Edvenson Consulting

This is an update of my earlier discussion of this issue, which is coming to the forefront again now in Norway, despite having been on the back burner since as long ago as 2005-6. The latest opinions concerning the project are shared best in the Norwegian newspaper, Dagens Næringsliv (Today’s Business News), on Saturday, July 24, 2010 (archive not free, in Norwegian). I will do a bit of translating to communicate some of the details shared, with some remarks in brackets:

Several experts believe government authorities have done a too-bad job in exploring alternatives to the power lines at issue. One of these is Einar Hope of Norway’s Business College. To begin with, the Energy Minister has said that Statnett has no obligation to explore alternative resolutions as thoroughly as the chosen alternative. [In the U.S., this would have required an environmental impact statement, as well as a public hearing, which would have forced the authorities to examine both the environmental and economic costs of the project before further planning of any specific solution.] Einar Hope mentions the fact that the government has not developed the gas power alternative available in the North Sea, for its reserve capacity. Gas turbines already exist in this location and could be turned on again, but that they then come into conflict with power-hungry industry already in this geographic area.

A likely solution would be to couple the power grid to the aluminum industry in Karmøy and Husnes. Wind power generators already planned for the North Sea could also be coupled in to that net. This would create a north-south line, attaching the Bergen area to the power market in Europe, the European power grid, which is desirable for many reasons. [Much of the population of Norway lives in the Oslo area and is on the Europe power grid, from which we usually are sourcing power in mid-late winter, when hydro-power supplies in Norway are occasionally diminished.]

Other comments are noted by Ståle Navrud, who agrees with Hope. He is a professor with the Institute of Economy and Resource Management at the University for Environmental and Biological Sciences in Norway. Navrud points to the economic environmental costs. If you add these to the equation, it would be unacceptably costly to ruin nature using this equation. Given these costs, sea cable becomes more acceptable. Sea cable would cost 3 million more norsk kroner. This, it is estimated, would cost each Norwegian 50 kroner per year, or, in the Hordaland area alone, 500 kroner per household per year (just under $100.] [The total difference in price is really only the equivalent of $486,000. It astounds me that Norway can spend so much money on farmers’ price supports, tax gasoline at the pump at +80%, and tax nearly everything else purchased in Norway, including services, at 25%, and then argue about a sum under $500,000 - to save a pristine natural wonder.]

The argument against sea cable is that it is not technologically reliable, forming a longer cable than has hitherto been placed for such a purpose.

As the article notes, a variety of alternatives have been proposed, but too few have been examined thoroughly. One of the problems with the proposed solution – hanging over Hardanger fjord - is that it has the same net-risk weakness as an already existing east-west Bergen power source. One would think greater attention would be placed on Hope’s European grid-related suggestions and north-south routes along the sea.

Winner: Statkraft

Loser: Norwegians and the World

Summary:  The Norwegian government has, after years of haggling and arguing, finally approved high-voltage transmission towers which would criss-cross Norway's most beautiful and untouched fjords and fjord views, views currently enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of tourists each year.

I know something about this: I am sitting in a cabin with a view of similar high-voltage transmissions towers, which jut with great ugliness from the Drammen fjord at Svelvik, Norway, crossing it, traversing menacingly over a series of lovely old white wooden homes to climb the other side at Klokkarstua, where they disappear into the inland with equal ugliness. They are, to be modern about describing these, suck ugly. And there is no longer any reason to use this form of electricity technology to get power around. Granted, Bergen needs more power. Let them get it another way!

When my husband and I were discussing this over our morning coffee (with the suck ugly view I just referred to), I asked him how the"Norwegian government" could make such a decision: ie. didn't the legislature have to approve it? Where would the money come from if they did not? The answer was: No, they don't have to approve it: we have a majority government in Norway, and therefore the legislature is a majority of what the government is, so no one has to approve it except "the government." "But," I continued, "who owns Statkraft?" Answer: "The government."

To be honest, I thought these fjords and fjord views were already world-protected. The area is similarly as lovely and nearly on top of one added to the list of UNESCO's World Heritage Sites in 2005  (http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/134 ). World Heritage areas are supposed to be protected from excess human development and modifications under an international treaty. (This is embodied in the international treaty, Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, adopted by UNESCO in 1972.) The idea is to safeguard such sites. Countries involved (such as Norway) should report to UNESCO how they are preserving such sites. Not destroying such areas. The site of the present proposal should also qualify for protection under UNESCO.

