Something has to be done, but it should at least work. This deal, I think, undermines the credibility of integration, is being rushed in a way that ignores political and constitutional reality for many member states and is wrong on the policy. Given that this is the direction the EU's going, I'm less happy to support it, but I think we should at least get out of the way.
QuotePersonally I'm not particulary angry about the UK not wanting to go ahead with this on the basis of the proposals themselves, as I'm not particulary thrilled about them either, but I think that the way it was handled could have been much better, as it made the UK seem like a bit of a prima donna, so to speak, and made way too easy for others to paint a bullseye for criticism on Cameron. For instance, I think that it was Sweden who also voiced similar concerns, but you don't see many consequences for them.
Oh no doubt. I think there's a lot of spin on this and it is actually a cock-up for Cameron.
I mean for a start Cameron didn't win any 'safeguards' for the City that'll still be decided by QMV. He's allowed his position to be portrayed as supporting 'Anglo-Saxon neoliberal' regulations. In reality on a number of issues the problem is that the UK wants, like Switzerland, to impose stricter requirements on banks, because they're such a large part of our economy. So for example on capital requirements the EU wants the bare minimum, Germany and France argued for lower at Basel due to the problems in their banks, Britain wanted more at Basel and wants to impose more here. My understanding is that won't be allowed if EU regulation of financial services moves forward. (Edit: That last is the Lib Dem argument in favour of the Cameron: we need to stop the EU regulating the banks so we can be even stricter.)
Beyond that I've read that the government didn't try to sort out a common view with states broadly supportive of the UK position: Sweden, Hungary, the Czechs, possibly Denmark. They also failed to really discuss it, as they should have, with Eurozone friends like Germany, the Netherlands, the Baltics and Finland.
I've tried to think through Cameron's acts and the only justification I can think of is that he didn't realise until that week, when the Tory right started acting up, that he couldn't get something past Parliament and regardless would probably need to have a referendum. Either way I think it's plausible that it'd be the end of his Premiership.
QuoteEdit: Regarding the press, I think that it's also a big issue for you as the way EU topics are presented by most UK media really distort public discourse and push it towards a jingoistic and emotional debate that is, ultimately, sterile in order to draw sensible solutions, and shapes public opinion in a way that makes any attempt to resort to direct input by the public senseless as the result would be almost surely negative to any question posed related to the UK and its relationship with the EU.
I broadly agree, but I think the press element is overstated to be honest.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 02:30:46 PM
......
In reality on a number of issues the problem is that the UK wants, like Switzerland, to impose stricter requirements on banks, because they're such a large part of our economy. So for example on capital requirements the EU wants the bare minimum, Germany and France argued for lower at Basel due to the problems in their banks, Britain wanted more at Basel and wants to impose more here.
......
There seems to be a lot of smoke and mirrors over this question, ''The City' biggin itself up and claiming its 1/4 or 1/5 of all govt. taxation etc. Whereas the latest figures I've seen indicate that financial services are 7.5% of GDP and that included rather pedestrian activities like 'domestic' insurance etc.
To my mind, it looks like Cameron steeled himself and went out to bat for England (the City) but found himself playing on the unused practice wicket, next door to the one the Europeans were playing on.
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2011, 02:40:44 PM
There seems to be a lot of smoke and mirrors over this question, ''The City' biggin itself up and claiming its 1/4 or 1/5 of all govt. taxation etc. Whereas the latest figures I've seen indicate that financial services are 7.5% of GDP and that included rather pedestrian activities like 'domestic' insurance etc.
This could be true. But I've no issue with requiring higher capital requirements than set out in Basel for our banks.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 02:43:40 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2011, 02:40:44 PM
There seems to be a lot of smoke and mirrors over this question, ''The City' biggin itself up and claiming its 1/4 or 1/5 of all govt. taxation etc. Whereas the latest figures I've seen indicate that financial services are 7.5% of GDP and that included rather pedestrian activities like 'domestic' insurance etc.
This could be true. But I've no issue with requiring higher capital requirements than set out in Basel for our banks.
Shelf, I've no disagreement with what you've written, all sound carefully though out stuff, it's just this act of 'the city' biggin itself up has a subtext, which to me seems to be "try and control us and we'll spoil the party, take the ball and go home" or worse.
Meanwhile the rest of the economy is being decimated.
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2011, 02:51:04 PM
Shelf, I've no disagreement with what you've written, all sound carefully though out stuff, it's just this act of 'the city' biggin itself up has a subtext, which to me seems to be try and control us and well spoil the party, take the ball and go home or worse.
I agree. I really can't stand the constant tantrums and threats to run away to Switzerland/Dubai/Hong Kong (though the latter makes sense for Standard Chartered and, eventually, HSBC).
I read a funny Economist article a while ago about some City boys who got transferred to Geneva, motivated by lower taxes and are now begging to come back because they've realised how tediously dull Geneva is :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 03:09:38 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2011, 02:51:04 PM
Shelf, I've no disagreement with what you've written, all sound carefully though out stuff, it's just this act of 'the city' biggin itself up has a subtext, which to me seems to be try and control us and well spoil the party, take the ball and go home or worse.
