FW: Big strike in Norway!
Big strike in Norway! 64.3% of the unionmembers voted no to the result of the negotiations, and that is yes to strike. On wednesday third of may the strike begins. The result of collective bargaining between the Confederation of trade unions in Norway and the largest employers organisation this spring is not welcome among a large part of the members of the unions. Today they have begun to vote the result, and during friday 28. april will the result be known. It is negative the strike will start on wednesday third of may. The result of the bargaining was one more week of vacation and only 30 cents more pay per hour. This is considerably less than expected, since the bosses have increased their wages a lot more. Another disappointment was that the funding of the agreement about life long education was not put in place. Everybody in Norway now has the right to leave their work for some time to get more education, whatever they want, up to three years, and then return and get their old position back. But the demand of the unions is that this leave should be paid. Both the trade unions, the government and the employers should pay. The government is willing to pay whatever it is. There is a large majority in parliament for this arrangement. But the trouble is that the employers are not willing to pay if they are not allowed to decide who is going to further education, and which kind of education. The strike is expected, and it is reported that the Norwegian currency is dropping on the bourses because of the expected strike. In two days we will know if there is a big strike. Because it is going to big since 45% of the workforce is organised in this confederation of labour unions. I am just now reading Alain Touraine: "What is Democracy". "-,working-class consciousness is at its highest when there is a direct conflict between autonomous skilled workers and managerial methods that are destroying their autonomy, incorporating them into an authoritarian and centrally managed system of production and thus making them dependent. What is known as the labour movement is made up of two contradictionary forces: on the one hand, revolutionary socialism, which seeks to take power in order to liberate oppressed workers and people, and therefore usually establishes an authoritarian regime; on the other hand, the true labour movement, which is based on the rights of workers who contribute their skills, experience and labour to the process of production. (page 92) "Democracy does not triumph when political action prevails over social struggle. On the contrary, it triumphs when class actors are defined in such positive terms that they are in controll of political action and can legitimize their actions in terms of basic rights and the construction of a new citizenship." (page 93) And I think that this idea of lifelong education is about the basic right to create your own life according to your own liking. -- All the best Tor Førde email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW: Big striek in Norway?
Hello. The result of collective bargaining between the Confederation of trade unions in Norway and the largest employers organisation this spring is not welcome among a large part of the members of the unions. Today they have begun to vote the result, and during friday 28. april will the result be known. It is negative the strike will start on wednesday third of may. The result of the bargaining was one more week of vacation and only 30 cents more pay per hour. This is considerably less than expected, since the bosses have increased their wages a lot more. Another disappointment was that the funding of the agreement about life long education was not put in place. Everybody in Norway now has the right to leave their work for some time to get more education, whatever they want, up to three years, and then return and get their old position back. But the demand of the unions is that this leave should be paid. Both the trade unions, the government and the employers should pay. The government is willing to pay whatever it is. There is a large majority in parliament for this arrangement. But the trouble is that the employers are not willing to pay if they are not allowed to decide who is going to further education, and which kind of education. The strike is expected, and it is reported that the Norwegian currency is dropping on the bourses because of the expected strike. In two days we will know if there is a big strike. Because it is going to big since 45% of the workforce is organised in this confederation of labour unions. -- All the best Tor Førde email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing (fwd)
Hi Ray! Ray E. Harrell wrote: Just a question. Who pays the salaries for all of these folks doing free things and giving up their ideas for nothing? Lots of the programmes which make up Linux are made by students and other persons working at universities. The kernel of Linux was made by Thorvald Linus at the university of Helsinki. When it became a success the university paid Linus for several years to go on devolping the kernel, and that university is financed by the governement of Finland. Linus got a scientific position, and was allowed to do whatever he wanted to do, and that was to study and develop the kernel of Linux. -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lifelong education
I wrote few weeks ago that the Confederation of Trade Unions in Norway wants to fund the right to get education, that is to give people who wants further education which is not part of their job, the right to get this on paid leave from their work. This was the main issue in the negotiations with the companies' organisation a short time ago. The agreement became that this shall be settled next year. That does not mean that the work about this issue is come to a stand still for a year. There is a large majority in the Parliament who wants this too, and therefore the work goes on there to both make it a right according to the laws to get this in place both by writing this into law and by working out arrangements that give people of all groups, not only ordinary students, right to scholarships. All students get scholarships which covers about 35% of their expences. The last two year as much as about 50% of all norwegians have been retrained or reeducated because of new technology or new organisation of their workplace, according to "Statistik Sentralbyraa" - URL:http://www.ssb.no/ And this have been considered a part of their work, so a continous reeducation is going on all the time. And many groups already have these rights that is coming into law now. All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW Lifelong education
The Norwegian Confederation of trade unions has decided that by the first of january 2000 shall all Norwegian workers have the right to paid leave up to three years in a stretch to get further education. The rule shall be that two years of work gives the right to one year paid leave for education. It is all to be found at URL::http://www.lo.no/tariff99/handlingsplan.html The negations are now going on. Today it is conflict about how to pay this, and there might be a strike. In Norway about 60% of the population are members of the trade unions, and that means that the trade unions are strong, maybe stronger than in any country outside Scandinavia. The Norwegian Confederation of trade unions has hardly ever lost a conflict. It is boasting that in the hard conflicts that went all over Europe after World War I, in the early twenties, it achieved more in Norway than trade unions achieved in any other country. It is exciting! -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Correction: FW: Lifelong education]
