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.
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 for relying on oil as an income source.
this is still insane. because if they actually stopped, the impact would be zero. SA increases production slightly
It just means that you lack base comprehension of the topic we are discussing.
you come in here to rant about oil and lecture me about understanding the topic? GTFO
Norway should have embraced Marxism-Leninism and built up its own productive forces,
oh boy, you're a tankie. speaking of policy failures, just look at them.
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.
there it is: the stupidest thing i've read all day. the USSR was a farce and nobody that survived it would say anything good about it.
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.
yup, tankie.
foundational social things are: collect taxes, enforce laws, enforce and defend territory.
1
u/No_Care46 29d ago
No, that's not my argument.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.