4 ms·

Norway is not the EIC because they didn't enslave massive swaths of humans and start a war to sell oil, but Norway doesn't exactly have the moral high ground in

Norway is not the EIC because they didn't enslave massive swaths of humans and start a war to sell oil, but Norway doesn't exactly have the moral high ground in the fight against climate change either.

lucian1900 5y ago
Norway did participate in the invasion of Libya to destroy their competition and continues to export capital at usury rates at gunpoint. Different, but not qualitatively.
- unmole 5y ago
  > export capital at usury rates at gunpoint I'm sorry, what?
  - lucian1900 5y ago
    Poor countries are forced to take loans with usury rates, often from the likes of the IMF. Countries that refuse get propaganda, coups and invasions. It’s not just the US that does this. [edit] Libya was selling oil independently and offering loans with much better terms to other African countries.
    - unmole 5y ago
      > Poor countries are forced to take loans with usury rates, often from the likes of the IMF. IMF steps in when nobody else will lend to a country. The current concessional interest rate is zero.
      - lucian1900 5y ago
        True, often other lenders with even worse rates and terms show up first. It’s how entire countries become owned by a few foreign companies. IMF loans primarily come with horrible terms: privatisation, deregulation and austerity. Same with EU funds. Poor countries have to choose between exploitation or aggression.
        unmole 5y ago
        > IMF loans primarily come with horrible terms: privatisation, deregulation and austerity. Thank goodness for that! If it wasn't for the IMF insisting that my country's economy be reformed, I almost certainly wouldn't be typing this on HN.
        lucian1900 5y ago
        Austerity to destroy public services is good? Deregulation to reduce worker and consumer rights is good? Privatisation to destroy publicly owned production is good? Almost every country the IMF has imposed its terms on has higher levels of poverty than before. I can’t even take trains in my country anymore, they cost more and never get maintained since they were privatised.
        unmole 5y ago
        > Austerity to destroy public services is good? Reining in profiligate government spending is good. If the countries were actually being run sustainably, they wouldn't have needed bailouts in the first place. > Deregulation to reduce worker and consumer rights is good? Can you please point me to where and how this happened? > Privatisation to destroy publicly owned production is good? Publicly run enterprises in my country were and still are hopelessly ineffective. They continue to leech taxpayer money that could have otherwise gone towards healthcare, education and infrastructure spending. If it wasn't for private sector enterprise, many goods and services would simply remain unable to the ordinary public. > Almost every country the IMF has imposed its terms on has higher levels of poverty than before. Definitely not in my country. Poverty rates have been cut in half since the reforms.
        psd1 5y ago
        It's a phenomenon that I find strange. Laissez-fairism has a holdout on HN, despite being a century dead in the real world. It's a position argued frequently here, which surprised me at first because it's sophomoric. So far, I've been unable to reconcile holding that position with having any level of empathy. It's a position held by people with "mechanical efficiency" (not that Galtism is efficient) high on their list of values, but "collectivism" nowhere in the list. People who maxed their stats on technical attributes but have no calculus of human suffering. Dunning Kruger comes into play. It's also the position held by bastards; but I don't get the impression that the hackerati are bastards, just... specialised.
pg_1234 5y ago
Well ... situated as they are in the frozen North, you couldn't blame them for wanting a slightly warmer world.

lucian1900 5y ago

Norway did participate in the invasion of Libya to destroy their competition and continues to export capital at usury rates at gunpoint. Different, but not qualitatively.

unmole 5y ago
> export capital at usury rates at gunpoint I'm sorry, what?
- lucian1900 5y ago
  Poor countries are forced to take loans with usury rates, often from the likes of the IMF. Countries that refuse get propaganda, coups and invasions. It’s not just the US that does this. [edit] Libya was selling oil independently and offering loans with much better terms to other African countries.
  - unmole 5y ago
    > Poor countries are forced to take loans with usury rates, often from the likes of the IMF. IMF steps in when nobody else will lend to a country. The current concessional interest rate is zero.
    - lucian1900 5y ago
      True, often other lenders with even worse rates and terms show up first. It’s how entire countries become owned by a few foreign companies. IMF loans primarily come with horrible terms: privatisation, deregulation and austerity. Same with EU funds. Poor countries have to choose between exploitation or aggression.
      - unmole 5y ago
        > IMF loans primarily come with horrible terms: privatisation, deregulation and austerity. Thank goodness for that! If it wasn't for the IMF insisting that my country's economy be reformed, I almost certainly wouldn't be typing this on HN.
        lucian1900 5y ago
        Austerity to destroy public services is good? Deregulation to reduce worker and consumer rights is good? Privatisation to destroy publicly owned production is good? Almost every country the IMF has imposed its terms on has higher levels of poverty than before. I can’t even take trains in my country anymore, they cost more and never get maintained since they were privatised.
        unmole 5y ago
        > Austerity to destroy public services is good? Reining in profiligate government spending is good. If the countries were actually being run sustainably, they wouldn't have needed bailouts in the first place. > Deregulation to reduce worker and consumer rights is good? Can you please point me to where and how this happened? > Privatisation to destroy publicly owned production is good? Publicly run enterprises in my country were and still are hopelessly ineffective. They continue to leech taxpayer money that could have otherwise gone towards healthcare, education and infrastructure spending. If it wasn't for private sector enterprise, many goods and services would simply remain unable to the ordinary public. > Almost every country the IMF has imposed its terms on has higher levels of poverty than before. Definitely not in my country. Poverty rates have been cut in half since the reforms.
        psd1 5y ago
        It's a phenomenon that I find strange. Laissez-fairism has a holdout on HN, despite being a century dead in the real world. It's a position argued frequently here, which surprised me at first because it's sophomoric. So far, I've been unable to reconcile holding that position with having any level of empathy. It's a position held by people with "mechanical efficiency" (not that Galtism is efficient) high on their list of values, but "collectivism" nowhere in the list. People who maxed their stats on technical attributes but have no calculus of human suffering. Dunning Kruger comes into play. It's also the position held by bastards; but I don't get the impression that the hackerati are bastards, just... specialised.

pg_1234 5y ago

Well ... situated as they are in the frozen North, you couldn't blame them for wanting a slightly warmer world.