I wrote this two weeks ago: Tor Forde wrote: I have earler been writing about the work to make it a right for everyone in Norway to be able to go on and get additional education whenever anybody wants to do it. I have in earlier postings mentioned that the largest Confederation of Tradeunions (LO) and the largest industrial organisation (NHO) have agreed upon such an arrangement. But there were still two problems to solve: One was that when the funding was in place, and everybody was able to take a leave for education with pay, firms that were not members of NHO would profit as much as NHO members from a better qualified population, but since they had not signed the agreement they did not have to pay the costs. But now this is solved, because today the Parliament of Norway has decided that everybody in Norway, at any age, has the right to go on to further education and return to their old position if the education does not last longer than three years. And this is going to be with some pay. Well, the funding is not there at this moment. But so many persons have put in so much prestige that it is going to come. Now I have been reading the text that was voted, and what happened was two things: Another piece in the puzzle to make real a lifelong education system was put in place. Today more than 90% of norwegians get at least 12 years of education and can without too much trouble qualify for university education. But that was not the case 30-40 years ago, when lots of people left the educational system after primary school. Many of them have during life learnt a lot without getting documents and exams. They too should be able to go to university if they would like to when the new system is in place without too much trouble, without spending many years getting exams if they have acquired the skills and knowledge necessary to enter university. And the new piece was a law about measuring qualifications needed to enter university studies which makes it a lot easier for persons who left the educational system after primary school if they during life have acquired the qualifications. Another thing that happened was that political parties representing a majority of the voters said that they are eager to get the whole system in place, and I guess this was the reason that media, both TV and radio etc told that now it is in place. Tor Forde
FW: Lifelong education
I have earler been writing about the work to make it a right for everyone in Norway to be able to go on and get additional education whenever anybody wants to do it. I have in earlier postings mentioned that the largest Confederation of Tradeunions (LO) and the largest industrial organisation (NHO) have agreed upon such an arrangement. But there were still two problems to solve: One was that when the funding was in place, and everybody was able to take a leave for education with pay, firms that were not members of NHO would profit as much as NHO members from a better qualified population, but since they had not signed the agreement they did not have to pay the costs. But now this is solved, because today the Parliament of Norway has decided that everybody in Norway, at any age, has the right to go on to further education and return to their old position if the education does not last longer than three years. And this is going to be with some pay. Well, the funding is not there at this moment. But so many persons have put in so much prestige that it is going to come. -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: rights/responsibilities
Steve Kurtz wrote: Dear Thomas, Your axe is social justice; mine is long term habitat health and minimization of scarcity induced conflicts. You accept the system at base, and plea for redistribution of credits. My view is equal slices of an insufficient renewable pie results in maximum suffering and dieoff. Of course, you may not think the pie is insufficient! It is certainly not right to construct a conflict between social justice and ecological concerns! Therefore I do not think that the solution to overpopulation is to starve the "unnecessary" people to death, or hope for their annihilation by war and plague. Today it looks like that the European populations are trying to eliminate themselves. I no country in Europe are so many children born that the children will replace their parents generation. In Italy the population will be reduced by 50% within a century, since the average woman in Italy gives birth to less than 1.4 child. Some countries are producing more children than they can raise and feed - but in Europe so few children are born, and have been born after 1970, that the development of European societies will be hampered few decades ahead. The reason is I guess that women in Europe are free to decide themselves how many children they will have. The most important reason to overpopulation is the supression of women in those countries which are producing more children than they can feed. To prevent overpopulation one has to given poor women a larger slice of the pie, an equal slice of the pie, and education and the possibility to run their own lives. -- All the best Tor Førde
Re: Marx required angelic robots
Hi Eva! Durant wrote: Jay Hanson: for this deformity, and why do you think we would willingly repeat the same mistakes? Why do you think we won't repeat the same mistakes? I am afraid that history is on my side Eva. Jay Hanson knows nothing about history. actually, after a while there is enough experience to do it better, that is what human progress is about. We are able to learn eventually. If you don't think so, you are really well placed at dieoff... Eva Eva. It is impossible to discuss with a person (Jay Hanson) who is calling everybody a liar. But I am on your side. -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Canada's claim to be best country may be shot down
Tom Walker wrote: The Calgary Herald Sept. 8, 1998 Canada's claim to be best country may be shot down By DENNIS BUECKERT OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's claim to be the world's best country to live in will take a hit when the United Nations releases its annual Human Development Report this week. The new report was published on Internet today. Sweden is country number 1. Look at http://www.undp.org/undp/hdro/98.htm All the best email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW Survey Foreword 1998
http://www.icftu.org/english/turights/survey1998/etusurvey1998Foreword.html -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Title: Survey Foreword 1998 ANNUAL SURVEY OF VIOLATIONS OF TRADE UNION RIGHTS - 1998 FOREWORD Fifty years after the International Labour Organisation (ILO) adopted Convention 87 establishing freedom of association in international law, this right is still being violated with impunity on every continent. Even more disturbing is that the trend which emerges from this 1998 survey of trade union rights violations around the world is one of increasing repression, provoked in part by trade union action to denounce the harmful effects of the globalisation of the economy. The rapid spread of export processing zones across Africa combined with the social impact of structural adjustment plans led trade unions in many African countries to go on the offensive against the ever greater exploitation of the workforce as well as, in many countries, growing delays in the payment of wages. Faced with mounting discontent, most governments refused to negotiate with workers representatives and some, such as Nigerias military dictatorship, simply stepped up their repression. Repression has also continued in Latin America where neoliberal policies have accentuated inequalities and proved totally ineffective in solving the problems of unemployment and underemployment. Colombia remains the continents black spot. 156 trade unionists were killed there in 1997, many the victims of paramilitary groups, some of which operate hand in hand with the security forces of the Colombian government. A lot of these murders took place while trade unions were in negotiation. And virtually all have remained unpunished. The dramatic fall of the Asian tigers, which only yesterday were seen as the motors of world growth, represents the most crushing defeat in 1997 of the advocates of unbridled capitalism. Because they dared warn of this crisis, because they dared point to the frailty of economies built on speculation, nepotism and corruption, many trade unionists found themselves behind bars. In countries such as Indonesia, where the independent trade union movement remains suppressed, the mass dismissals and widespread poverty caused by the crisis sowed the seeds of an unprecedented social explosion. Incapable of solving the unemployment crisis affecting more than 18 million people in Europe, some governments have shown themselves to be more adept at unravelling their social welfare systems or further curtailing trade union rights. In the transition countries of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as in the countries of the former Soviet Union, the payment of wage arrears has become one of the principal trade union demands. At a time when all too many are still refusing to acknowledge the link between world trade and social rights, our survey confirms the impact of the globalisation of the economy on the lives and rights of workers, as well as on the activities of the organisations whose job it is to make their voices heard. As national boundaries become blurred, rules established at the national level, often after years of social struggle, are becoming as irrelevant as they are ineffective. In this context, freedom of association, established by the ILO as a universal right, has never been so crucial to working people. As is the need to include social clauses in international trade agreements, in order to ensure that globalisation furthers the cause of social justice, and benefits those who create the wealth. It is driven by this cause that men and women trade unionists daily continue their struggle, often risking their freedom, even their lives. Their courage should inspire all those fighting for a fairer world. Bill Jordan General Secretary The violations of trade union rights reported in this survey took place in 1997. The survey was written by Kathryn Hodder of the ICFTU Trade Union Rights Department and edited by Bernie Russell. Back to Main Menu of ICFTU Annual Survey of Violations of Trade Union Rights - 1998