Another point: Norway has been slow to protect natural areas by national legislation, such as establishing national park territories, as the U.S. has done. Norway's first national park was designated in 1962, and a second not again until 1989, while the U.S. established its National Park Service in 1872, when Yellowstone became its first national park.

My husband's argument against these, er, suck ugly lines and towers is that high-voltage power lines are not the best economic alternative available when one considers the loss of tourism Norway could experience as a result of such lines. The lines are not the least of it: the government then gets busy killing everything that dies within a wide space of the high-voltage assemblages (they're not poles). Add to this the fact that the tourism losses will be multiplied year after year after year. Add to this the fact that power lines are showing up everywhere in the world: is there no place that they cannot and should not show up? Of course there is. . . but is there anything about this that is not some political pork project paying off someone who is on the inside before the government is voted out of power? That's a rather more interesting question.

In fact, Norway is quite capable of making sea cable that would accommodate all the power needed, which is, after all the result that is sought. As the famous Danish designer, Poul Henningsen, has said, as I paraphrase: Focus on the light, not the lamp. Similarly, Bergen, focus on the result, not the means. Focus on getting the power to your homes and offices by sea cables, not by overhead wires.

This lead me into a broad array of related memories of lessons learned when I moved to Norway. If it sounds like Norway's version of democracy has forgotten about those precious words we revere so in the United States of America, balance of powers, you would be correct. New permanent residents are right to be suspicious when they get to the polling place and are asked not which person they would like to vote for, but which party's ballot they would like to be handed to take into the polling booth. That's right: there is no true representation in Norway; a Norwegian has no representative whose duty is to vote for those things of interest to him/her – the person whose office you call and blast when bad decisions are being made, the person you call when you want a new initiative to be taken up in the law. This makes doing whatever the government wants quite easy – in fact, it's a free-for-all. Once you're 'elected,' as they call it, you're in – in like Flint. Which means in with the budget. Roads? Screw 'em: we won't build better roads. So what if Sweden is so proud of theirs? Schools? Let them rot – look the other way. It's all party-politics. Want to get something for your community? Good luck.

The fact that the legislature is the same as the government doesn't help matters right now either, since the present government is a majority government and that government, as we noted, represents the legislature. It's kind of like putting the wolves in charge of the chicken coop: and then kicking out the chickens. The present government is really quite unpopular, despite the fact that they got re-elected last year. "They" are a combination of the Labor party, Center party (the farmer's party – price supports), and the Socialist party (everybody's equal – we mean it. . . and the government is always right, just like in communist countries.) This present "government" – have they really done anything? My husband says, Yes: they saved Norway from the economic crisis by... using the Oil Fund (excuse me, now called the Pension Fun.) They've done exactly what everyone else has done – gone to Afghanistan, send money to Africa, walk around acting holier-than-thou, and give two hoots about infrastructure and communities at home. They have not failed to deliver on any initiatives by never being quite clear enough to commit themselves to some, and are generally obfuscatory when put on the point. Being offended by critique is one of their favorite childish ploys. Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, for example, will appear frowning and 'pissed off' in public photos. That takes care of things. Be nice about things and Jens will smile. We want Jens to smile, so most folks around Norway keep their critical opinions to themselves. They just keep quiet, like good Norwegians do.

I myself should have shut up two paragraphs ago. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words. Here are some for your perusal on the topic of the post: http://stoppkraftlinja.no/index.jsp?pid=5001 . There are plenty of terrible photos here. You don't have to know Norwegian to see that. Now, what is anyone going to do about it? . . . who can, that is?

There are times when it is hard to believe the pathetic employment reality for non-native-Norwegian professionals in Norway. One can be Norwegian-American; it simply does no good: not only will Norwegians not hire well-qualified professionals who immigrate to Norway - that is, into positions consistent with their existing education, experience and general qualifications; if a Norwegian 'can' do the job,' a Norwegian will do the job!

However, apparently, it is perfectly alright to hire Norwegians who are not qualified for jobs – and while doing so, avoid confronting those Norwegians who do take high offices with, er, questions about their own education, experience and specific qualifications for those jobs.

