5 ms·

>Still, in Norway, oil wealth may have made the state reluctant to make reforms or cut subsidies unthinkable elsewhere. Farm subsidies allow farmers, for instan

>Still, in Norway, oil wealth may have made the state reluctant to make reforms or cut subsidies unthinkable elsewhere. Farm subsidies allow farmers, for instance, to keep dairy cows in heated barns in the Arctic. and the alternative? Milking polar bears? To compare, Canada has 1M dairy cows for 35M population, Norway - 300K for 5M population (Norway is self-sufficient milk producer and exporter of dairy products). Giving the health benefits of dairy (incl. in cold climate areas, for children and elderly) i'd say it is good investment, not "unthinkable subsidy". More on the Canada's (usually one would think of it as a pretty reasonable country) "subsidy-less" approach - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy_farming_in_Canada#Supply_management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy_farming_in_Canada#Supply_... : "Dairy farming has been subject to the system of supply management since the 1970s. It restricts the supply of milk by limiting and controlling the amount produced domestically and starkly limiting imports with high tariffs. With a restricted supply, the prices increase, increasing profits for the farmers.[4] Though this system allows the federal and provincial governments to avoid subsidizing the farmers directly, consumers instead subsidize dairy farmers in through artificially high prices paid for groceries. ... To keep supply low and prices high, it has been made deliberately difficult to become a new dairy farmer in Canada. Because the dairy industry is so lucrative, the right to own a single dairy cow is worth $28,000 (this does not include the actual price or value of the cow itself) "

JumpCrisscross 13y ago
>and the alternative? Milking polar bears? Understanding Ricardian/comparative advantage, recognising that dairy is not a matter of national security, and importing it.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >Understanding Ricardian/comparative advantage, recognising that dairy is not a matter of national security, and importing it. A country can do without uranium, it can't do without dairy. As another example of food security being a matter of national security - look what happened to Egypt 2+ years ago once wheat prices rose - for years before that Egypt was geared ("international specialization") toward fruits/strawberries/etc... production for export while becoming world's biggest wheat importer.
  - lgieron 13y ago
    It doesn't really matter if they produced wheat or not - as it's a globally traded commodity, the price of Egyptian wheat would've been the same (unless the country stepped out of international free trade agreements, which would've had massive consequences).
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      that's the point - Egypt didn't take necessary measures for their food security. I lived through food/gas shortages and high prices at the end of USSR so i think i know how Egypt people felt. Now living in the US i appreciate the US disregard for international free trade agreements when it comes to food and gas - i.e. farmers subsidies and prohibition for oil export - thus making sure that shortages and high-prices of 197x have much less chances of happening again. Free trade is a great idea, yet it works only when implemented by all participants to the same extent and it just doesn't make any sense when implemented unilaterally (or by minor number of participants and/or to different degree).
      - eru 13y ago
        The high food prices of the mid 2000's were most severe in commodities that were the least internationally traded..
    - nhaehnle 13y ago
      ... massive consequences such as keeping your population alive. Don't buy into the free market propaganda too much. The biggest proponents of free market propaganda (I am looking at the EU and the US) have programs that explicitly target food security. Neither would hesitate to introduce export controls to prevent famine-induced revolts.
  - marcosdumay 13y ago
    Food security is not the same as milk security. Food security is a matter of national security, milk security is not. A country can do quite well with a reduced supply of milk. In Egypt the cost of weat increased toghether with the price of all other grains. And people need grains (but not weat), so they revolted. Also, what their agriculture changed for is not very relevant, the root of the problem is that their agriculture does not produce enough value for direct consuption or exchange into food (what made their money worth less, and imported food expensive). Growing fruits probably helped reduce the problem.
- throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
  If it were a matter of national security, it would all the better to trade. Oil is a top strategic commodity: if people had refused to rely on foreign imports, for one thing we wouldn't be in this thread since Norway would be quite poor. Continental Europe would be poor too, since they don't have oil. But at least they'd be "secure" in that poverty.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    Unless your ports are blockaded by the enemy. Exactly because of the oil, and because of the strategic position in access to the Russian arctic (the Russian Northern fleet can be blocked in if you have sufficient control in Northern Norway), in the case of any major war Norway is likely to find itself either blockaded or occupied or both.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Food security is considered a matter of national security in Norway. Perfect timing, as Norway is currently gearing up for the celebration of 200 years since the Norwegian constitution.... which was preceded by years of famine due to a British naval blockade (Norway was dragged into the Napoleonic wars due to Denmark, so the British blockaded our ports for 5 years) It is something that is well remembered, in particularly thanks to the poem Terje Vigen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terje_Vigen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terje_Vigen) by Henrik Ibsen, about a man who tried to run the blockade in a rowboat to smuggle food for his starving family from Denmark, only to be imprisoned by the British and upon his release in 1814 finding his family had died. It's a poem that is central to teaching of Norwegian literature in schools, and also often brought up in history classes, including in primary school.
Erwin 13y ago
Those cows and other types of food are also well-protected through insane customs fees. Thus summer, Danish cheese exported to Norway has a 277% import fee. Lamb 429%. Supposedly the new government toned things down. Norway (and Switzerland) are one of the few countries not part of EU.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  Canada is the same (from the same link above): "Past this amount, tariffs are exceptionally high, in the neighbourhood of 246% for cheese and over 300% for butter. "
  - nisse72 13y ago
    Apparently cheese is so expensive in Canada that there are (profitable!) cheese smuggling rings: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19751695 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19751695
eloff 13y ago
When I was a kid growing up in Canada we used to smuggle cheese across the border, because it was 4x cheaper in the US. Brought 120lbs over in one run along with computer parts and other things Canadians pay too much for.
wmf 13y ago
the right to own a single dairy cow is worth $28,000 Has anyone started Moober ("it's Uber for cows") to disrupt this yet?
hackbinary 13y ago
Just to be clear, when I lived in Canada, I never thought Canadian milk or cheese expensive, nor did I feel that "luxury" dairy products, mostly imported cheeses, where out of reach. With the ongoing problems that Britain has with their 'unregulated' dairy industry, perhaps how the Canadians are managing their dairy industry is better. Even the lack of regulation is a form of regulation.