Re: Crony capitalism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It puzzles me that with respect to this discussion on Asian cronyism, there has been no mention of "Family Circles." Family circles have a long history among the more successful ethnic groups in the U.S. They are very visible in Asian ethnic neighborhoods in New York City and San Francisco and Los Agneles. Large family circles can have thousands of members and are managed by a very formal administrative structure. (snip) If the U.S. is successful in reducing social relations throughout the world to complete isolation, I fear the violence and the almosat psychotic disconnection that that will produce among people who lose their former kinship bonds with the community. The Protestant Reformation, while it may have accelerated the economics of capitalism, also destroyed the social safety net that had been informally built throughout the Middle Ages. The church began much earlier than the protestant reformation to destroy family relations within Europe. There is an article about this subject (in Norwegian) on the web at URL::http://www.aftenposten.no/bakgr/980606/kronikk.htm written by professor Jan Broegger at the university of Trondheim. He writes that few centuries after csar Constantine the church was the largest owner of land in Europe. It is estimated that in the seventh century the church owned a third of all cultivated land in France. To get this land the church declared lots of family relations to be sin and illegal. People were not allowed to marry anyone they had any kind of family relations with. By breaking down family relations this way the church became able to take over large parts of the cultivated land of Europe. In the kingdom of Naples (Souther Italy + Sicily) the catolic church owned something like 70% of all land 200 years ago. The church controlled almost everthing in the countryside, and that part of Europe was the most backward part of Europe, only comparable to Russia. Research about the church's destruction of traditional famlily relations within Europe is to be found in the book "The development of the family and marriage in Europe" written by Professor Jack Goody at Cambridge, published by Cambridge University press 1983, according to professor Jan Broegger. This destruction started as soon as the christian church became the dominant religion within Europe. But when the power of the church was weakened it was possible to build other structures of solidarity which was not controlled by the church. -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: chimpanzeehood
Ed Weick wrote: The only important point I tried to make about agriculture is that its invention permitted people to accumulate a surplus that would permit survival in difficult times and would, once the surplus was sufficiently large, permit population to grow and the detachment of part of that population from food production. Only a small part of the population benefitted from the stored surplus. To quote Ferdnand Braudel again, from "The structures of everyday life" - page 74: "France, by any standards a privileged country, is reckoned to have experienced 10 general famines during the tenth century, 26 in the eleventh, 2 in the twelfth, 4 in the fourteenth, 7 in the fifteenth, 13 in the sixteenth, 11 in the seventeenth and 16 in the eighteenth. While on cannot guarantee the accuracy of this eighteenth century calculations, the only risk it runs is over-optimism, because it omits the hundreds and hundreds of local famines (in Maine, in 1739, 1752, 1770 and 1785 for example), and in the south-west in 1628, 1631, 1643, 1662, 1694, 1698, 1709 and 1713." And: "The peasants lived in a state of dependence on merchants, towns and nobles, and had scarcely any reserves of their own" (page 74). Hunger was a part of everyday life. In Norway a conscription army was established about 1650, and we therfore have reports telling about the health of the male population for quite a long time. Mostly because of hunger people 150 years ago and more developed so slowly physically that they were not grown up before they were 28-30 years old. Norwegian men were on average 165 cm tall when they were 22 years old in 1760. And they stayed rather small all the time until about 1920. Today norwegians and people living in the Netherlands are the tallest persons in the World. A century ago norwegian men 20 years old were on average about 168 cm tall, today they are more than 180 cm tall. Lack of food in winter and spring was normal. In "The Economy of Cities" Jane Jacobs suggests that urban development was the driving force in the development of agriculture - i.e., the fact that people began concentrating in cities and could not produce their own food meant that a system had to be developed to produce food for them. Perhaps this was so. Not in Europe north of the Alps. Towns did not occur (but the few the Romans based, like Cologne) until after the heavy plow became usual and after the horse harness had been developed so far that horses could pull the heavy plow, and that happend 500-800 after Christ. Towns occured after the countryside had developed so far that it might feed towns. I don't know why someone would suggest that health deteriorated with the development of agriculture. It may have in some cases. For example, the Indian population of the Caribbean was undoubtedly healthier before Europeans converted the islands to sugar plantations. There are several reasons that health detoriated after the development of agriculture. One is that most of the bacteria and virus, germs, that causes sickness first infected humans when humans started to domesticate and breed animals. The bacteria that lived with humans 30.000 years ago and more had been with us for so long that humans were adjusted to a peaceeful life with them. And if someone got sick, that person, or his group, would die before they met other humans and were able to infect them. A third reason was that people began to crowd together. Most towns only few generations ago had a death-rate that was higher than the birth rate - so much higher that without a large migration from the countryside they would have been empty within a rather short time. A fourth reason is that because of worse nutrition people became more vulnerable. By the time the sugar plantations were well advanced, the native population was not only unhealthy, it was largely dead. However, in much of early Europe, it's probable that the transition to agriculture led to a healthier population. What is the evidence? Of course, climate played a very important role in agricultural productivity and the ability of agriculture to sustain a population. A large agriculturally-based population was vulnerable to adverse changes in climate, but then so was a hunting and gathering population, even a small one. An agricultural population was also on something of a treadmill even during normal times. Agriculture could stimulate rapid population growth, but to feed a growing population you needed more agriculture. Population had to either move out from the center as it probably did in much of early Europe or raise more productive crops as it probably did in much of China, or both. If none of these things were possible, people would certainly become less healthy and would die off. Except perhaps in some tropical areas, where there was an abundance of wild food, hunting and gathering populations were typically more vulnerable than agricultural
Re: What planet are you proposing for this experiment?
