After the parliamentary elections that deprived the powerparty “United Russia”, the two-thirds majority they had, there are many who claim that there still was a lot of cheating in the election.Voting results from Chechnya showing 99% for Putin’s party is a good example of this.Finance Minister Kudrin stepped down in September after a conflict with Medvedev, and he told the Associated Press:

«Without the acknowledgment that the parliamentary election was unfair, the fairness of the presidential vote will be thrown into doubt, irrespective of how honest it might be,» 

Many believe this is a way for the protests to be reduced in scope. Alexey Navalny has become one of the leaders of this new opposition movement, and says in the same article:

“I’m convinced That the main strategy of the Kremlin in the coming months Would ask neutralizing Protests by the usual deceit and bribes,” Alexei Navalny, a corruption-fighting lawyer and popular blogs WHO Has Become a leading figure in the protest movement, said in remarks posted on historical blog.

Navalny is an interesting person. He has been known through his blog , and it was he who renamed the “United Russia” to “party of thugs and thieves,” a name that has since stuck in the minds of people in Russia. He has been interviewed by B. Akunin (Grigory Shalvovich Chkhartishvili) about what he believes and stands for politically. You can find the interview translated into English here, and the Russian original here. If you have not read any of Akunins books you have a lot to look forward to.Late eighteen hundreds crime from Russia with super detective Erast Fandorin as the main character is entertaining, exciting, and about many of the conflicts that have shaped present-day Russia. In the introduction to the interview with Navalny Akunin writes:

Aleksei Navalny is the most exciting political figure of recent times. More specifically, he is the only authentic politician in Russia today. Nevertheless, many view him differently, some admire him, and others hate him. Some are very critical, while others are perplexed. My opinion of Aleksei Navalny has evolved in a typical manner. At first, I thought he was simply wonderful, because he has this great story- A young lawyer goes out on his own, and while keeping within the law defies corruption, leaving the huge system cowering, with its tail between its legs

A huge turning point for me however, was his taking part in the “Russian March”. Is this guy a nationalist? Or an unprincipled populist? Perhaps he’s simply soft in the head? If that’s true, any increase in his popularity could be dangerous. I look at this young politician thinking that, just like Bulgakov’s Sharik, “this owl must be explained”.

I recommend that you read the whole interview, reckon that the continuation will be translated soon.

The Russia Blog writes interesting about who has been demonstrating in Moscow and other cities, and not least about why Putin and Medvedev not afraid of them:

‘…the only thing that the protesters seem to have in common is a deep loathing for all things political, including all political leaders and all political parties. This contempt is not reserved just for Putin and United Russia. It assails the very notion of politics as careful social management or, to use Max Weber’s words, as ‘the strong and slow boring of hard boards, managed with both passion and perspective.’

At least as interesting to read is The Jamestown Foundation’s article here about the same themes, but with a slightly different angle.

On the same Web site you can find this article. There, they argue that one of the reasons it was not used violence against demonstrators in Moscow is that so many in the Russian elite have their money abroad:

This evacuation of money by Putin’s elites constitutes a financial guarantee against repressions because few of the owners of mansions in London or dachas in Sardinia would want to be implicated in a forceful crackdown. The protesters have discovered this weakness that makes Putin’s regime as much quasi-authoritarian as it is pseudo-democratic, so the fear factor has all but evaporated. (…) He [Putin] counts on the fact that the list of candidates does not feature a single credible alternative, but his pyramid of power cannot stand on the crumbling personal credibility of the leader who fears making a public appearance because of the prospect of booing.

Perhaps finally a positive thing with the big flow of capital out of Russia?

But the Russian government is not only challenged by the middle class in Moscow. We often forget that Russia is not only Russian, but a home for many nationalities. The largest non-Russian group is Tartars.

