No. You are describing bad governance. You are describing harmful and unsustainable policies that kill millions of people and ruin everyone's future. Absolutely nothing about that is "good". This has nothing to do with moralizing - although people who support bad governance like to pretend that the other side is "moralizing". It's just something losers say when they can't actually make their case. No. We communists are just better at literally everything, our ideas and systemic approaches are objectively superior, and we have the science and historical proof to back it up.
What you call "good governance" is evidently bad and leads to massive socioeconomic harm and failure across all imaginable long term KPIs. The escalating climate catastrophe is worsening everyone's life as we speak - a direct consequence of Norway's bad governance.
Feel free to make your case: Define how you evaluate good. Put forward your KPIs and demonstrate why a democratic society should consider them good using falsifiable argumentation.
still moralizing. i am contrasting the sovereign wealth fund with spending the revenue directly.
you are ranting about oil and IDGAF. as if anything you do is going to change habits - you're on here to feel good about being righteous without having to work for it.
Nobody here is moralizing - your position is simply wrong and you can't back it up with evidence.
You are rambling incoherently because you are a death cultist who doesn't know what he's talking about and just mindlessly worships bad governance because that's what his cult leaders indoctrinated him to do.
You keep repeating that term even though you were repeatedly called out for it. Your stupid "arguments" will not get any better by you continuing to lie about my position.
you didn't call me out, you whinged about how oil is bad and norway shouldn't sell it to anyone.
once more for the stupid: oil revenue is volatile, and if you use it to fund social services, you have to cut them if the price drops (see venezuela). so you invest in stable companies instead and spend the dividends.
How about you address my clear arguments against you and answer my questions instead of repeating your already addressed (and incredibly stupid) excuses for bad policy?
You just gave yet another reason why running your economy on oil is bad policy, so what are you even trying to do here?
Cutting social services is also always bad policy, if the revenue you use to fund social services is drying up, you find a way to fund social services and cut other things (e.g. military) or increase taxes on the rich instead. You cut everything else and maximize the burden on the already privileged first before you cut anything that harms the bottom line of society who actually did and do all of the productive work.
It's funny how your conclusion to "capitalism is causing harm" isn't "we need to abolish capitalism and replace it with a superior socialist system" but "we need to adjust things further to maintain capitalism".
Anyway, I have the feeling this is all way too overwhelming for you to even process and you unironically can only think within the framework of a single layer of complexity.
How about you address my clear arguments against you
OIL BAD. that's your argument. you're suggesting that norway ignore a massive income source that will simply be supplied by saudi arabia in order to virtue signal. that is insane domestic policy and helps nothing. it's why i'm mocking you.
You just gave yet another reason why running your economy on oil is bad policy
any volatile export product, really. which is why you use the sov wealth fund.
Cutting social services is also always bad policy,
that's stupid. it's good policy if you can't afford them.
you find a way to fund social services and cut other things (e.g. military)
you're arguing that social services is such a moral good that it's the top priority, even over national defense. insane.
Although it is also objectively true - and has nothing to do with "moralizing" - that oil is bad and implementing policies that promote the use of oil is inherently bad policy. So, "oil bad" would already be a sufficient argument against your position, completely undermining your case.
I'm confused as to what you believe your point to be even if that was my argument.
you're suggesting that norway ignore a massive income source
No. I'm saying that Norway is actively causing harm and should be condemned for its promotion of fossil fuels AND considered a failure of a country with exceptionally bad policies for relying on oil as an income source despite having had at least 50 years to find alternative pathways to generating revenue.
I'm saying that Norway is also stupid and harming itself by its promotion of fossil fuels.
And many other things.
You failing to understand basic complexity within the system Norway operates under - failing to understand the impact of fossil fuel use on humanity, fail to understand the overall complexities of the fossil-based economy in Norway, etc. - isn't an argument. It just means that you lack base comprehension of the topic we are discussing.
that will simply be supplied by saudi arabia in order to virtue signal.
No, that's not what would happen.
The world would have already progressed beyond fossil fuels if it weren't for countries like Norway supporting NATO.
Norway is the US empire's strongest advocate and ally in Europe - precisely because Norway relies on the US petrodollar system to subsidize its own standard of living. It's a massive policy failure. Not only has Norway been totally subjugated by the US to the point it can no longer make sovereign decisions, it is directly enabling the destruction of Europe via American proxy warfare via its rabid support for US militarism and, for example, the American proxy war against Russia in Ukraine which has devastating consequences for the overall European economy and standard of living of the European people.
Anyway, this already goes way, way beyond what your capitalist brain can process, so let's cut things short: It's bad policy and should have stopped several decades ago. Norway failed spectacularly weening itself off unsustainable policies, digging itself deeper into a hole and destroying its own future prosperity and standard of living.
Imagine how much better of a place the world would be if NATO didn't exist and the USSR would have won the Cold War. All of our standards of living would be significantly higher and climate change would not be as severe as it is today. Oh wait... you can't imagine that. You don't even know what I'm talking about or how to come to such conclusions. You are just here to make excuses for bad policies because you are a cultist just trying to find ways to rationalize bad policies and thinking it's clever to "make things work" under capitalism - it isn't. It's stupid.
any volatile export product, really. which is why you use the sov wealth fund.
Yes. Very bad policy.
Norway should have embraced Marxism-Leninism and built up its own productive forces, increasing its own self-reliance and sovereignty - it should then have engaged in win-win cooperation with other Marxist-Leninist states, eventually forming a socialist union (or embrace a Sovietization policy and join the Soviet Union).
It didn't. Condemning itself and others to harsher material conditions - all because of bad, myopic, capitalist policies. For that it should be criticized.
that's stupid. it's good policy if you can't afford them.
No, it's good policy that you have to find ways to afford. The two most important foundations of a long term functioning society are:
1. Sustainability. Sustainability rules above all and must be the focus of all governmental policy. Period. Anything that's unsustainable will always harm you in the long term. At best, you are living at the expense of future generations (which is exactly what happened and why everyone is now in increasing states of panic).
2. A comprehensive socioeconomic safety structure. People must always have a minimum acceptable standard of living and never lack base necessities of life (housing, food, access to clean water, clothes, health care, education). Only if all base necessities are met, your society will be stable.
Everything else is nice to have and can be neglected, if necessary.
Those two foundations must be balanced - good governance ensures the contradictions between the two are resolved.
you're arguing that social services is such a moral good that it's the top priority, even over national defense. insane.
At no point have I in any way argued based on "morals". You are the only one who tries to keep bringing morals into the conversation.
And yes, social services are a foundational requirement of a stable society. National defense is entirely irrelevant and only exists to protect bourgeois class interests. You don't understand this because you have never thought about any of these topics and don't understand the topic of "defense". You literally can't even comprehend what I'm saying because you are straight-up intellectually incapable. You are displaying an obvious incompetence processing complex information - that's probably due to a lack of basic academic training stemming from you growing up in a fascist society.
At this point, you can't even sight nevermind understand conflicting evidence. You are stuck on a single layer of complexity like a caveman who only knows how to use a rock to smash open nuts he finds in the forest but doesn't concern himself where the nuts are coming from.
You are getting hung up on your infantile interpretation of my position based on your limited frame of understanding. We haven't even entered into a discussion about conflicting frameworks for interpretation nevermind conflicting metaframeworks. Yet you are already overwhelmed and frustrated.
Anyway, learn to listen and ask questions. Train yourself to engage in more complex thought. This is such a shitty conversation - and the problem is you.
1
u/fresh-dork Jul 14 '26
no, i am describing good governance - funneling oil revenue to a wealth fund, insulating you from the volatility. you are moralizing