Charles J. Reid wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Tor Forde wrote: Each person has his own rationality. Find his viewpoint, his priorities, his situation and his possibilities, and it is possible to see his rationality. It will be conflicting with others. A democratic society should develop according to the rationality of its members. If their rationalities becomes too conflicting the society can fall apart or only be kept together with massive violence. -- Hi, Tor! I just wanted to make some quick comments on this. First, you probably know of Elster's work on rationality. I have read a few books written by Jon Elster. Is he the one? They were written about 25 years ago, and were about history, philosophy and game theory. Without getting into a rationality debate, secondly, I think you're using 'rationality' with less care than necessary. I was thinking of people's "rationale", the project of their lives, which is often unknown, and may be lacking a few times - "the reason for living". People try to make up a life that is coherent, where there are some fundamental principles at the bottom. These principles can be of many different kinds and origins. I don't think it has been convincingly demonstrated that any person 'has' any rationality. If we say that people can "manifest" rationality, it is clear that some people never manifest rationality, depending on how you define it, and there are probably ten conflicting definitions. Finally, if we can adopt the notion of 'rational interest,' obvious individuals may have conflicting rational interests, and there may be conflicting rational interests between individuals and communities. I would argue that conflicting rational interests only lead to "massive violence" on very rare ocassions, in fact, so rare, that I cannot think of one now. This is the case, because "massive violence" is inconsistent with rational interest. I was thinking of internal conflicts. The last decades the authorities in Guatemala have killed more than 100.000 persons within Guatemala. That is massive violence. And the authorities of many other countries are killing thousands of humans in internal conflicts. And the internal conflicts do not have to be between the authorities and parts of the population, but can be between different groups of the population. I guess this is well known. The belief system that these authorities have are not rational if one says that rationality includes universality, I mean by that that the principles of their rationality should apply to all similar cases and all humans, that all humans have the same rights. But the universalistic principles are in reality quite modern. Not long ago there were different rights and different laws for different groups of persons in many countries. And this was to an aristocrat quite "rational". Aristocrats did not pay taxes in most countries. This non universalistic "rationality", the privileges, are often what the elites who are killing their subjects in large number are trying to enforce. But of course today the universalistic principle is fundamental to rationality, and a democracy can not work if it is not accepted within society among all major groups, because discussions and debate have no point without it. But there are limits to this universalism: Not everybody who owns a boat is allowed to go everywhere and catch fish. The fish close to the coasts of a country is reserved to the fishermen of that country. This particularism is accepted. The two most used meanings of rationality is: 1. Instrumental rationality - how to best achieve a given goal, do a task. 2. About the best goal, values, the just and fair way. But "rational" is common language word and all the different meanings this gives the word can not be excluded. My point in the beginning was that people have their "life projects". They have their rationality, and gives rationality and meaning to the lives of people because the projects are directed towards other people in some way, and they try to be coherent although they may not be universalistic. To keep society together with all this different "life projects", that might be conflicting, and to find the borders between universalism and particularism can be difficult. The "life projects" spring from the situation that people are in and from their aspirations (it is their aspiration). To keep all this together it is vital to have independent democratic institutions with real power that can work with the important situations of peoples' lives. And since working life is very important labour unions are very important. Only via democratic debate and action according to that debate, can the necessary universalism be achieved. -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What planet are you proposing for this experiment?
Ed Weick wrote: In response to my argument that man is not particularly rational, Tor Forde wrote: The best way to keep a society rational is to get "the calculators" to wear the eyes of the common man, that is to avoid the development of excessive poverty and wealth. Tor, I see two problems with this. One is that "calculators", as you call them, come with theories by which they interpret the world and with pre-conceived notions of what things ought to be like. Whether they would recognize it or not, they are, as Keynes put it, slaves of some defunct economist (or philosopher, or political thinker, defunct or otherwise). Each person has his own rationality. Find his viewpoint, his priorities, his situation and his possibilities, and it is possible to see his rationality. It will be conflicting with others. A democratic society should develop according to the rationality of its members. If their rationalities becomes too conflicting the society can fall apart or only be kept together with massive violence. The only way to keep it together without violent means is to let people develop their own democratic institutions which keep them together and joins their rationality, and gives it power. I am thinking specially of labour unions. Countries with strong internal conflicts are contries where independent labour unions are not allowed. Countries were strong and independent labour unions are part of the system are much more peaceful annnd prosperous than countries without unions like that. Economists and planners have to much power compared to democratic institutions. The other problem is that there is no such thing as "the common man". We are essentially tribal, with each tribe having its own notion of what is, or ought to be, common to man. And within each tribe, people vary greatly in erudition, power and wealth, and it is not always the good people who wind up on top. The situation is different in different countries. A country like Sudan ought to be divided into at least two countries. I'm trying hard not to be cynical about what is and is not possible with respect to the future of humankind as we know it. However, from what I have seen around me for several decades, I simply cannot bring myself to believe that this future can be planned rationally, or that any coherent plan can be devised that will be viewed as fair and equitable by all peoples, or indeed, fair or not, that we will all somehow come to our senses and behave with enough environmental and social responsibility to pull our global industrial system back from the brink toward which it appears to be headed. The crisis must hit and hurt people first, but then it will be possible to make some changes. -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: chimpanzeehood]
Eva asked me to forward this: -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, I haven't the concrete sources, but the claim, that hunter-gatherers had a healthy, starvation free existence sounds extraordinary. Agriculture provided extraordinary surplusses, kept a fair-sized minority - the ruling class and it's administrative/military personel, in relative well-being even through "bad years" when others starved. You cannot ignore the different sizes of populations involved. Anyway, even if it was so, which it wasn't, we cannot go back to that "golden age" of pre-civilisation with our x billion of today, but we still - just about - could make it if we get to the democratic, conscious social intervertion stage, before total disintegration. Eva Ed Weick wrote: Agriculture became a catastrophe because, according to Jared Diamond, all evidence (skelletons and bones from humans) shows that before agriculture was developed humans were never suffering from hunger and malnutrition. But some time afterwards it became usual that there were times in humans lives when they were starving so much that it is possible for scientist to read it from their bones. before agriculture developed the number of humans was probably comparable with apes. No, because humans were able to live all over the World before agriculture was deveopled. That is very different from apes. Agriculture was a success story in the amount of food and other human goods produced. The first massive population growth was the result of these early feudal civilisations. The problem - as I mentioned previously - was the divisive and hierarchical social structure I'm not sure of the source of these notions came from, but there is plenty of evidence that