The ethnic conflict in Tatarstan started in June 2011, when activists of the organization Russian Language in the Schools of Tatarstan protested against what they regard as an overly high representation of Tatar language classes in the republic’s schools. The Russian activists complained that Tatar language hours were increased at the expense of the Russian language, meaning that ethnic Russians end up learning Russian in programs designed for non-native Russian speakers, such as ethnic Tatars. http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=38836&cHash=0e1a9aa3fe393aa482b5bd2ec3f83a5c

This is just one of many tensions that rides Russia and challenge the authorities there. There are great regional differences, you have language, religion and economics. But you have a demographic that creates great challenges. Some predictions say that Russia will end up with less than 100 million people about in the not so far future. One way to see this challenge is as follows:

Russia has no conscript-age young men left to recruit, Russia’s chief of the General Staff complained on Thursday. The current conscript service crisis in the Russian Armed Forces is mainly due to demographic decline, bullying and brutal treatment of conscripts. General Nikolai Makarov said only 11.7% of young men aged 18-27 were eligible for the army service but 60% of them had health problems and could not be drafted under law.

The main reason for the decline in population is high mortality and low fertility, but that is not all. There is also a big group of people who leave Russia. Earlier there has been a counterweight to this through people coming “home” from other former Soviet Republics. But most of those has already come, and there will be fewer in the future.

And this is probably a more important challenge for Russia than that they are not able to bring in more troops into the meat grinder that Russian army is:

Russian graduate students prefer just about any small, unknown laboratory in Europe over the brand-new Russian scientific complex [Skolkovo]. “A stable trend has been established: 100% of working young people who get the opportunity to work abroad leave Russia,” said one scientific analyst. “If a young researcher gets the opportunity to enter the international arena, he or she will do it.”

I do not know who will end up with power in Russia, but if you force me to bet I put my crowns on Putin. But, no matter who it is, the challenges are so great that I think we can call them problems.

I must admit I have my doubts, but this has been a year of surprises and a miracle might still be possible.

The miracle is only possible if the people of Russia takes it into their hands to make this Christmas a time of miracles.  Aleksander Navalny,  one of the most important people in the movement to make the Russian government responsible towards its people, writes on his blog (unofficial english version): Not coming is the same as giving national permission to the Party of Crooks and Thieves to continue cheating and stealing.

I hope many has the courage to attend.

Demonstrations on Bolotnaya Square on the 10th of December. Picture borrowed from Wikipedia.

Oil from the North Sea gives Norway a lot of money, but also a big responsibility to mitigate climate change. Photo: Flickr/polandeze

Today, the Norwegian national budget will be presented. While there will be a lot of money to support carbon capture and storage, as well as a lot of money for the worlds forests. However, the budget will also show that we are not using enough on climate.

In 2010, Norway exported 77,954,000 tons of crude oil, the equivalent of approximately 245 million tons of CO2. A CO2-quota in the EU market has had a price between 12 and 30 euros for ton. This means that the CO2 cost of the Norwegian oil exports is between three billion and 7.3 billion euros. This corresponds with the current exchange rate between 22 and 54 billion Norwegian kroner.

In 2010, the Norwegian government’s transfer to the oilfund was 181 billion Norwegian kroner. This means that we ought to, just to compensate for the CO2 from this oil, (I have not included gas, condensate and NGL export) should use between 12 and 30 percentages of the oilfund on stopping climate change at least if we wish to make up for the problems we are causing.

In this context, the costs to establish CO2 capture and storage are trivial. If we want to have a clean conscience for our oil export, we should spend far more each year to find ways to mitigate greenhouse gases from our oil.

When Greece adopted the euro, two very important things happened. First of all, interest rates fell dramatically, money was cheap. Investors the world over decided that all euro countries suddenly was equally safe payers and that it therefore was logical to demand the same rate from Greece as from Germany. It meant that Greece could borrow money and for whatever they wanted. They imported German interest rates without importing the German budget discipline.