I agree. I really can't stand the constant tantrums and threats to run away to Switzerland/Dubai/Hong Kong (though the latter makes sense for Standard Chartered and, eventually, HSBC).
I read a funny Economist article a while ago about some City boys who got transferred to Geneva, motivated by lower taxes and are now begging to come back because they've realised how tediously dull Geneva is :lol:
:D
You should read Robert Harris' most recent, set in Geneva and about financial services, quite a good airport read.
http://youtu.be/nQpUTz3B_xs
Wooo, more
If the financial services sector is 7.5% of GDP then it is about the same size as the NHS. However it is also an export-earner, Britain is a bit short of those, so it is an important part of the economy. The tantrums and threats should be ignored, they are just the usual sort of special pleading that is practised by all sectors of the British economy, the government should continue to try and improve regulation IMO. The media tend to assume that the Tories have a soft spot for the City, I'm not so sure, City excesses have brought a lot of general opprobrium on to the heads of rich people; I would imagine that many wealthy Tories are not too pleased about that.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nettavisen.no%2Fmultimedia%2Fna%2Farchive%2F00855%2FSm_r__85576216x9.jpg&hash=40871e523b2e8b9c05103dad8d1e80938c837d41)
in USD that is 73,73 US$ per kilo or 33,44 US$ per pound. No profanities suffice. This is a max price found, not a normal price. But, there are people who get away with selling it at this price.
Enjoy you United Nations #1 quality of life ranking Norway. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2011, 10:37:26 AM
Enjoy you United Nations #1 quality of life ranking Norway. :)
They are building up demand for their impending explosion of butter consumption.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2011, 10:37:26 AM
Enjoy you United Nations #1 quality of life ranking Norway. :)
I can't wait til the US healthcare shortage ends. :)
I can't wait till the extinction-event meteor shortage ends.
Wow, $30 a pound for butter which is about max price, so prices are probably in the $20 range. Sheesh, give up butter. Use one of those other replacements, spreads and such. I assume those are available in Norway? Or are those priced just as high since some contain dairy products anyway?
Heh, in the Denmark do a pound of butter cost around $4 to $5 and that is with 25% VAT + added fat tax...
Fat tax? That's obscene.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 17, 2011, 03:00:01 PM
Fat tax? That's obscene.
Well, after our dear politicians saw how they could control and improve the general populations health, with taxes on tobacco and alcohol, was it time give the fatty food stuff a go. Of course they also have be creative these days, when it comes to finding new ways to get more tax money out the most heavily tax population in the world...
I find guns and revocation of passports usually do the trick.
No guns, no butter, and alcohol costs way more.
Do they tax you for sex, too? Goddamn.
Quote from: JonasSalk on December 17, 2011, 03:40:07 PM
No guns, no butter, and alcohol costs way more.
Do they tax you for sex, too? Goddamn.
Here they have managed to
1 - made selling sex legal
2 - made buying sex illegal
3 - made earning money from providing services to prostitutes
4 - made declining to declare income from selling sex a tax offense
meanwhile Slargos gets beat up by nigerian whores in downtown oslo
I don't see what's wrong with taxing the income of prostitutes.
JS really needs to get off his high horse on this. Especially considering that peanut butter prices have rocketed this year and all the subsidies and protection his state gets on peanuts.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 17, 2011, 06:56:46 PM
Especially considering that peanut butter prices have rocketed this year and all the subsidies and protection his state gets on peanuts.
Indeed. It's been difficult for me. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on December 17, 2011, 06:56:46 PM
JS really needs to get off his high horse on this. Especially considering that peanut butter prices have rocketed this year and all the subsidies and protection his state gets on peanuts.
So I support those subsidies? Nope.
Idiot.
You started this post to mock one country for protectionist policies, I'm merely pointing out similar polices in your home state. I wonder what the economic impact of getting rid of Peanut subsidies and quotas would be.
I don't think peanuts are protected or subsidized.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2011, 08:49:43 PM
I don't think peanuts are protected or subsidized.
You don't? Try looking up "Peanut subsidies".
Of course they're protected, that's what the shell is for.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 17, 2011, 08:32:10 PM
You started this post to mock one country for protectionist policies, I'm merely pointing out similar polices in your home state. I wonder what the economic impact of getting rid of Peanut subsidies and quotas would be.
Georgia does not impose a tariff on or prohibit foreign peanuts from coming to Georgia. If Georgia could or did, I'd mock it too, just like I mock you.
US Constitution Article I, Section 8:
QuoteThe Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Retard.
Peanuts are ridiculously cheap, hard to believe somebody would pay to ship them halfway around the world and make a profit.
Misdirection. We all know who where tariffs are enacted, but it's dishonest to point to the feds and say "we have no part in this". But then, you tried to pass Russian Propaganda off as news here, so you may not be dishonest, just dumb.