Case in point, and a prefatory remark. I make this case-in-point primarily because, frankly, I am a very well qualified candidate to replace the, er, fraud, Norwegian, Liv Løberg. Thus,

"Dear Interim Director of the Statens Autorisasjonskontor for Helsepersonell (SAFH),( the Norwegian State Office charged with establishing whether health personell are properly authorized to accept specific certifications and eligibility for specific jobs in Norway),

Please accept this blog as an expression of my sincere interest in working as administrasjonssjef of SAFH. I am presently available for full-time employment, and am a candidate well-suited to this position. I have an extensive background in health planning and worked as an administrative law judge in the U.S. I have higher education in law, as well as several years of auditing and management experience. I have been in Norway for over 11 years, took Norwegian classes, and have a good knowledge of Norwegian. I have been working on contract due to underemployment in fields of my past experience, but have many years of appropriate government service for such a position." You get my point.

Remarkably, Liv Løberg held the position noted above, while consistently mis-representing herself to those who have employed her. (http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10002237) And the Google versions of her pre-problem CV/resume are now pulled offline. Among the degrees Løberg claimed to have acquired legitimately: a certified nurse, a 3-4 year medical bachelor's degree program; a sivil økonom, a 4-year university business-economics degree from the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration (NHH); a master's degree from the London School of Economics; and a Bachelor's degree in Economics from the Queen Mary College in London. (http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/TV2/archive/00814/falskCV_814089a.jpg) Did she have any of these? No.

Liv Løberg is presently chargable under several laws in Norway, including:

• Document falsification

• Falsification of inquiry by a public authority

• Bedrageri: ie. fraud, swindling.

She has, according to yesterday's Aftenposten, retracted her participation and membership in the FrP political party, Norway's most conservative party. Please, Aftenposten: how hard it is to tell the truth? She was forced out, and everyone knows it. Fact is, Kari Kjønaas Kjos, leader of the Akershus county Frp party, was kind enough to let them put it that way. "Dear Kari, I'd love to get involved in Akershus Frp, too."

But is the case going to be prosecuted? It's not yet clear. Norway has its own rules for democracy, which have something to do with the commonly practiced and well-respected, "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil."

Some are suggesting that Ms. Løberg go to jail. I think this would be highly unfair. After all, once she is in jail, she will have a nice room, a roof over her head, three square meals a day, and possibly even qualify to stay at an open-door, island prison. Perhaps even a 'prison' in a southern Spain paradise.

As to her future, I challenge the government to come up with an especially appropriate response, one that has all of the new judicial concern for 'giving back' to the community that is found to be so appropriate in modern cases of abuse of public trust.

Granted, she will probably claim she can no longer be employed, due to her crushed emotional state. After all, she is now 60, and has been taking everyone for everything she got for all these years. She will, as most Norwegians do, get disability income. She may also be eligible for unemployment income, which as a contractor, I cannot get and never have been able to get, despite my 11 years of under-employment in Norway.

No, there is one thing that Liv Løberg can do that she is qualified to do. She is an authorized CNA (the American title for it). She is authorized and educated as a Certified Nurse Assistant. This is the person, below a nurse, who changes bed-pans, and is permitted to shift the patient's sheets, etcetera. Their role in our society is critical, and, as a good Norwegian knows, no job is a small job nor an unimportant job. In fact, I believe that Liv Løberg should be ordered to work as a Certified Nurse Assistant until her retirement, at which time she can go to jail. She can join the many hundreds of Somali refugees that Norway has been kind enough to import and educate for such life-time jobs. During those years, she can be placed into wage garnishment - for re-payment for her years of fraudulently working at jobs she was not only not qualifed for but no good at.

Once she gets to retirement age, she should be eligible only for those pension points she made while being employed at a legitimate level, not those she accrued while lying about her work qualifications all her life. At this time, all pension credits she gained while being employed at jobs for which she falsely represented herself should be stricken from her record. In all fairness, I would be happy to take those pension points, since I cannot earn any when I am not employed full-time in Norway. I would consider this quite a fair exchange with the State. This would assure that Liv Løberg qualifies for a minimal Norwegian pension. Just what she so richly deserves.

I am happy to report that some news and government sources perked up after my peek into BP's latest financial reports.  Don't get me wrong:  I'm not taking credit for, um, the quick response . . . although I might, for all the hullabulloo that 'hit the fan' in the 24 hours after I last posted on this topic, in both news and government circles, both in Europe and the U.S..

Alright, so we don't freeze BP's assets;  we go for the 20 billion dollar 'compensation fund' - with a non-BP administrator (as a former auditor, this is the sort of 'control' touch I love to see). And yet, the oil spill is still spilling.

Let's noun-ify this right now.  After all, gerunds are 'in.'  It is a spilling.  Call it the spilling, since that is what it, sadly, is. 