The second thing that happened was that Greece no longer had the ability to devalue to make their debts bearable. A country like the U.S. can never go bankrupt. We hear a lot about the large U.S. government debt, but unless the United States wants to,it cannot go bankrupt. Their borrowing is in U.S. dollars. If the debt becomes too large, it is easy for the U.S. to start the printing press and make more than enough dollars to pay all they have loaned. This opportunity does not exist for Greece, nor any of the other euro countries.

When the “normal” form of devaluations no longer exists the alternative is what is called internal devaluation. Now, what is an internal devaluation?

It is to reduce wages of ordinary working people in a country. This makes production cheaper, exports improves and the debt may be possible to pay. Many countries have tried this cure, Argentina, CFA area, the Baltic countries. For most it went very badly. Argentina finally had to break the peg with the dollar and devalue, the Baltic countries ended up with a sharp decline in GDP and very much lower wages for most people.

An internal devaluation leads (almost) always fall in GDP, which means that the debt is more difficult to bear. Furthermore, many people point out that the internal devaluation in Greece, means that the debt will rise from today’s impossible level to almost 200% of GDP.

The failure is almost inevitable.

But in today’s discussion is the major focus on banks, government debt, bonds, and investors. It is much less focus on those who must bear the burden of an internal devaluation.

In Greece, wages has declined by around 30 percent, both in private and public sectors. 100 000 public employees have been dismissed, pensions have gone down considerably and taxes are rising sharply. To use a random example,  a clerk in a municipality in Greece has seen their pay fall from 2000 dollar a month to 1300 dollars a month. At the same time VAT has increase from 13 to 23 percent, all have received additional incometaxes of between one and four per cent and a significant property tax has been instituted.

It should be mentioned, of course, the Greeks might not have always been the most observant at paying their taxes, either with joy or grief, especially rich Greeks have failed to pay. But it is ordinary people who get the burden.

In short, if a country devalues ​​the banks and the investors must carry most of the loss, while with an internal devaluation (at least initially working people most of the burden. Now the EU must allow Greece to go “bankrupt”, the debt must be hammered down.

Afterwards let us handle a possible bankcrisis. It is better to let the banks be nationalized than to let ordinary people bear the burden of the crisis.

PS. I know this is simplified, a banking crisis will have serious consequences for ordinary people, but I think the consequences will be much less.

In the book he emphasises that the United States has had three major advantages. They have had a nearly free land, major technological breakthrough and smart uneducated youths. Now these resources fully exploites, and Cowen believes that there are few low hanging fruit in the future.

Cowen writes:

In a figurative sense, the American economy has enjoyed lots of low-hanging fruit since at least the seventeenth century, whether it be free land, lots of immigrant labor, or powerful new technologies. Yet during the last forty years, that low-hanging fruit started disappearing, and we started pretending it was still there. We have failed to recognize that we are at a technological plateau and the trees are more bare than we would like to think.

It is obvious that there is no more free productive land left in the USA. It is also understandable that after a while, as education level increases and more and more people are educated the productivity growth for each additional year of education is less and less. However, the most interesting in Cowen’s analysis is that he claims that we have reached a technological plateau, and that technology can no longer drive the economy. He says that the big leap is over. We all have electricity, running water, telephone and transportation. Exchanging a refrigerator of 60 liters for a 240-liters machine with ice cube fascilities is not a quantum leap, but a small improvement. It was something quite different when we first got the possibillity to freeze or keep our food cold.

He writes:

Across the years 1965 to 1989, employment in research and development doubled in the United States, tripled in West Germany and France, and quadrupled in Japan. Meanwhile, economic growth has slowed down in those same countries, and the number of patents from those countries has remained fairly steady. The United States produced more patents in 1966 (54,600) than in 1993 (53,200). “Patents per researcher” has been falling for most of the twentieth century.

By this, I believe, he means to say that despite the internet revolution, we have not seen new technologies that really changes the way we live. As he says, teleportation would change the way we live, an internet enabled car with GPS does not.