hunting-gathering peoples could as easily suffer from hunger and malnutrition as anyone else, and perhaps even more so. The comparation that Diamond makes is between the nuturition of a population in a given region before and after agriculture became the dominant industry. Jared says that all evidence shows that before agriculture became the dominant industry the health of the population was much better than after. Of course after agriculture had been dominant the few who stayed hunting-gathering were forced into areas were it was very difficult to live. They have to be out of the comparation. Much depended on factors such as where they lived, climatic conditions and cycles in game populations. The most basic fact about hunting-gathering populations was that they could never accumulate surpluses large enough to tide them over periods of scarcity. They did not have to build storages for food, because they were not sitting waiting for the gras to be green. They went to the places were the gras was green. Agriculture was invented to do just that - to provide surpluses that would increase the chances of survival during difficult times. Once agriculture got underway, and if the climate remained favourable, larger populations could develop and the formation of villages, towns and cities became possible. Larger populations and the need to support urban communities that could not sustain themselves in turn led to innovations and greater efficiency in agriculture. I am just now reading Ferdnand Braudel: "The structures of everyday life". From page 73: "Famine recurred so insistently for centuries on end that it became incorporated into man's biological regime and built into his daily life. Death and penury were continual, and familiar even in Europe, despite its privileged position. A few overfed rich do not alter that rule." Starvation was a part of life, and often the end of life, in all of Europa until 100-200 years ago. One must not overlook that the age in which agriculture dominated economic activity lasted a very long time. The earliest cities date back to about the seventh millenium BC. They could not have existed without some form of relatively complex agricultural base. Ed Weick -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN? (Joy of life)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote: Good to hear from Tor again! Hopefully well-fare for people is still alive and well in the land of the midnight sun! Thank you! Just to mention that things are changing. A few months ago Denmark decided to raise taxes of the rich and lower taxes of the common man. And Norway is following. Norway has for some years been a tax haven for rich people while the comon man is being taxed quite hard. This is going to change a bit. People living from shares and stocks will have to pay a bit more and low income people less in taxes. Only the consevatives, which is backed by only 15% of the voters, are against this change. -- All the best Tor Førde
Re: BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
I agree with Brad: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote: Perhaps this is as good a place as any to clarify something about some of my postings that may not have been obvious due to my having other "fish to fry": I think Jay's disgnoses and progmoses of waht's likely to happen in our world are probably mostly pretty probable. My disagreement with his postings is when he gets into the man-is-an-animal *metaphysics*. Perhaps, as Hannah Arendt said the classical Greeks believed, some instances of the biological species "homo sapiens" are indeed on the other side of that line which divides the human from the less-than-human. But that does not mean that some persons at some times have not crossed over the line. (snip) Could it make the time which remains to us who still are alive richer, more rewarding, and, if the end comes, less terrible? *That* I believe is quite possible. My disagreement with Jay's postings is simply with their feeding into the ideology which makes persons think they are less than they can be and thereby helps them to become that less (if you don't like Husserl, Gregory Bateson, one of the fathers of ecology, etc. said the same thing). May be the reason is that persons often tend to seek their identity in what they are missing. There was some time ago a rather strange debate here. Some blind persons wanted to have an operation which might give them back their ability to see. But then organizations of blinds protested to this surgery. They said it removed the dignity of blind people. Blind people were now developing their own culture based upon blindness, and those who wanted to leave the state of blindness were traitors to their culture. When people are deprived of something they will often think about it all the time. I have read about persons who were in concentrations camp during the war, and they were thinking about food all the time. They were talking about food all the time in the day and dreaming about food in the night. Like this sexuality can cause problems, and Freud met people with problems that Freud interpreted to be sexual problems, and since that time it has been populare to reduce everything to sexuality. This might be the case for people living in a sexually deprived environment, like food is what all is about for other people. But it is too arrogant to say that sexuality in the end is all that matters for everybody. I have read that americans have a strange relationship to sexuality, (and many others too.) All the best Tor Forde email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TITANIC SINKS
Jay Hanson wrote: Human in modern societies have become TOTALLY DEPENDENT on their machines. These machines are going to "run out of gas" this coming century -- forever. That does not have to be a catastrophe. Norway was "out of gas" the years 1940-45, and that was not a big problem. Civil society got nothing from the outside world but the input that was necessary to produce things the germans needed. But cars were able to drive burning wood. And although Norway depends upon grain from the outside world it was possible to feed the cows with cellulose from the forrests. I have not seen these things, it was before I was born, but I have seen pictures from it. The cellulose-food was some white sheets, and cows are able to eat cellulose, they do it every day, and if the cellulose comes from gras are trees does not matter much. But I guess planes will not fly burning wood, but do we need planes? Theere will be some changes when there is no oil left, but to a creative and coherent society it might be a good thing. Societies which are very rigid and in big problems today might get problems to adapt. I think it will be an interesting and challenging situation. In some ways it will be back to the good old days, but we will still have lots of technology that were not present in the "good old days", like internet, and should be able to do better than in the good old days. We will have to make it with the resources that we have close to us, and will not buy flowers from Kenya any more or have vacations abroad very often, but I do not call that a catastrophe. In Sudan there is a catastrophe today! -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW Request for ideas - guaranteed participation in society on equal terms
S. Lerner wrote: FWers - If we think it's important to ensure basic economic security for all citizens of the industrialized 'have' nations, what suggestions do you have as to how this should be accomplished? Sally Lerner Hello! I think that the development that we are seeing here in Norway now is good. I am thinking of the agreement between the Confederation of trade Unions (LO) - http://www.lo.no/ - and the Federation of Employees, that is intending to give everybody the right to education as part of work, - one year of education per two years of work. That can create lots of new possibilities for people to enter the workforce. Today the unemployment rate in Norway is very low, hardly 3%, but the economy goes up and down, and there will come times when this arrangement will open opportunities for lots of people. This is of course not only good for unemployed people, but for working people as well. What did Spinoza say: "Happiness is the mood you are in when your ability to live is being increased". I have had some of my best moments when I understood something all new, or learned a new skill and became able to accomplish something new. And when going on developing ones abilities at the same time creates new opportunities for other, nothing can be better! We have anyother arrangement the is guaranteeing all young persons up to 20 or 22 or 24 years old (I am not really sure) the right to either education or work, and it works fine. There is no unemployment among young people in Norway from what I read. Life is more than food and a place to sleep. One has to live a life in dignity, and if you are living on mercy of others you are not living a life in dignity. That is one reason I am sceptical to a guaranteed basic income, better is a "guaranteed participation in society on equal terms", then people are not put away in isolation or at the mercy of others. -- Hilsen Tor Førde email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Powerplants.