My point now (one of them) is this:  The news of the continued oil spilling is taking less and less attention in the media - while all related ecosystems are taking more and more of a beating. When is the oil spilling going to stop?

Pundits as recently as yesterday (The Copenhagen Post, June 26, 2010) suggested it's simply a matter of time until the oil spilling is no longer spilling.  Why should I take comfort in this news - when no one seems to know how to stop a deep-water oil leak?  In the opinion of many, the time to have performed the necessary technical research and development for deep-water oil leak responses was before such exploration began.  Now, we see how long it takes to find those solutions.

Meanwhile, David Cameron's austerity measures, announced also in the last week, say everything but that the elephant is in the room:  The principle first message priority:  Pensions will be cut.  Why?  Well, er, because this is something we (the UK) should do to protect itself from further financial risk, etcetera etcetera.  Read:  BP, BP, BP.  In fact, if one were to sing it, it would sound like the siren on European ambulances.

To David Cameron and BP, I say, tell the dolphins.  Tell the turtles.  Tell the pelicans.  Tell all the fish, the lobsters, shrimp and crabs.  Tell the untold microscopic forms of life that this oil is slathering by the thousands of barrels each day, in one of the world's most perfect estuaries for sea life protection and formation.  Then, get something done about what is actually the important news:  the devastation of a vast ecosystem.

Not too long ago, I was watching BBC World television in Norway. It was a few days after the terrible accident that continues to spill oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Sounding like this was some very difficult issue to understand, the BBC World reporter asked a British Petroleum executive the question on everyone's minds: "What effect will this have on the size of dividends BP shareholders rely on?" He assured her it was not a problem. I was more stunned by the question than the answer. These Brits had obviously never seen the Gulf of Mexico. They had never considered the complex and fragile role this huge bay plays in the global glory of sea life on Earth.

A few days later, I found myself, luckily, admiring some of the Gulf's stunning Florida beaches, pristine, filled with turtle nestings, feeding birds of many species, fish and sea life of every variety. I then heard that President Obama was interested in all ideas related to what to do. Immediately I thought of the lesson my favorite supervisor of all time, Kevin Carhill, taught me, as we audited government operations, management and programs: "Follow the money." This was always excellent advice. I knew what my suggestion to the President would be: Freeze BP's assets now.

And have they been? No. Well, we can assume that, with every passing oil-spilling day, BP is scrambling ever more frantically over their . . . um, money. Let's take a look at what I can find, just up to today, which, frankly, isn't much; I simply don't have the resources; much more investigative effort should be placed on BP financial activity just right now.

That said, 40% of BP is share-owned by UK owners, 33% of that by UK institutions and 7% by UK individuals. Surprisingly, and sadly, 39% of BP is share-owned by US sources, 25% by US institutions and 14% by US individuals. In 2008, BP had replacement cost profit before interest and tax of 26.4 billion USD, down from 2007's 35.2 billion USD. The usual tax rate runs about 28-33%, resulting in a conservative estimated after-tax profit of 17.7 billion USD. For 2009, BP claims after-tax profits of 14 billion USD.

What is BP's impact in the U.K.? Let's see. According to BBC News, BP employs 10,105 people in the UK, and paid taxes to the UK totaling 5.8 billion GBP in 2009, or 8.5 billion dollars. I think we can safely say that BP runs the UK. BP is responsible or paying 1 out of every 7 pounds entering UK pension funds. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10282777.stm ) On June 10th, Anthony Reuben reported for BBC that Sir Christopher Meyer, former British Ambassador to the US has told BBC, "The government must put down a marker with the US administration that the survival and long-term prosperity of BP is a vital British interest." I find that quotation remarkably political – and remarkably unclear. Don't you? I mean, really. It could be as weak as: Tough guy demands wimpy national cheer. Still, I love that word, "marker." That's right, UK: Guarantee BP's debt over this – including ALL of what are, unfortunately, being called "ripple" effects. (Metaphors should be protected from abuse, too.)

But speaking of dividends, BP is feeling chipper, as they say in the UK. BP is getting ready to pay one of the highest quarterly dividends to shareholders in recent memory. On June 21st, BP will be paying their ordinary shareholders 10.6187 pence on the share. This amounts to 15.44 cents on the share. BP last paid this much in the first quarter of 2009 and last quarter of 2008, although generally, quarterly share dividend payments in CY 2008 averaged 8.9 pence per share, and in CY 2007, 6.26 pence per share.