A lot of our recent innovations are “private goods” rather than “public s.” Contemporary innovation often takes the form of expanding positions of economic and political privilege, extracting resources from the government by lobbying, seeking the sometimes extreme protections of intellectual property laws, and producing goods that are exclusive or status related rather than universal, private rather than public; think twenty-five seasons of new, fall season Gucci handbags.

and

Keep in mind that median income growth has been slow, and stock prices—the valuation of capital—haven’t made lasting progress in a long time. As of the fall of 2010, the S&P 500 is more or less back where it had been in the mid-1990s. As economist Michael Mandel puts it, if neither labor nor capital is reaping much gain, can we really trust the productivity numbers

and

“Discovering who isn’t producing very much and firing them” has been the biggest productivity gain in the last few years.

This is exciting ideas to develop further. It is interesting how he takes issue with the Internet hype from the last few years.

Most Web activities do not generate jobs and revenue at the rate of technological breakthroughs. When Ford and General Motors were growing in the early part of the twentieth century, they created millions of jobs and helped build Detroit into a top-tier U.S. city. Today, Facebook creates a lot of voyeuristic pleasure, but the company doesn’t employ many people and hasn’t done much for Palo Alto; a lot of the “work” is performed more or less automatically by the software and the servers. You could say that the real work is done by its users, in their spare time and as a form of leisure. Web 2.0 is not filling government coffers or supporting many families, even though it’s been great for users, programmers, and some information technology specialists. Everyone on the Web has heard of Twitter, but as of Fall 2010, only about three hundred people work there. Let’s go down the list and look at the (approximate) employment figures for some of the top Web companies: Online Industry Employment Levels Google–20,000 Facebook–1,700+ eBay–16,400 Twitter–300

Now the numbers he uses does not including all the supporting industries that spring up around these internet companies, but there is no doubt that Google or Facebook is far from creating as many jobs as the old industrial companies did. At least as interesting that the fact that these companies do not earn so much money that tax revenues provide the ability to support a welfare state or to pay pensions to people who are not working. Of course, the Internet has a value beyond the purely monetary. You can read more about Cowen’s thoughts on it here. And I should also mention that he concludes the book with an optimistic belief that the internet and smart machines can still turn out to be the breakthrough that is helping to create new low hanging fruit

All this is of course very important for income and income distribution in society. This graph shows how the development has been in the United States.

Graph loaned from Wikipedia/User:Frichmon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp_versus_household_income.png

Media income has risen much less than the growth in gross domestic product. Until about 1975 median income increased entirely in line with growth in GDP. So the change is after that time is significant. I also believe that this shows partly at least, why the extreeme right is dominating the economic discourse in the US. In a country without strong trade unions that can fight for equality, where the average man and woman do not see their own income grow while the richest only becomes richer, it is not surprising that tax relief is one of the most important political issues. In Norway, there have also been differences, but not nearly so great. From 1990 to 2007 the increase of the real value of median income after tax was 40 percent, while GDP rose by over 70 percent from 1990 to 2010

How should we interpret this in a Norwegian context?

Here we have also had great low hanging fruit that we have picked, perhaps the most important been an abundance of natural resources (oil, hydroelectric power and fish) and a strong increase in women’s labor force participation, as well as a big growth in education level. I think we’ve taken out most of the potential within the labor force participation and education. And we know that oil is going to end.

If we believe this analysis shows that the need to change from an oil-based economy to a different type of economy is urgent. If we do not,and do not find new low hanging fruit, there is great danger that we too can experience an economy that grows, but where there is not created employment and income for ordinary people.

We need to start the restructuring now, we should be ready with something new when the last sweet oilapple are picked.