Hello! I am continuing one of my threads. I have been writing about the liberalisation of the market for electricity in Norway. To recapitulate: The regulations of the waterlevel in the dams which contains the water of the hydroelectrical powerplants were removed, and the dams went empty afterwards. This had never happened before because in years with less rain than usual we used to buy so much electricity from Sweden that we managed without turning our mountain lakes into deserts and mud. But when the regulations were removed the utilities were allowed to create these local ecological catastrophes. People were angry. The authorities wanted to repair the situation by building gaspowerplant. The resistence has been so strong that the construction has been stopped until now. The constructionwork was supposed to start last autumn by preparing the construction sites, but the local authorities said no, they did not want this because with the strong resistance it was quite possible the work was not going to be fullfilled, and they did not want to allow the building of ruins. The new thing today is that "Norsk Hydro" is developing new technology for gaspowerplants where they are going to produce hydrogen and take care of the carbondioxyd and pump it into the ground in the oilfields in the North Sea, and they will provide electricity to the oilfields from the new powerplants, and thereby reduces the Norwegian emissions of carbondioxyd. I think it is possible that the gaspowerplants will be built. But I will say that the resistance has been succesful, because it stopped the plans of building powerplants with existing technology and forced the development of new a better technology. Tor Forde
Re: Agreement.
Eva Durant wrote: However, without North-Sea oil, Denmark and Sweden run into a lot of economic difficulties in the last decades and the first "solution" was to attempt to cut back social benefits. That is not correct. Denmark has been in seriuos trouble, but that is several years ago. The economy of Denmark is today among the best in Europe, and today Denmark has one of the lowest uneployment rates in the World. The Danish econmy was in deep trouble twenty years ago. Denmark has one of the most generous welfare states in the World, and with those very large expenses Denmark ran into trouble already at the oil crises in 1973, with large deficits and large unemployment. This was before the time of Margaret Thatcher and the "TINA" policy. This was before it was an alternative to cut social benefits, and Denmark made it without those cuts, and today Danish economy is much more healthy I would guess than British economy. With Sweden it is different. It is only about ten years since Sweden ran into its trouble, and it was in large parts created by the ruling politicians. I remember ten years ago unemployemt in Norway was growing, and Swedish economy was booming. The economy of Sweden was so "hot" that all kinds of workers were lacking, and lots of Norwegians went to Sweden to work, and inflation began to grow in Sweden because investments there were so large that it was not possible to back them up with manpower. Then Swedish authorities put a tax on all kinds of investments, and in the "hottest" regions that investment tax was more than 30%. And at the same time all taxation of investments done by Swedes abroad were not at all being taxed. Swedish companies stopped investing in Sweden and went abroad so massivly that for two succesive years Sweden was the second largest exporter of capital in the World. And Sweden is a very small country with a population less than nine million persons. And those investments were usually done in the way that the Swedish companies brought with them 20% of their investment and borrowed 80% in the country where the investments were done. Debts ran high. It was a socialdemocratic government that put the brakes on so very hard to cool the economy. And it became unpopular and Sweden got a conservative government. The Conservatives had promised to cut taxes, which they did, but without cutting expenses, and few years later the debs of the Swedish government was skyhigh. I will say that the trouble of Sweden is created by stupid Swedish politicians. But today Sweden is paying its debts, and swedish companues are doing very well! Tor Forde The Suiss are a special case, but I think they also rely on the world money market ultimately. I doubt if the capitalist structure could gradually change into something else, any rate, even looking at Norway, we haven't got that timeframe left (unfortunately), the environmental damage/wars and poverty will force on us rapid change one way or the other. Eva . I regard the agreement that has been reached about making education a part of work a natural contination of the development that has been going on here for more than a century. It is known that 150 years ago when the common man began to become more interested in politics and to work for the rights of larger groups to get the right to vote, among the founding groups were lots of "reading clubs", peasants who joined together to buy books which they shared and discussed, and these "reading clubs/societies" became an important part of their education. Education and democracy have always been closely connected, and education was always regarded as valuable among all groups. But more important is the tradition of investments. Recently was a quite large Norwegian history published in twelve volumes by a publishing company called Aschehoug. I have read most of it. It is written there about the years 1890-1900 that if one was to look for something like the "Asian tigers" at that time, Norway would have been among them, because at that time was Norway investing a larger part of ite GNP than any other European country, although it was among the poorest countries in Europe per capita/person. Since then Norway has always been, and is still, among the countries in the World that have the largest investments as part of GNP. I would call it a part of the "Norwegian credo". We believe in investments, and are only comfortable when a large part of GNP is being invested. And to put a larger part of GNP into education will fit very well in with our Credo. I looked recently into an old textbook from school, from about 1970, and in 1967, before any North Sea oil at all was developed, did only three other European countries have a larger GNP per person than Norway. Those were Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark. Investments done during a long time were alr
Re: Agreement.
