Talk:Economy of Denmark

Denmark Top‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 June 2019 and 3 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aparacha.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GDP Update

Updating GDP growth figures (according to IMF and adding a table of selected GDP growth percentages:

Year	GDP in billions of USD PPP	% GDP Growth
2002	166.876	0.5
2003	170.798	0.7
2004	178.477	2.4
2005	187.721	2.2
2006	195.581	2.1

Link for verification --JDnCoke 17:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent Statistic

The unemployment statistic in the table at the beginning of the article and the statistic in the "National accounts" part of the article are conflicting. The table reads the unemployment rate as 4.5% and at the end of the article the rate is listed at 3.9%. Britney-Boy 07:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DanishKroners.jpg

Image:DanishKroners.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark and the euro

There's more on Denmark and the euro on the Eurozone page than here. Referendum? Peg? Debate on joining?

--JamesWim (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "official unemployment"?

The article says "During the governments of Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, there was a drastic fall in official unemployment (...)". What is official unemployment, and what would it be if it was not official? If there is a good reason to distinguish between official and else, it would be nice to have a link to an article explaining that.

84.238.86.203 (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes best country for business

Maybe it's worth including somewhere that on Forbes' list Denmark ranked as the best country for business in 2008 and 2009? http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/6/bizcountries09-best-countries-for-business_Denmark_CHI001.html JoakimLemche (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV and accuracy tag added to Employment section

I added a POV and accuracy tag to the Employment section because the last paragraph:

Denmark also engages in programs where they are able to hide unemployment. For example, in 2006 there were 117,600 people who were put away in so-called "arbejdsmarkedspolitiske foranstaltninger" or "labor market political activities".

is cited using a blog as the source, which violates WP:RS. If a reliable source isn't found, this paragraph should be deleted. Pristino (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the expression "hide unemployment" is NPOV, as "arbejdsmarkedspolitiske foranstaltninger" are parts of an active Danish employment policy, and therefore not a way to fake unemploymentrates. The 117,600 people who are supposed to be hidden referes to the 4th quarter of 2005, which is stated in a Statistics Denmark report via this link. --Sabbe (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Energy self sufficiency

The article states that Denmark is self sufficient in its energy supply, presumably because it produces as much/more than it uses in a given year, but as it relies on importing energy from neighbours at times when it cannot meet its own needs I do not consider this self sufficient, its system would fail without energy imports. The statement should be removed. Agree/disagree? Luca's Ade (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIsagree. Denmark is energy self sufficient in the normal sense of the word, producing enough energy to meet its own demands. The hydrocarbons from the North Sea is enough to power both Denmarks electricy based and non-electricity based energy needs.90.184.255.144 (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This would all come down to how self sufficiency is offically defined in relation to energy. I dont know about this, but it could be checked. Anyway, Luca's Ade concerns could be mentioned in this context I think. In general, I dont think self sufficiency means "unconnected" or "isolated". How power grids exchange is another issue. RhinoMind (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No nation is capable of sustaining its economy without international trade - there are too many special items for any nation to produce on its own. TGCP (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the expansion, but there are a few mistakes. The main one is the difference between industrial and consumer electricity price - both include costs for cleaner energy (PSO, staying inside the electricity economy), but consumer price includes taxes to fund common state expenditure (hospitals, retirement, etc.). This confusion is commonly misused by fossil proponents to claim that green energy (particularly wind) is much more expensive than conventional energy. The problem is how to reference these somewhat complex conditions, and that is an ongoing process. For now, a simple reversion should do. TGCP (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I deliberately deleted what was previously referred to as "welfare tax", as it was wrong and misleading (and an often used self-invented "term" in neo-conservative ideological attacks on the state as well). The right word is environmental toll, but the WP entry for toll refers to a "fee", which is not a good description either, so I left out any WP link. Well, so much for my explaining. Let me get to your post. How the toll is spent is indeed interesting, but it is issued as an environmental toll, so this is the term we need to use. We do not have to make any interpretations or account for how money circulates in the public sector in this case. This can be done in other sections dealing with the public sector or said environmetal tolls specifically. It is not the goal of a section on energy. You are most welcome to elaborate on it in another section. RhinoMind (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please distinguish between PSO and tax: PSO is included in both the industry price at 9eurocent/kWh and the consumer price at 31eurocent/kWh - the difference is consumer tax and sales tax. These consumer taxes are specifically NOT environmental tolls ! They are excise taxes for general purposes! (Welfare or not). The present article text is self-contradictory and confusing, because it is wrong. TGCP (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Grønne afgifter"