Cutting to the chase, BP has, in the first quarter of 2010, 18,784,361,000 shares in issue. This means they are getting ready to pay a quarterly dividend of (18,784,361,000 x 15.44 cents)... 29 million dollars. Yes, BP is getting ready to pay 29 million dollars in dividends to their ordinary shareholders on June 21st, while the oil spill continues to ruin a global estuary of unimaginable and nearly incomprehensible importance.

Dividend payments should also be stopped. Granted, this hurts institutional investors - and individual investors. The institutional investors are probably supporting pension funds. In any case, ordinary people (maybe even 'rich people') are going to be hurt if BP's assets are frozen. Still, as Abraham Lincoln, said, "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.” I realize I'm lifting Old Abe out of context, but don't you agree?

And BP's cash is disappearing before their eyes. Are you watching also? BP's price per share is plummeting just now, from a late April high of 660 pence per share to its present rate of about 390 pence per share. (http://www.bp.com/onefeedsection.do?categoryId=152&contentId=2002499 )

Have I said enough? Is anyone listening? That's my part. I do what I can do.

Here are some outside references asking for the same action:

Here is a blog directly on point, also criticizing statements made by related federal administration officials: from Greg Hunter, with 9 years of experience as an investigative correspondent, for the ABC network and later for CNN: "Freeze BP's Assets Now!": http://usawatchdog.com/freeze-bp%E2%80%99s-assets-now/

'Wooglet Voot,' a Top Contributor to Yahoo's Answers service, agrees: Freeze BP's assets now. He adds several small points, "Capitalism will not work if they are able to shift the costs of drilling for oil to innocent victims. If BP cannot pay, they should be forced into bankruptcy as a warning to other operators that may want to cut corners. There was better technology available that they use in the north sea and they chose not to use it in the Gulf." According to Voot, the President of BP also indicated clearly he would not be responsible for all "ripple effects." The source for this was a Public Broadcasting Service interview. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june10/oil1_05-03.html ) The videotape for that interview has since been pulled, production date, May 3. Voot's remarks are found at: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100504214232AA2pKva

In the same PBS report, President Obama was reported as stating, "BP is responsible for this leak. BP will be paying the bill."

Change.org: This blog-based signature/response website now has a petition, "Freeze all of BP's assets, before it is too late" As of today's date, it has 208 signatures, some with additional actions taken. This should be millions of signatures. Millions upon millions. (http://www.change.org/petitions/view/freeze_all_of_bps_assets_before_it_is_too_late )

Facebook has several Freeze BP assets groups, none of which sports a high membership yet.

Subject:  The company that makes Marlboro cigarettes has decided to sue Norway

Take:  I hope they will lose this fight - for all the right reasons. 

My information comes from the short article published to date in Norway's major paper, unfortunately only in Norwegian, in March (http://www.aftenposten.no/okonomi/innland/article3555869.ece).  I'll do the translating as well as the editorializing.

A bit of background:  A few months ago, the cigarette racks at the groceries, which are usually situated just behind or just to the right hand of the cashier, were covered over with small metal covers so that each set of rows was covered by a fold-up/fold-down lid.  This prevents you from seeing the stacked ends of the cigarette packs.  Over here in Norway, those include a lot of Prince packs, Camels, Pall Malls, and then Dunhill, and a few others including Marlboros.  As a result, when you get to the check-out and want to ask for your pack, you can't see them, you just ask, and the cashier gets the pack out and rings it up.  The system uses coupons, too, which you carry to the cashier, where they are validated. Anyway, if you want a pack of cigarettes and you're old enough, you can buy them . . instead of, based on their unbelievable cost here, a car after two years (which also has an unbelievable cost, but which you could afford if, instead of smoking a pack a day, you saved that money).  Background over.

From the beginning of this calendar year, it was forbidden to show tobacco products on the shelves in Norwegian kiosks (small groceries, other small stores) and larger stores. According to the Purchasers Association, it has cost Norwegian businesses a huge amount of money to implement this ban.  The goal is to protect the average customer from being exposed to seeing tobacco products.  The Norwegian government's ambition is to reduce the number of persons smoking, since smoking is dangerous. 

Phillip Morris responds that there is no scientific proof showing that such a visual prohibition has a health effect.  Of course, they've put a woman on the case, Anne Edwards.  Iceland has had a similar system since 2001, she argues, and there's still no proof that it improves health.  Phillip Morris took their case to the Oslo courts in March, claiming that it was a prohibition that worked against natural competition, and against economic freedom.