Dear Tor: Thanks for such an interesting post. Someone has to set a standard that is different than the neo-con philosophy of trashing every poor person in the country and I'm glad to see your government is making the attempt. What is especially interesting is that it comes after a neo-con government of Broderlund (spelling?) which gives hope that when this madness of corporatism has run its course other options of a more humanitarian kind will surface again. Hello again! Spelling is "Brundtland" Our new government is neither "progressive" neither "conservative", but more "tradisionalistic", and that is not too bad. The political parties that formed the new government of Norway some months ago were going along for a neo-con policy for some time, but about 1990-92 they changed, and they have won a lot from that. To be "traditionalist" is today to protect the wellfare state and to work for a cooperative society with cooperative solutions, instead of only market solutions, and for a more inclusive society. Because that is how things use to be here. But I do not like that the new government is less fond of the agreement that has been reached between the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) and the employers' federation (NHO) about the right to have education as part of work, than the former Labour government was. All the best Tor Forde
Re: rearranging deck chairs
Jay Hanson wrote: "Scientific" knowledge is empirical. It comes from actual studies of the physical systems that control life on Earth. In the hierarchy of systems, the physical systems are the most important systems. If they go, there won't be ANY social systems. Physical laws are unlike human laws in that they can not be broken. Thus, humans either understand and respect these laws -- find a way to control BEHAVIOR -- or they WILL pay the penalty. Period. The ecology is very important. The old sumers of Mesopotamia went because the ecological system they depended on was destroyed, too much salt in the soil that produced their food, and the Maya people too destroyed their ecological system, from what I have read. And one day there is no more oil, but there will be many different alternatives, and I think some might be better than what we have got today. Maybe I am an optimist, but I think there will always be a way to improve things. The physical system tells us what we can not do, but it does not tell us what we shall do. That is up to us, and there will always be more than one alternative. And people like some changes, don't they? Tor Forde
Re: FW Some hard questions about a Basic Income 1
Jim Dator wrote: Many thanks, Tom. No need to send it now. And thanks for the other information, too. What in your opinion (and I ask others on the list, too) were the main reasons, or forces, which prevented the logic of automation moving towards a shorter work week and eventually the end of work from playing out--or even being considered seriously now? I will try to answer from a Norwegian point of view. If you have seen this contry you will have seen that here are lots of work to do. Only between two and three percents of the country are arable, most is wilderness and mountains, and people love to build! And here are lots of places where something can be built. That is why I am sure we in few years will have lots of windmills here. In one of the neighbouring comunities here the locals had the agreement with the utility that the locals put up streetlights and paid them and the connection to the grid, and the utility gave them the electricity for free. The locals used to meet and make arrangements to rise money and dicussed where to put up the next streetlight, and did the work themselves, and they really liked it! When there were streetlights everywhere were people used to go, then they decided to put up streetlights in the mountains and places where people seldom goes. But then the utilty said: we are not paying that electricity. And they came to their mind and found something better to do. They will really love to put up windmills!! There will be shorter workweeks in Norway for people who have children and for old people I guess. Tor Forde
Re: FW Some hard questions about basic income
Jim Dator wrote: Tor, my youngest son is in the midst of a year-long project on all things Norwegian--religion, sports, food, rosemailing, music, drama, even Olympic medals, it turns out--so he will find your words informative, as do I. But what happens even in Norway when the oil and fish run out? Or have the proceeds been wisely and safely invested for a sustainable future? The oil will certainly run out, but I hope that the fish will never run out. Norway may be the only country in the World which has been able to manage its fish resources in a sustainable way. And the export of fish from Norway has been growing strongly every year now for many years, and it did so last year too. One important reason to this is that the herring of the Norwegian sea is back. It was almost annihilated about 1970, and the last few herrings stayed in Norwegian fjords for many years, and it was not allowed to catch any of them, and now there are several million tons of them, and they are being catched. Norway did quite fine before the oil production started about 1970, and was at that time among the rich countries of West- Europe. Norway was already in 1925 among the the countries with the highest GNP in Europe. One of the reasons I guess was that Norway did not take part in WWI, but instead was in a period with a strong development of its hydropower resources. Tor Forde
Re: FW Some hard questions about Basic Income 1
Thomas Lunde wrote: Dear Tor: I appreciate your posting and your eloquent comments about everyone wanting to contribute. I seem to recall when reading the FW archives that you tried to start a small business growing something in the sea and that you were forced to discontinue it because you could not find adequate financing for your project and your livelihood. The original question posed the question that everyone - man - woman - child receive a Basic Income. Obviously the combined Basic Income for a family would be higher than for an individual. With that security and your desire and stubbornness, would you have felt secure enough to continue after your major setback? I am teaching now, and it is fine because I have some bright pupils, and I am living a place where I like to live, and I have considerable freedom to develop my education and my situation. However, let's be frank. If 5% of the people chose to be TV watchers, layabouts, deadbeats or whatever for 20 years and then decided to do something - would that be unconscionable? Your question brings into play the deep seated bias we have in the Western world that work is the primary consideration for any sane person. However, the reality is, that there is not enough paid work to go around. Raising children is work - my daughters have just been sick with the flu for a week and my days have been long and tiresome - I have worked, I have just not been paid. In a sense, the Basic Income is a way of recognizing all the unpaid work done in society rather than work that has been monetized. Is this a compelling reason to advocate a Basic Income? For those who work and don't get paid, I'm sure the answer would be "yes". For those doing monetized work and perhaps some of their productivity being used to make the payroll, the answer may well be "no." I hope that we are doing something with a situation like that. The new governement in Norway is going for what is called "kontant-stoette" - "cash-support", an increase in the benefits that parents get by 3000 kroner, about 400 US dollars per month per child under the age of six. If you add to this the regular child-benefits and that parents do not pay taxes from this money, we have got the situation that parents who stay home taking care of three children less than six year old will get the same income as a person gets in a full time job. And today when people stay home to take care of children or relatives etc. who needs care, they get the rigth to pensions. They get the same points in the pension fund as they would have got if they were working earning about 25.000 US dollars a year. This is an example of how an arrangement that already exists and covers a part of the population can be extended to cover larger parts of the population. (First the authorities paid most of the expences by having a child in a daycare-center, and now it looks like everybody with children can get this amount of money). These arrangements are like agreements/contracts: If you are in such or such a situation then you are entitled to this and that. The big problem is for those who are not in any of those situations. They have to rely on welfare, and it is humiliating and in some municipalities it is hardly enough to make a life. There are other arrangements that can be extended to cover larger groups. F.ex students loan and scholarships can be extended to cover everybody that wants to learn something or make a kind of intellectual accomplishment of some kind. Today people have to be a student of a university/college/high-school etc, some formal institution. Everybody, even on their own, should be allowed to take part in this arrangement. It is quite generous in Norway: Everybody gets scholarships, and the loans will never ruin you, because you never have to pay more than seven percents of your income back annualy, no matter how big your debt is. And if you are without an income the governement pays the interest rents. A guaranteed basic income would not cost much in Norway because the arrangements that exists today are already so extensive that it is just a little bit more that is lacking. And why is this "little bit more" lacking? The authorities want to frighten some people: "If you do not behave you end up like those people." The problem about throwing money to everybody without expecting anything in return, is that this will throw some people into isolation. Society ought among other things to be moral relationships in which everybody is included. And to throw money at people do not include them in some kind of moral relationship. But everybody should be included, and of course that means poor people too. Tor Forde
Re: FW - Some hard questions about Basic Income 1
Tor Forde wrote: The danger that a Guaranted Annual Income is posing is that it can be a way to put people away. [snip] A Guaranteed Annual Income could be regarded as a kind of scholarship that lasted as long as it will take for people to be able to make it on their own. You know one of the problems here: Who will judge who is worthy of getting such a scholarship? Do you think that if the Committee on Worthiness was composed of a bunch of rabid reductionist scientists and their fellow-travellers, they would fund me to spend my life digging "critical" [use whatever word you want] tunnels under their position [Weltanschauung -- err... "physical world which exists and is knowable independent of what people think about it"]? If the prescripts says that everybody who wants to get such a scolarship is to have it, then the work of that committee is to help you. Maybe they can give some tips about other people doing a similar kind of study, and how you can fund publishing your work if necessary. Would they fund me to keep trying to find some argument that would do the rhetorical equivalent to them of what the Union Army was trying to do with dynamite to the Confederates in Petersberg by tunneling under their trenches during the American Civil War? I've been "at" this project for almost 20 years now, and I have yet to get a nickel *from* it (although I've "sunk" probably more than US$200,000 *into* it -- when direct expenses ($100K?) *and* lost income due to unpaid leaves of absence from work to go to school, etc. are all added in)
Our new governement.