Southern Sudan has many problems, and it is not difficult to imagine that the country collapses. Yet the country is accepted in the international family. I am therefore rather surprised that Somaliland is not accepted in the same way. Somaliland seceded from Somalia in 1991. Since that time the country has been mainly in inner peace – as opposed to the rest of Somalia. It has conducted elections and peaceful changes of power. The state has control and prevent pirates to establish themselves in the area.

There have been border disputes with Puntland, another autonomous part of Somalia, and the boundaries are not completely accepted percentages. It can be a challenge for a new state.

However, I think it is time that Norway and others take Somaliland into the family of nations on line with others. Could we do it with Kosovo, South Sudan, and eventually with Palestine, it is about time and to do it with this democratic Muslim country? I think this is the community that need our support – and deserve it.

The counter-argument is that you open up a whole Pandora’s box of these processes if you start.  The borders in Africa are based on colonial boundaries and not always sensible from cultural or linguistic boundaries. I do not think there will be a big problem, mainly because current Somaliland was a separate colony – British Somaliland – and that, therefore, may well say that there is still the colonial era, boundaries that count.

What do you say Gahr Støre and Clinton?

I have now clocked in almost a 1000 kilometers on the engine, 1000 kilometers that has given much joy. It has made it possible for me to cycle to work and kindergarten most of the year. Kindergarten is maybe the most important aspect. I have three kids all of them in kindergarten. With two in the trailer and one in the seat on the bike it is heavy to ride. I’m not a lightweight myself, so using the car had probably been the natural choice without assistance on the bike. It would not exactly made me closer to being a sylfide.

I’ve become very fond of my engine. It is a Bion X purchased from the United States. Bicycle engines assists your pedalling. There is no free ride. The engine has two main effects as I see it. It makes it possible to have a heavier load on the bike and you manage to maintain a higher speed over time. Both aspects are helping to make the bike more useful in several situations. I’ve actually come to believe that an electric motor is what it takes to make Norway into a cycling country. We’ll have to realize that going uphill is an effective barrier to bicycle use.

But if the equipment I bought is the standard, there is a bit of work to be done before these engines are common. The electronics are not good enough in my experience. It seems to be to much randomness as to how much power you get out of the engine. It is not always when you need the most help you get the most help. The battery technology also has ways to go, at least when you are using it as I have done. I’ve taken out a significant effect in a short time, because I’ve had so much weight on the bike. I’m also a little unsure of how well the battery has had the winter and salty roads.

In any case, I think it was the battery gave up on my system. So now, I am carefully considering whether I should use the many thousands needed to get a new battery or new engine. The idea of using motor bike is fabulous, but I have doubts about the quality in proportion to the price.

I’d like to hear about your experiences and answer and questions about electric bikemotors if you have some.

The election gave the government a slightly smaller majority than last time, however there were quite substantial changes within the coalition. My party, SV (the Socialist Left) lost four mandates and Labour gained three. This has certainly repercussions. Wednesday, the seventh of October the government released the new platform for the coming four years. This shows a slight move to the right, especially on areas of asylumseekers and immigration.

The debate in Norway and many other European countries has moved to the right over the last years. This is unfortunately mirrored in the new platform. The government intend to raise the bar to get the right to stay in Norway based on humanitarian criteria. I dislike this intensely

On the other hand the new platform is offensive and good especially on climate change and the environment. Here and on equal pay/gender equality and education the platform is quite good. The government states clearly that they want a 40% reduction of climate change gases, which is great but not quite enough and that there should be norms for how many pupils each teacher should be responsible for. On equal pay the government intends to include the labour organisations and the industrial organisations in talks to find ways to ensure that women get equal pay. I they can agree on principles and mechanisms then the government will put up the money.

I am also very glad for many of the things which are stated on international policy. Norway will endeavour to take a leading role in NATO to reduce nuclear weapons. We are open towards reducing our troops in Afghanistan and Norway wil work hard to reduce illegimate debt that third world countries must pay. This is important new steps in the right direction.