They are all referred to as Grønne Afgifter (ie. environmental tolls) in general, without regard to who pays them or for what reason or purpose. It is a mess yes and it would be a great idea to elaborate on it. But I have to state and repeat though, that it is on the level of interpretation. You can make the additions in the main article first. This is the most obvious place for details like these. Here are some additional interesting Danish sources that could be of some use in this regard:

Grøn afgift Danish Wikipedia
[1] A number of articles from the newspaper Information
[2] MandagMorgen
[3] SKAT
"Grønne skatter og afgifter [Green taxes and tolls]" Pamphlet from "Det Økologiske Råd". Look it up on the web, WP block the direct links for some odd reason.

RhinoMind (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, we should perhaps use the term Green Tolls for Grønne Afgifter. Miljøafgift (Environmental Toll) is just one part of grønne afgifter. Will put it up later. RhinoMind (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are too broad to be useful here - they barely mention electricity. The term "green tax" is incorrect in this case. SKM: "Hvorvidt en afgift er grøn afhænger af, om afgiften virker miljøforbedrende" - whether a tax is green depends on whether it improves the environment. The consumer tax goes into the overall state coffers, just like income tax and corporate tax, and has no impact on the environment. It is much more accurate to call it a general tax than an environmental tax. TGCP (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The environmental improvements are not measured by where the tax (or toll) is spent. It is measured by how it affects consumer behaviour. Its purpose is to reduce consumation of the taxed/tolled "products". This is an important point to understand. But please go ahead and elaborate on the whole thing in the main article on Energy in Denmark, then we could perhaps import some headlines to this article later on. RhinoMind (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We must go by reference, which states that environment tax is zero for electricity. If you can find a reference to say otherwise, we can then add that. Whether the tax impacts the environment is hypothetical, as the Inf articles indicate - electricity is taxed the same way regardless of "fuel". Back when electricity only came from oil, coal and gas, it made sense to label the tax, but the situation is not that simple anymore. I will now go ahead and include the tables, and reword the sentence according to reference. It is still a matter of debate whether the rest of the tax is Value-added tax or sales tax. TGCP (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not gonna discuss the few inspirational refs I just threw out. They were just meant as a help for you to get started on what you felt was important.

What I am going to do on the other hand is encourage you to study just a little bit of economy before engaging in a main article on exactly that: Economy. If you do not understand the difference between a toll and a tax, and the way they work, then you should not edit a section about these subjects. It is as simple as that. RhinoMind (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you study how the energy market works, and follow Wikipedia policy of quoting sources : page 26 says environment tax is zero. Likewise, VAT and Excise are defined as taxes. The word difference between toll and tax is subject for debate, easily changed, and not a reason to keep out facts you don't like. TGCP (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are beeing excessively and unnecessary aggressive and accusing. I have not violated any quoting policies, this is ridicoulous. You are grabbing things out of thin air in some kind of blind anger about stuff only you know about.

And no, the difference between a toll and a tax is not subject to any debate. They are both very clearly defined and are one of the most basic parameters in economy. This is idiotic. Sorry, but this word is the most objective and descriptive word to use here. And no, I am not trying to keep anything out. I am trying to keep the contents based in facts and not interpretations and speculation conjured by specific parties with certain interests. And so should you. Its fine with me what you have put up. In all of this, I have not been your enemy. You are conjuring things and winding yourself up. I cannot help thinking you come here with some kind of agenda? You are personally angered about some parts of how the economy of Denmark works? Am I right? RhinoMind (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad it has to come to all this, but if I learned anything it must be that the article really needs some thorough explanation on why Grønne Afgifter was introduced and what environmental effects it has had. I will see to it later I guess. RhinoMind (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

page 26 specifies that excise tax is 87,8øre/kWh, and environment tax is zero. That should end the discussion. I'll add an energy tax table in a bit. TGCP (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though this article is very limited

Denmark has an ultra neoliberal economy. Its at the top in business freedom including deregulation, trade, and lack of worker protections. Its a unique mix of far right economics and left wing welfare statism. http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/Denmark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"lack of worker protections"??? Where did you get that from? If you mean long a long notice before firing, then yes, employees have less "protection".