I would like to write a little about what is going on in Norwegian politics now. The big issue is the debate about the "cash-support" arrangement of the new governement with its Prime Minister from "Christian People's party". To understand the policy of that party I think it is best to know who votes for that party at elections. It is mostly poor women. And the big things that the "Christian People's party" has done since it got the Prime Minister few months ago are things that benefits this group, poor women. First they increased the lowest pension with 1000 kroner per month, that is some about 150 US dollars per month, and the lowest pensions go to poor women. Men have been earning so much and paid taxes for so many years that they get higher pensions. And now they are going to increase the support that some parents with small children (under seven years old) get by 3000 kroner per child taxfree, that is about 400 US dollars per month per child which they do not pay taxes from. Today the system is that children in kindergarten/daycare centers get subcidies from the government by 400 US dollars per month and about the same from the municipalities, and the parents pay about 400 US dollars per month, so the total cost to keep a child in a kindergarten/daycare center is something more than a thousand US dollars per month. Children who are not in kindergartens/daycare centers get nothing of this kind of support. And the children who are not in kindergarten/daycarecenters are often children of the poorest mothers, who are out of work or for other reasons cannot pay their part. These poor mothers very often vote for Christian People's party, and now they are going to give them the same support that more well-off children are getting from the governement. I think it is fine, because today most benefits go to people like me who hold a job with good pay, and the poor get nothing. This is intended by the "workline" policy of labour who is like this: "Those who do not work shall not eat". And this new policy of "Christian people's Party" has already got a majority in the Parliament. First what Labour said was their reasons for opposing this "cash-support" were: 1. It is too expencive. (No, it is not. The Norwegian economy is strong.) 2. It is harmful to kindergartens/daycarecenters because parents will take their children home to get that money. 3. Many women will earn more from having a few children than they do at work, and stay home, and that is harmful. (Pay the women better!) But the policy of Christian People's party has become very popular, and polls show that the new Prime Minister is among the most popular Prime Ministers that Norway has ever had. And now labour has changed. Their proposal is now that they will pay even more, but nothing shall get to the poor mothers! Their alternative is that parents shall be able to stay home with their small children and get 80% of their ordinary pay from the government another year. Today we have this arrangement, and it last for 52 weeks. According to the labour proposal it will be 104 weeks. This will even more: 1 .Be expencive 2. Take children away from kindergartens/daycarecenters 3. Keep mothers away from paid work than the Christian People's Party's proposal. But the poor will get nothing , and to destroy the poor has now for ten years been goal number one for Labour, as I have written earlier. But Labour is not in governement anymore!! This new cash-support scheme can make a difference. Added to the benefits that already exist it can change the life of some families. And our new governement is against the gaspower plants that I have written about earlier, and support construction of a sustainable power supply, like wind (We have got a long and very windy coast) heathpumps and bioenergy. It is quite interesting and exciting in Norwegian politics now! Tor Forde
Towns and countryside.
and people, where the people where able to win. This is something that the countryside of other countries has lacked. Tor Forde
FW New governement and children.
Hello! We just had Parlamentary elections here in Norway. And we got a new government. More than twenty different political parties were campaigning, and seven got enough votes to get represented in the new Parliament. Labour is still the largest party, this time with 35% of the votes. But a coalision of three political parties that call themselves "The Center Alternative", and who combined got 26% of the votes, has formed the new governement. One of the three political parties in government is "Christian Peoples Party", and they got the Prime minister. His name is Kjell Magne Bondevik. The most important issue for them is "Cash support" - "Kontantstoette" - to parents with children who are not in kindergarten. Every child in kindergarten gets about $400 per months in support from the governement. "Christian Peoples Party" wants that children who are not in kindergarten shall too get four hundred US dollars per month as an extra cash support. This is now going to happen, because so many political parties have said that they will support this proposal that it is going to get a majority in the Parliament. This does not mean that kindergartens are getting less support. This is new money, and they are not being taxed. This comes in addition to other benefits, like childrens benefits - about $150 per month per child (the double for single parents) - and "birthmoney" - which on average is $15.000 per child - or for working women 80% of a years salary, but for women who do not work only between 4000 and 5000 US dollars. I guess there are three main reasons for this new support to children: One is that there has been much writing about growing poverty in Norway, and research show that of the poorest 60.000 persons in Norway 20.000 are children. I guess this new support will reach those children. The second is fairness and equality: When one group of children - those in kindregarten - is given all this support from the government it is fair to give those who do not have a place in kindergarten the same support. And third: I guess this is an important part of the anti-abortion policy of the "Christian Peoples Party". "Christian Peoples Party" is anti abortion, but there are free abortion in Norway, and that is not going to be changed. "Christian Peoples Party"'s policy is to try to make it such a fine thing to raise a child that nobody will consider abortion, and one way to do it is to poor money upon everybody that has got to do with children, parents, schools, kindergartens etc. It is a quite nice policy, I think. Tor Forde
