Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook
Featured G7 Minimal Kemba Walker Jack Nicklaus Ange Postecoglou Postmaster General DeJoy

reads.

The right is a financially irresponsible party

Right , by Jan-Tore Sanner (VG, 14.12) and Henrik Asheim (Daily, 14.12), set in motion a lament over venstresidens a lack of understanding of the Conservative failed policies for value creation, which they believe is responsible.

Columnist Roman Linneberg Eliassen

is the msc, author and director of the Rethinking Economics Norway. He is affiliated with tankesmien Manifest.

Last published posts for world-class Projects are the projects that take the world's climate challenges seriously Civita grope in the ideological skrivebordsskuffen the Right-hand side must let the business community do its job I did not think the private næringsfrihet meant free access to the state funds Training need not take place in the school

Values must be created before they are shared, sounds the chorus. It is of course correct. But the rest of the song is fake.

Sanner charges Ap to have ceased to be a pragmatic styringsparti. One of the examples is that Jonas Gahr Støre will "stop the commercialization of welfare services". As I previously have argued, does not lead the commercialization of the well being of any additional value. About day care centers operated in public or commercial director, is in itself indifferent for the value added – it provides the same impact on gross domestic product.

But it is a business / political blunder to draw private capital into the tasks the public sector can solve the fine – and better – even. We have use of the private capital in other places.

That the Right does not see this , and insist on the commercial actors in the welfare, can hardly be understood as other than a manifestation of either the ideology or the defense of economic vested interests. Policies for value creation, it is in any case not.

Sanner are concerned that the Ap has supported proposals for a more environmentally friendly fish farming industry and that we should take more of the klimakuttene at home. He is afraid of a shift in the oil - and næringspolitikken if the present coalition will receive power after the next elections. He has not been that it is just that we need to meet our climate obligations and have something to live off after the oil? A green shift? Is it responsible to ignore this?

That the Ap is showing signs of vigor and political ambitions, are then really not something to be afraid of.

Asheims business is to explain how the Conservative tax policy: Cuts in taxes do that "companies (...) can hire more and invest more". It reminds about the good old Reaganomics: If the rich get more money to spend, will prosperity magically "trickle down" to the rest of the population. Works out there?

tax cuts can in theory increase the demand, but the effect is uncertain and varying. As both SSB-researcher Geir Bjertnæs and LOs chief economist Roger Bjørnstad has been shown (DN, 02.10), does not seem the government's tax cuts have led to increased investments and value creation. The recovery we have had in the past, is far weaker than previously oppganger. It is not a skrytepunkt for the government's tax policy, on the contrary. The only sure effect of it is that it makes the rich richer.

About the Conservative goals actually is to increase the value added and demand, it is more precise to use the money over the state budget, for example, by increasing public investment in green technology and industry. But it looks they may not, because of an ideological notion that value creation must happen in the private sector?

Sanner delivers the crown on the work: "We go for a time in the meeting where the revenue from the oil and gas industry can go down, at the same time as we become more elderly. Then it is bekymringsfult [sic] that the left does not take the need that we must create [sic] more profitable jobs in the private sector, to finance the welfare."

the Government's own Perspektivmelding from 2017 to show that we will have a "inndekningsbehov" in the welfare state in the future if we are to maintain the welfare services and benefits when the "eldrebølgen" washes over our country. A part of the solution to the challenge is to increase taxes, it says in the message. Nevertheless, the Right cut in taxes. Who is there here that leads an irresponsible economic policy?

Mon believe what the Right really do? It hangs well together on a show:

A hollow turning of the welfare the tax base can pave the way for even more commercial actors in the welfare. With the lack of public funding, we can get the higher co-payments in the welfare, which will affect the poorest and sickest most.

As nils henrik Asheim says: tax cuts leads to that people get to keep more of their money themselves. And if we then at the same time weakens the welfare finansieringsgrunnlag, people must use this money to pay for welfare services. Those who have the most money, get the best services. But is that how we want it in the welfare state of the Uk?

the Right should in any case stop to worry that the other is showing signs of a visionary policies for the future of Norway. What is worrying, is that we lack a industripolitisk plan for the green shift. It must all political parties embark in.

Therefore, we hope that also fossilpartiet Right pandering itself from its ideological straitjacket, and being a pragmatic, responsible styringsparti – so we can ensure future value creation and welfare.

Avatar
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.