But one has to take into account the particular system of employer/union of collective bargaining or settlement ("overenskomst"). This actually provides union members with numerous rights as well as setting the minimum wage. Though declining, the 'official' (or 'red') unions by 2011 still organised roughly two-thirds (67%) of the Danish workforce.

The 'red' unions, formerly outright social democratic or similar, are those participation in collective bargaining. Though the second and third largest trade union confederations (the FTF and AC described below) are not counted as 'red' per se, they're still part of the system and will use the strike as the ultimate weapon if push comes to shove. All these three are to be distinguished from 'yellow' unions, which are Christian or independent and purely a sort of insurance companies as they typically abstain from even considering striking as an option. Hence, the Danish labour market is in fact highly regulated, but less by the state than by such agreements.

Together employers and unions are known as "the parties of the labour market" ("arbejdsmarkedets parter"). At the highest level represented on the union side by the LO, The Danish Confederation of Trade Unions, the FTF – Confederation of Professionals in Denmark and the AC – The Danish Confederation of Professional Associations, while the employers are federated into DA - The Danish Employers' Association.

Formerly (that is, until struck down by the European Court of Human Rights on January 11th 2006) several employers were part of the so-called "exclusive aggreements" ("eksklusivaftaler") mandating the hiring only or primarily of members from the 'official' unions. The DA estimated that prior to 2006, employers who had agreed to to these exclusive agreements employed at least 230.000 workers (at least 8-10% of all employees) - not exactly neoliberal...

PS. The ECHR cited the freedom of association and assembly as incompatible with exclusive agreements in the verdict known as Sørensen & Rasmussen v. Denmark.

Mojowiha (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As a Danish citizen, I do not totally disagree (with any of you), but I am here primarily to suggest a change of wording. It is about the small word "liberal". What is usually meant when using the word liberal in an economic context, is in fact capitalist. Strictly speaking, "liberal" refers to certain values and philosophical outlooks, while "capitalist" is a much more precise and descriptive term of specific economic systems and realities. Let us use the term neo-capitalist here. We can talk about liberal values in another post and context. RhinoMind (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Economic history of Denmark

We are in need of either an entire article about the Economic history of Denmark or at least a section on this issue here in this article. We could perhaps find inspiration for the structure of such an article in the Economic history of Sweden and similar economic history pages of specific nations.

As a specific topic, I would appreciate information on the economy of the Faroese Islands, Greenland and perhaps Iceland (up until their seperation and independence during WWII). There should be links to the pages on the Scandinavian Monetary Union as well. Feel free to post more relevant suggestions below.

RhinoMind (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External link to tariff data

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC), a UN/WTO agency that aims to promote sustainable economic development through trade promotion. I would like to propose the addition of an external link (http://www.macmap.org/QuickSearch/FindTariff/FindTariff.aspx?subsite=open_access&country=SCC208%7cDenmark&source=1%7CITC Market Access Map) that leads directly to our online database of customs tariffs applied by Denmark. Visitors can easily look up market access information for Denmark by selecting the product and partner of their interest. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations, and aims to share trade and market access data on by country and product as a global public good 2) No registration is required to access this information 3) Market access data (Tariffs and non-tariff measures) are regularly updated

Thank you, Divoc (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No minimum wage in Denmark

The lede states that Denmark has "the highest minimum wage in the World". Fact is that Denmark has NO minimum wage at all. In this respect Denmark actually stands out amongst developed and industrialized countries. I don't care to follow the ref, because it is simply not true, that Denmark has a minimum wage. For one thing, sceptics can just click on the Wiki-link to list of minimum wage in countries to see for themselves, that there is no minimum wage in the country. Otherwise I can give this source: Is there a separate legislation relating to minimum wages in Denmark? from WageIndicator.org.

