We need a politics of value creation

Lars Kolbeinstve it from tankesmien Civita has written a response to my text where I argued against the Conservative misunderstood policies for value creation.

Columnist Roman Linneberg Eliassen

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

Last published posts Right is a financially irresponsible party 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 state funds,

I wrote that the government's tax cuts do not seem to have contributed to the creation of value, that it is irresponsible to cut taxes at the same time as the "inndekningsbehovet" in government finances increases, that the green shift requires a significant change in the næringspolitikken, and that the private capital in the velferdstjenestene do not contribute to more value creation – rather, it is a bad application of a productive resource we need in other places. In sum, it is difficult to see that the Right lead a good policy for value creation.

Their economic policies are perceived as irresponsible.

This gets Kolbeinstveit to assert that I have "a narrow view of how the economy works", "utdefinerer private capital from the service production" and "advocated a very radical and closed economic system".

I don't know where he take this from, and it is a pity if the debate should be at this level. We need a sensible discussion about the division of labour between the private and the public sector if we are to solve future challenges, in the community – so we also have solved challenges in the past.

Kolbeinstveit hangs in my point that "there 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." It seems he is a peculiar argument.

so Let me try to explain it again: The private capital has an alternative application. Every penny invested in the welfare – or, for the part – poured into an overbought housing market, is a potential penny not invested in productive businesses for the future. The private capital must do things the public sector can't do just as well. It provides no additional value added that commercial operators driver kindergartens instead of the municipality.

It was my main point here. But in addition, we risk that the interest of private profit comes at the expense of the quality of the services.

This is not to "utdefinere private capital from the service production". I was in the store no later than this morning, well happy to have bought it I should have. But to sell bread and coffee is not the same as selling a sykehjems - or kindergarten – where the user is vulnerable, and the care and faglighet are the central characteristics of the business, not to sell the most possible at the lowest possible price.

Barnehagedrift is the creation of value, regardless of whether it is powered municipal, ideal or commercial. But in commercial operation, there is also an element of verditaking on top of this – part of the municipal grants to child care centers end up in the pocket of the owners. It is unnecessary, not value creation – it creates not a single new workplace.

It seems so that Right and the government leads a policy of economic special interests – the important thing is to facilitate the easy money, and then it is not as carefully whether it can make money on, is useful for the community?

the Right-hand side must let the business community do its job Columnist

There are several signs that indicate this. I pointed out that the government's tax cuts do not seem to have increased investment and demand in the economy, and that it would be "more precise to use the money over the state budget, for example, by increasing public investment in green technology and industry."

This seems Kolbeinstveit is very radically. But it is actually only simple economic theory: tax cuts have an indirect and uncertain effect on demand. Tax cuts contribute only to the increased demand and the creation of value if those who get the skattekuttene, choose to spend more money. So does not seem to have happened with the government's tax cuts, something Kolbeinstveit ignore completely.

Money spent over the state budget, however, has a direct effect on demand. If one instead had used the money that has gone to tax cuts, to increase the investments (building lyntog, to take an example), would demand increased.

tax cuts to people with regular income would also have been more precise than tax cuts to the wealthiest because the wealthiest save a larger proportion of their income, and savings provides no stimulus to the economy. The government's tax cuts for the richest seem to contribute little other than to make them even richer.

When it is said , it is of course no guarantee that public investment is successful. Both private and public investment may fail or they may succeed. In the time ahead it will be crucial that we succeed with a green manufacturing and teknologisatsing – and then we need to add to ensure that both the private and public sector jobs for this goal.

Then we need a policy for the creation of value, by means of regulations, incentives and subsidies make it profitable to invest in the green shift. We do this already, but we need to do much more if we are to meet our climate obligations. The state can, as a long-term player, go ahead and invest in projects that appear too risky for the private capital – and thus help to create new profitable markets that can attract private capital.

We need a innovation policies that understand this interaction between the public and private sectors, and share the risk between them.

these investments is also essential to ensure the future welfare when we need utfase the petroleum industry. When Kolbeinstveit avfeier the desire for such discussions with that I have "a narrow view of the economy", it is, to say the least, constructive. And it helps at least not to weaken the perception of that right is bound by an ideological straitjacket in its policies for the "creation of value".

the Right is a financially irresponsible party Columnist