Several other European countries have a similar prohibition, and it's thought this case could lead to a slew of such cases being filed and fought for in various countries.  There has also been the suggestion that the Oslo court could refer the case directly to the EFTA court (European Free Trade Agreement court). The EFTA Court fulfills the judicial function within the EFTA system with regards to those states who embraced the '4 freedoms' (Free movement of workers, free trade, etc etc), and who are not EU nations: that includes Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway.

Norway's director of public health said, (in Norwegian), "This shows that we are on the right track. If Phillip Morris really believes that the prohibition doesn't reduce tobacco usage, then they wouldn't be troubled by this law. In contrast, I think their case filing is a sign that the prohibition will reduce tobacco usage over time." Love it, Bjørn-Inge Larsen!

Sold by Phillip Morris worldwide in CY2008: for 150 billion NOK

Income of operations worldwide in CY2008: 60 billion NOK. Sales figures were not available for Norway alone. However, consider that Norway has a rather small population, 4.8 million.  Norway's gross domestic product (purchasing power parity) in CY 2008 was 279.6 billion U.S. dollars, or 1,621 billion NOK.  Per capita, this makes Norway one of the 'richest' countries in the world, at $60,200 per capita in CY 2008, but also one most impacted per capita by marketing and advertising campaigns. In general, Phillip Morris's overall sales and profitability continue to climb dramatically worldwide.

The World Health Organization has set up a body whose goal is to encourage the consistent regulation of tobacco products. Ideally, they discourage the use of tobacco products altogether.  The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is the first international public health treaty on tobacco.  One of the FCTC's suggested approaches is to restrict the public display of tobacco products.

Who is the David?  Norway.  Who is the Goliath?  We know who.  

Norway needs to win this fight - for all the right reasons.  What are the reasons Norway would lose?  The restriction of competition in the marketplace is limited, generally - in order to foster economic activity and the free trade of goods.  The problem is that tobacco products are not 'good' goods.  What are the reasons Phillip Morris should lose?  The government has the right to regulate for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of its people.  Hiding cigarettes, even if 'out-of-sight means 'out-of-mind', is precisely what the government should have the right to do. 

With tobacco a continuing scourge to all who have contact with it, ruining lives, families, health care systems, estates, and the future for generations of young people the world over, I hope - at the very least -  that such products will remain covered in Norway.  That is at least a stand in the continuing and spreading battle to rid the world of the debilitating deadly economy of tobacco.

Subject: What jobs do people need done and how can you identify secure options for yourself?

Angle: Let's look at how Norway handles new ventures, as well as important jobs that need doing, despite hard times.

"I should talk about under-employment," she thought sarcastically. That's me. I've been under-employed in Norway since my arrival, something I never thought would happen, of course. Many other innvandrer (in-wanderers, that is, immigrants) find themselves in the same boat, despite being highly employable at upper professional levels. They also call us 'utlendinger' (foreigners, aliens). Despite my own sorry history of trying to be more fully employed in Norway, or perhaps as a result of it, I share an urgent sense of empathy with those in the U.S. and, yes, even in Norway, who find themselves suddenly under-employed or out-of-work despite their best efforts and their determination to succeed.

So what is there to do? I shall tell you what I did, and what others suggest. First, I applied for hundreds of jobs in Norway. (Bad idea:  age discrimination was still legal here.) I then applied for a few dozen more in Europe and the U.S., hoping to work from Norway, that is. I simultaneously took Norwegian lessons for almost one year. At that point, I gave up my daily applications (good idea) and tried to use networking and other avenues. After 2-3 years, I had garnered a bit of contract work, and my law school loans had gone into default, racking up capitalized interest at an obscene rate, and making all my own personal loan sharks froth in the rough waters of my economic drowning.