The problem could probably be fixed somehow, by stating that wages are negotiated and as such, Denmark might have "the highest negotiated minimum wage pay in the World", which is quite different, except for the wording of it. But with the current level of "under paid" immigrant and guest workes in the country, I would not endorse a thoughtless introduction of even that statement. There are simply too many people in Denmark at the moment, working for much less than what used to be "the negotiated minimum wage".

The fact that Denmark has no minimum wage, has been a matter of debate recently, as the influx of "underpaid", "tax evasive" immigrant workers (from primarily Eastern Europe), has increased dramatically. All except one union in Denmark, is arguing against introducing a minimum wage. A bit odd situation compared to the rest of the World. The argument is, that the Danish wages (and cost of living) are currently so high compared to the wages immigrants are willing to get by with, that a fixed minimum wage, will probably be used by employers to lower the wages on a general level.

RhinoMind (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now corrected the above mentioned error in the lede. The situation is worth a few extra words and explanations (I touch some of them in my post above), but this is a future task. RhinoMind (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 26, 27, and 28 are broken links.

This needs to be updated or some information needs to be removed from the article.

"The income tax in Denmark ranges from 37.4%[25] to 63% progressively, levied on 4 out of 10 full-time employees.[26] Such high rates mean that 1,010,000 Danes before the end of 2008 (44% of all full-time employees) will be paying a marginal income tax of 63% and a combined marginal tax of 70.9% resulting in warnings from organisations such as the OECD.[27][28]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.136.67 (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Economy of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131208183134/http://www.dst.dk/Statistik/seneste/Arbejdsmarked/ATP.aspx to http://www.dst.dk/Statistik/seneste/Arbejdsmarked/ATP.aspx
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.energymap.dk/Technology-Areas/Intelligent-Energy/Plug-in-and-Electrical-Vehicles

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whaling in Greenland and the Faroese Islands

I have been editing a little bit of the information on the whaling in these two "countries" (is that even a correct term?). Just adding some information and refs. But I am now wondering why whaling is even mentioned in an article on the "Economy of Denmark", as it has almost no economic importance and can hardly even be considered an industry. Would it not be better to link to other pages when concerned with whaling? There are already wiki-links in the paragraph to some of these other pages.

What do you think? Is there any reasonable point in discussing whaling in an article on the "Economy of Denmark"?

RhinoMind (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, whaling in Greenland and the Faroe Islands is not significant for the economy of any of these three countries (yes, they are three different countries in the Danish Kingdom with three different languages and three different cultures). I am guessing that some whale activist wrote it to damage the reputation of Denmark. Pilot whale meat and blubber are given for free to the local community in the Faroe Islands, it is not exported at all. I think that this this article is about the economy of Denmark proper and not about the Kingdom of Denmark, or what? --EileenSanda (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sanda. Yes I guess you are right about the possible motivation for this peace of information ending up in this particular article. I endorse though, that the article encompass the whole of the Danish Realm and also includes Greenland and The Faroese Islands. I even think more should and could be added to the description of the economy of these two home-rule countries also. In the future, various natural resources in these areas might even enhance the need to include them and add more information. It would be impossible to describe the economy of both Greenland and The Faroese Islands without heavy referencing to the economy of Denmark (ie. The Danish Realm (det danske rige) or The unity of the Realm (Rigsfællesskabet)). That alone implies that these parts of the overall economy should be described within this article. Other more detail-oriented individual articles could of course be created if anybody feels a need for this?

I have read up a bit about the whaling in The Faroe Islands in particular and the problem seems to be - according to Green Peace -, that the whale meat are sold to restaurants or between individuals. They also claims that the Faroese trade whale meat with Iceland. That being said, it can hardly be argued that whaling is of any significance to the Economy of the Danish Realm at all, not even The Faroe Islands when viewed in isolation. The information on the possibly unregulated (?) local trade with whale meat, is and should be described in the article on whaling in The Faroe Islands.