On the balance I must say that the platform is OK. SV got more than we could expect with only 6,2% of the votes. There is of course much I would have wanted differently, but in the end the voters decide by which party they support.

What do you think should be the most important choices for Norway in the coming years?

And, yes I now Hamas has been sending home made rockets into Israel. They are scaring, but the damage is small. Israel’s response is way out of proportion. More important, Israel’s is the occupying force. We may dislike the politics of Hamas, but they won an election and are running a perfect legitimate campaign against the occupier, not much different from what happened in many European countries that were occupied by Nazi-Germany under WWII. Why should the Palestinians have lesser right of resistance than we had?

There is no excuse for what Israel is doing just now, not morally and certainly not legally.

I would like to you a quote from the dailykos:

Like davidminzer, I’m Jewish and descendant of holocaust survivors. Moreover, I’ve been a Zionist all of my life. I went to a Zionist school, I was active in Zionist youth groups. I’ve always been a fervent supporter of Israel as a refuge for Jews around the world who seek a place to exercise their traditions and embrace their identity in peace.

I sang the Israeli anthem in the train rails of Aushwitz-Birkenau and I pledged to fight every day of my life to make sure the savage crimes that had taken place there would never happen again. Every year I pledged: Never Again. Remember and Never forget.

Well, I haven’t forgotten. And so to honor that pledge, to honor the memory of my family members who died in those death camps and because “there comes a time when silence is betrayal”, today I finally and publicly end my support for the state of Israel.

It is sad to see Israel repeating the sins of others.

There is only one way forward towards a lasting peace – as I see it – to states under the borders established in 1967. This means the dismantling of Jewish settlements in occupied territories, and it also means denying millions of Palestinians the right to return to the houses and the land they had to flee from in 1947/48 when Israel was established. It will be traumatising for both nations for sure. And so long Israel has been stopping all possibility of going there through allowing ever more settlements on occupied territory.

We need the world to stand together, we need the US to stand with the world and tell Israel in no uncertain terms that this is the solution the world will accept, and only if Israel empties the settlements will weapons and billions of dollars again flow into the country.

I was luckily able to attend a demonstrations today in support of Gaza. There is a friendship agreement between my city of Tromsø and Gaza. Now Gaza need friends

BMW and the other German car manufacturers won the battle for lower emission standards. Photo anita.trans

The EUobserver reports that the car industry in Europe yet again have won the battle agains stricter emission rules. The European Union had originally decided that the average car produced in the EU could not emit more tan 130 grams of CO2 per kilometre by 2012. The date is now pushed to 2015, and fines for non-compliance has been reduced.

The EUobserver writes:

In the European Commission’s original car emission reduction proposals, which have been all but gutted, the companies were to have introduced the reductions on all cars sold in the EU by 2012. Instead, there will be a phase-in to allow car companies to adjust.

and

The commission had originally pushed for €95 across the board from 2012, but under the deal, firms will now be fined five euros per car for the first gramme that exceeds the limit, €15 euros for the second gramme and €25 for the third. For four grammes and above, car companies will be fined €95 for each gramme. After 2018, however, the €95 fine will be imposed on the very first gramme that breaches the cut-off.

This change will probably make emissions from new cars in Europe rise slightly in the coming years. From an average of 158 grams per kilometre to 164 grams per kilometre.

The car industry, backed by the major car producing countries has managed to kill a car fuel-efficiency law in Europe for the second time in a decade,” said Jos Dings of Transport and Environment, a Brussels-based environmental group.

It is mainly the German car producers that have lobbied for less strict standards. Generally they produce heavier and more polluting cars than the French and Italian producers. The German government has been involved on the industries side for a long time.  EUbusiness wrote last December:

Chancellor Angela Merkel and the powerful German auto industry slammed a European Commission proposal Wednesday to slap heavy fines on car-makers that fail to meet emissions targets.

So, we know where the power sits. No surprise I guess.