On the bright side, I re-created myself in Norway from a career perspective, beginning after a few short months of sorting out where foods were on the grocery shelves, which stores carried what, and what those funny street signs mean that appear inside circles. I began editing texts on contract, and began teaching English on contract. This included substitute teaching as well as some small continuing education classes, teaching English. Luckily, in addition to being an American attorney, I was also a certified English teacher at the secondary level, and had college-level teaching experience. I also rented a small space with my small income and went back to creating art. I held several exhibitions and have sold some paintings and jewelry. A few years in, I also returned to school ? to finish an old Master's degree in English, resulting in my being hired on contract to teach at a Norwegian business college. I maintain my law license as active, which is not as cheap nor as easy as it might sound, but which affords me a small annual salary providing attorney-related services. I also took an interest in alternative health therapies and took the courses to provide related services, which I do now in my spare time. Sound ideal? Sorry, I would never be able to support myself with this scenario, absent my husband's steady income. Which leads me to the point that I must, in the next year or so, 'cut bait or switch,' as they say: that is, pull up my Norwegian income or go back to the U.S. to manage to do that there. Not a pretty scene. Besides, I now owe some sharks the approximate value of Norway's gross national product in re-capitalized interest, added to already capitalized interest that buried my original unpaid balance years ago. Still, I can't help feeling like I was the first to go through this recession, so it's comforting to see so many others joining me . . . as our student loan providers drag us all to the bottom of the un-bankruptable ocean-floor that is our 'economic lives.' But enough of these suicidal thoughts,  Virginia Woolf.

Are you ready, spiritually-broken attorneys, writers, and other mantra-maddened job groups? Here is your deliverance: The jobs that Norwegians feel are the most meaningful jobs to be done for the society ("Norges viktigste," Dagbladet, 14. april, 2009, 13.) What? You weren't thinking in this direction? Oh, you were thinking of yourself? To begin with, you have to think with more collective goals in mind, alright? Starting there, here is the new important you:

1. Nurse

2. Teacher

3. Doctor

4. Police

5. Engineer

6. Hand worker (carpenter, plumber, electrician)

7. Case worker (in the public sector)

8. Attorney

9. Shop worker

10. Journalist

Not exciting?  Not that there are a lot of jobs for print journalists or attorneys these days in the general economy. However, this list should help you put your 'society-glasses' on, as Norwegians might say.

Recent projections from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics on the top ten fastest-growing occupations follow:

- Home health aides

--Network systems and data communications analysts

- Medical assistants

- Physician assistants

- Computer software engineers

- Physical therapist assistants

- Dental hygienists

- Computer software engineers

- Dental assistants

- Personal and home care aides

Mmm, some of these sound suspiciously similar to the 'important jobs' Norwegians value. What? You don't want to wash people's feet ? or teeth ? for a living? Many of them don't, either.  Or visit them in their homes to help them . . . eat? Yet, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, "many jobs in real estate and finance, for instance, are likely gone forever. And those in retail and leisure may be slow to return if consumers are reluctant to spend." ("Many lost jobs in U.S. will never come back," Sudeep Reddy, The Outlook, WSJ, Oct. 5, 2009.)

I have an alternative suggestion, which may not differ markedly from portions of the previous list. Look around you, locally. Who needs help? Who needs a product? a service? an opportunity? Identify who helps persons who have that need to answer that need. If it is an agency, find out how to serve them. If it is a franchise, find out how to get one. If it is a license, find out how to acquire it. Stick with local issues ? you'll be making non-Walmart differences. After all, if you're lucky, you'll have profits that you can plow a portion of back into the community, the sort of thing we used to do in America. Also, join with others who are organized for business purposes in your community. The social network aspects of such work can help you and others identify and address detailed needs, not just help each other.

Whatever you do, don't go to law school. Now, goodbye, it's time for me to enjoy my weekly hour-off. Let's see, what else could I do to make money? I wish you lots of luck, energy, enthusiasm and dedication. 

Jason Turflinger, of the American Chamber of Commerce in Norway, was kind enough to call me this summer at the one-room cabin on the fjord, noting the American tax deadline of September something, 2009, and the question and alarm of some callers to their office. Being the thoroughly modern Millie I am, I turned to the coffee-table-desk-station and Googled the tidbits.

This turns out to be a reference to the U.S. deadline for Americans with money in foreign banks - or financial interests in the money that is in foreign banks - to report some general information about that money to the United States government. Since we're in the acronym age, let's call it like it is: It is FBAR. I will think of that as the letter F, followed by the word, BAR. You can decide what the F stands for if it does not stand for Federal, by the way, as this is what most Americans, hard-working overseas, probably think of this requirement.

I, meanwhile, have been simply bowled over with responsibilities since this inquiry, which has caused the delay of some superb blog entries (still forthcoming), and the complete re-painting of the main-home kitchen, among other things such as swimming, working, teaching courses and helping students. But now is the time to ring the bells.

Time to report on the FBAR! Americans, Awake! Time to report!

Not just American citizens but all those subject to filing with the IRS, including, for example the categories identified as non-resident aliens with U.S. income and those holding green cards while temporarily living and working overseas who wish to keep those cards active. 