I will keep this thread open so other people can have their say on this. But I think this issue should probably be cut short. It could possibly be done while updating information on the economy of these two areas. RhinoMind (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Green Peace? Don't you mean Sea Shepherd? There is no trade (not that I know of) of whale meat between Iceland and the Faroe Islands.The Faroes does not export anything from pilot whales. The whale meat in the Faroes is divided for free to the locals, sometimes only to the whalers who participate, if there are not so many whales. The sysselmand gets a larger share than others and the ones who find the pod of whales gets also a larger share, in fact they are entitled to a whole whale (finningarhvalur), I think that it might be some of these people who might get too much and there for they can sell it to restaurants in the capital or to supermarkets in the capital (it is not forbidden). I have never seen whale meat in supermarkets or restaurants in the island where I live (Suðuroy), but I have heard that on some occations it can be found in some restaurants or supermarkets in Tórshavn. Why does that make it worse? Back to the economy, I don't think that whaling has any direct importance to the economy of the Faroe Islands, but indirectly it has some significance which can't be mesured, because if people (some people not all, depends how many whales are slaughtered and where in the country) did not get several kg of whale meat they would have to by some other kind of meat (sheep, pork, beef, chicken) as almost all people in the Faroes are meat eaters and eat meat or fish daily. Much more important for the Faroese economy is what we export, we export half-half of fish from wild catch (trawlers and other vessels) and from salmon farms. We talk about billions of kroner when we talk about fish, only the first three months of 2015 the Faroe Islands exported fish for 1,4 billion Danish kroner (and 0 kroner of whale meat as always), so if we should have something about the Fareose economy here it should be about fish, fish and fish :) There is pelagic fish like mackerel, herring etc. which gets very high prizes at the moment, there is deep-sea fish like cod, which also gets good prize, but there is very little of this kind of fish now. And there is the salmon from the farming, it has become just as important as the wild catches now, perhaps not if we look at the weight but if we look at the money it is sold for. There is no other significant export of anything other than fish in the Faroe Islands. EileenSanda (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faroese economy

I took the liberty to transform a comment by User:EileenSanda into a new thread on Faroese economy. Hope it is ok with you Eileen? RhinoMind (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very hard to write about Faroese economy. I think it is difficult to find updated numbers for the current situation, and when I look at the pages in the English Wikipedia i.e. List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, they says "no data available" regarding the Faroe Islands, and the Faroe Islands does not excist in this list, but Greenland does. Kristina Háfoss, who is the current finance minister of the Faroe Islands and also an economist says here (this was during her electoral campaign before the parliamentary election 2015) that the GDP per capita of the Faroe Islands was 314 000 Danish kroner in 2014 (47 186 US dollars in todays exchange rate), that would be around the same as Belgium. But why is the Faroe Islands not on this list? Why are the numbers not available? Data are available on hagstova.fo (Faroese Statistics). I have difficulties finding the correct data or to understand the data and to find out if the data for BTÚ (GDP) is nominal or ppp, i.e. in this article which says that the BTÚ (short for Bruttotjóðarúrtøka - GDP) for the Faroe Islands was 14.7 billion Danish kroner in 2013, which was a growth of 7.5%. EileenSanda (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to start a link and source pool for solid information on the economy of The Faroe Islands? You have already some good starting points Sanda. When enough good, credible and informative sources have been collected it will be much easier to start writing something. RhinoMind (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a very short comment. In a post above, you mention fish exports and the fishing industry as very significant, but what about wool and wool products? Also lamb meat, tourism and handicrafts is probably significant to the Faroe economy also? When good sources are available we could see for ourselves. RhinoMind (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am just getting frustrated over how difficult I find it to find updated and easy-to-understand-data about the Fareose economy, and we don't even have an article about this subject in the Danish or the Faroese Wikipedia. The only publication in English I can find on hagstova.fo is Faroe Islands in figures 2015 and it is not very informative with details, for instance many of us have heard that the Faroe Islands have exported much more than usual to Russia because of the EU-embargo against Russia, but I can't even find Russia mentioned in that publication, on page 34 under "Trade by country. 2014" and "Non-EU contries" they mention only Norway, Iceland, China, Japan and "Other countries", so where is Russia in all this? Which other countries? How much did the Faroe Islands export to Russia in 2014? I can't find it in this publication. And in the English Wikipedia we use US dollars, while hagstova.fo uses Danish kroner.... which makes it very difficult for someone like me who is not an economist to understand what is what and how to calculate kroner to US dollars, or I know how with todays exchange rate, but will that be correct? I have updated some of the figures in the infobox in the article about the Faroese economy. EileenSanda (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wool is not important, in fact many people burn the wool because they can't get any money for it. EileenSanda (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lamb meat is not exported, on the contrary we import lamb meat from Iceland and New Zealand. In the villages many people have sheep, but it is more like a hobby, it is quite expensive for them because they buy extra feed for the sheep for the winter period, it is not enough to let the sheep eat the grass in the fields and to give them dried hay in the winter, of for some it might be enough but for many it is not enough. EileenSanda (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economy of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Full article has been defaced with {citation needed}. Many similar articles like Economy of Norway and Economy of Andorra also lack references but no one is demanding any citations there. Many others like Economy of the Netherlands have only one or two tags at top. Then why is article on Economy Denmark being singled out and being defaced with so many tags? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.20.108 (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno about bias, but this is the worst written wikipedia page on a nation state I have ever seen. It needs a complete rewrite. Lots of opinion, loads of vague assertions with no citation and the language is incomprehensible and contextless with way to much of a focus on the social policies in the main summary. For example:

From 2015, a large majority of the population and a new found broad political alliance now suggests a partial roll back, but nothing has been effectuated yet.[36][37]

Feels like it has been mangled through google translate. Might spend some time look at the page history and see where it all went wrong. easytiger (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added that info. It might be misplaced. It might be convoluted. But it is important for the political situation in Denmark and has been for about 10 years. You may rewrite the sentence. you may move the info to a better page. But you may not delete it. RhinoMind (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@174.91.20.108: What a crappy argument. In each and every way. In fact it isn't even an argument at all. Please take some time to verbalize your concern. Describe what it is exactly that you are concerned with in this article. And decribe what you think should be done about it. As it is, your post is nothing more than a pointless rant with no content. RhinoMind (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@174.91.20.108: Hi again. I recognize your concern about the extreme numbers of cn-tags. Nearly all of them are unnecessary, bordering spam. I see that now. I don't know who inserted all those cn-tags nor why they did it. The article however do need a better in-line citation overall. This has been an issue for a long time, but it could be moved to the attention of editors by inserting headline-tags in sections instead. I apologize for being too rude in my previous comment. I am sorry. The problem however, is not about any bias, but simply an excessive amount of cn-tags, bordering spam. RhinoMind (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RhinoMind: Most of these tags were added in one revision in October 2016. The number of tags is very excessive, but I was unable to remove them because of "conflicting intermediate edits". Jarble (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Economy of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland and Faroe Isles

I suggest replacing the present (somewhat obsolete) section on the economies of Greenland and the Faroe Isles with a short section explaining the independent status of these two areas and redirecting to the independent articles on their economies. Even though both areas are parts of the Kingdom of Denmark, for economical and statistical purposes they are considered independent countries, having separate national accounts, etc. Thus it does not seem very logical or coherent to include them in an account of the economy of Denmark proper, which are the contents of this article. --Økonom (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oil and natural gas production

The mention of "Denmark is the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the EU" cannot be right, can it? According to List of countries by oil production Norway and UK produce more oil. Looking at List of countries by natural gas production the Denmark is not even close to largest natural gas producer. 2003:D2:5F30:A400:3EE6:6343:B0DF:9C06 (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this caught my eye too, and its what google highlights when asked about the source of Denmark's wealth. 204.116.160.2 (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement was probably true at some point, at least for oil (Norway and the UK are not EU members), but the information seems obsolete. I have updated the figures and removed the unsourced sentence. --Økonom (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]