JumpCrisscross 13y ago

>and the alternative? Milking polar bears? Understanding Ricardian/comparative advantage, recognising that dairy is not a matter of national security, and importing it.

VladRussian2 13y ago
>Understanding Ricardian/comparative advantage, recognising that dairy is not a matter of national security, and importing it. A country can do without uranium, it can't do without dairy. As another example of food security being a matter of national security - look what happened to Egypt 2+ years ago once wheat prices rose - for years before that Egypt was geared ("international specialization") toward fruits/strawberries/etc... production for export while becoming world's biggest wheat importer.
- lgieron 13y ago
  It doesn't really matter if they produced wheat or not - as it's a globally traded commodity, the price of Egyptian wheat would've been the same (unless the country stepped out of international free trade agreements, which would've had massive consequences).
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    that's the point - Egypt didn't take necessary measures for their food security. I lived through food/gas shortages and high prices at the end of USSR so i think i know how Egypt people felt. Now living in the US i appreciate the US disregard for international free trade agreements when it comes to food and gas - i.e. farmers subsidies and prohibition for oil export - thus making sure that shortages and high-prices of 197x have much less chances of happening again. Free trade is a great idea, yet it works only when implemented by all participants to the same extent and it just doesn't make any sense when implemented unilaterally (or by minor number of participants and/or to different degree).
    - eru 13y ago
      The high food prices of the mid 2000's were most severe in commodities that were the least internationally traded..
  - nhaehnle 13y ago
    ... massive consequences such as keeping your population alive. Don't buy into the free market propaganda too much. The biggest proponents of free market propaganda (I am looking at the EU and the US) have programs that explicitly target food security. Neither would hesitate to introduce export controls to prevent famine-induced revolts.
- marcosdumay 13y ago
  Food security is not the same as milk security. Food security is a matter of national security, milk security is not. A country can do quite well with a reduced supply of milk. In Egypt the cost of weat increased toghether with the price of all other grains. And people need grains (but not weat), so they revolted. Also, what their agriculture changed for is not very relevant, the root of the problem is that their agriculture does not produce enough value for direct consuption or exchange into food (what made their money worth less, and imported food expensive). Growing fruits probably helped reduce the problem.
throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
If it were a matter of national security, it would all the better to trade. Oil is a top strategic commodity: if people had refused to rely on foreign imports, for one thing we wouldn't be in this thread since Norway would be quite poor. Continental Europe would be poor too, since they don't have oil. But at least they'd be "secure" in that poverty.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Unless your ports are blockaded by the enemy. Exactly because of the oil, and because of the strategic position in access to the Russian arctic (the Russian Northern fleet can be blocked in if you have sufficient control in Northern Norway), in the case of any major war Norway is likely to find itself either blockaded or occupied or both.
vidarh 13y ago
Food security is considered a matter of national security in Norway. Perfect timing, as Norway is currently gearing up for the celebration of 200 years since the Norwegian constitution.... which was preceded by years of famine due to a British naval blockade (Norway was dragged into the Napoleonic wars due to Denmark, so the British blockaded our ports for 5 years) It is something that is well remembered, in particularly thanks to the poem Terje Vigen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terje_Vigen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terje_Vigen) by Henrik Ibsen, about a man who tried to run the blockade in a rowboat to smuggle food for his starving family from Denmark, only to be imprisoned by the British and upon his release in 1814 finding his family had died. It's a poem that is central to teaching of Norwegian literature in schools, and also often brought up in history classes, including in primary school.

Erwin 13y ago

Those cows and other types of food are also well-protected through insane customs fees. Thus summer, Danish cheese exported to Norway has a 277% import fee. Lamb 429%. Supposedly the new government toned things down. Norway (and Switzerland) are one of the few countries not part of EU.

VladRussian2 13y ago
Canada is the same (from the same link above): "Past this amount, tariffs are exceptionally high, in the neighbourhood of 246% for cheese and over 300% for butter. "
- nisse72 13y ago
  Apparently cheese is so expensive in Canada that there are (profitable!) cheese smuggling rings: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19751695 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19751695

eloff 13y ago

When I was a kid growing up in Canada we used to smuggle cheese across the border, because it was 4x cheaper in the US. Brought 120lbs over in one run along with computer parts and other things Canadians pay too much for.

wmf 13y ago

the right to own a single dairy cow is worth $28,000 Has anyone started Moober ("it's Uber for cows") to disrupt this yet?

hackbinary 13y ago

Just to be clear, when I lived in Canada, I never thought Canadian milk or cheese expensive, nor did I feel that "luxury" dairy products, mostly imported cheeses, where out of reach. With the ongoing problems that Britain has with their 'unregulated' dairy industry, perhaps how the Canadians are managing their dairy industry is better. Even the lack of regulation is a form of regulation.