The United States, besides being one of the only countries in the world to tax its citizens when they live abroad and make money from foreign sources only (geez), is also interested now in catching up with those who have stashed money in foreign banks - and, by the way, securities. They want to know the names of the banks, the account numbers, and the amounts in those accounts.

Conceptually, we recognize the new reality as a great Grisham novel: Here's the American company CEO with a foreign bank account, into which he somehow stashes some money that he does not claim for U.S. taxes. We get it. The rub, however, is that, conceptually, it is also this person: the American overseas who simply lives overseas and has a bank account of their own - and/or 'interests' in another person's bank account. This would include, for example, in a Norway example, an American woman married to a Norwegian man who has the right to inherit from him, and then how much does he have in his banks, whereever they are in the world? Well, how much? The U.S. government would like to know.

The authorities are kind enough to excuse those of us who do not report if the amount is under $10,000. Be any better off than that, and you're just the sucker that the Federal Treasury department wants to hear from - BEFORE September 23rd. This is called a "Voluntary Disclosure" deadline, after which one may or may not be eligible for an exception from penalties imposed by someone.

How does this affect you? Maybe not much, depending on how cash-poor you are, that is. There is the general $10,000 dollar minimum. Surely this is one of the only moments at which I find myself glad to be married to a man who is relatively cash-poor, as am I. In Norwegian kroner right now (September 11, 2009), that $10,000 dollar amount over which reporting is required is a mere 59,189.51 NOK! Darn it!  The kroner is so strong.

Here is how clearly the IRS tells us about this:

" The purpose for the voluntary disclosure practice is to provide a way for taxpayers who did not report taxable income in the past to voluntarily come forward and resolve their tax matters. Thus, If you reported and paid tax on all taxable income but did not file FBARs, do not use the voluntary disclosure process." -IRS website.  This means that those of you who have been filing IRS tax forms - and paying taxes when you are supposed to - should not use the voluntary disclosure process, for some reason? whatever that is?

The IRS continues, "For taxpayers who reported and paid tax on all their taxable income for prior years but did not file FBARs, you should file the delinquent FBAR reports according to the instructions (send to Department of Treasury, Post Office Box 32621, Detroit, MI 48232-0621) and attach a statement explaining why the reports are filed late. Send copies of the delinquent FBARs, together with copies of tax returns for all relevant years, by September 23, 2009, to the Philadelphia Offshore Identification Unit at:

Internal Revenue Service

11501 Roosevelt Blvd.

South Bldg., Room 2002

Philadelphia, PA 19154

Attn: Charlie Judge, Offshore Unit, DP S-611" - IRS website.

We take this to mean that you better send in an FBAR to DOT in Detroit as soon as you can. This simplifies things, don't you think?

I can hardly bring myself to list some links, they are similarly somewhat confusing. However, I have seen the FBAR form and it is really quite straightforward. Here is a copy attached as a link: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f90221.pdf.  (Just fill out the pages that apply to you and your 'interests.') 

 And don't ask me how the Treasury or IRS plan to follow-up on this routine. Let's just say, it will be interesting to see who the BIG fish are who get caught having been living the good life in the U.S. of A. while stashing their cash in other countries. I will welcome all the stories, just like the good collectivists and egalitarians that most Norwegians are.

But as for poor Mrs. American-in-Norway, if you fall into this category, little lady, you better list up your and your hubby's accounts and totals. The U.S. government will be watching for it. And if you have been smart enough to keep your personal income low, but the financial interests lie in corporate or security accounts, or savings, well, you don't get a 'free pass.' In Monopoly terms, the government wants you to know that you could get the 'go to jail' card for not reporting, okay? So take the Nike road: "Just Do It."

For those interested in finding more information online:

Who must file? http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=209418,00.html  

FAQs regarding the FBAR filing requirement: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=210252,00.html  

The excuse notice on the September 23rd deadline: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=210174,00.html

Norway's national anthem is a lovely song which also includes wonderful lyrics.  It is heard by us often during Olympic events, as Norway ratchets up the wins in gold, silver and bronze medals.  It is also heard and sung often on the 17th of May, the day of Norway's annual Independence Day celebrations. 

I was encouraged to learn it when I moved to Norway ten years ago, and became interested in the English translation. I have seen other translations, but felt obliged to create my own - to reflect, as closely as possible, the meaning of the words, even if it was not 'singable.'  I therefore provide a link to my translation of "Ja, vi elsker dette landet."  I hope you enjoy it.