3 ms·
Leaving aside how ludicrous the comparison is to the East India Company (Norway isn't invading other countries to force them to consume oil, for instance), the
by etrevino 5y ago
Leaving aside how ludicrous the comparison is to the East India Company (Norway isn't invading other countries to force them to consume oil, for instance), the author ignores or doesn't know that the oil profits are used to fund the country's sovereign wealth fund, which is one of the key ways that Norway grows its pension system-- it uses petroleum profits to invest internationally. In the long run then, reducing Norway's sales of petroleum increases their reliance on the global stock market, because they no longer have a backstop against a market downturn. It's even possible that halting Norwegian petrol production would cause that very market downturn! In addition, the need to support the petroleum industry encourages the development of other technical industries which also can bring in money.
- gausswho 5y agoNorway halting production for ecological reasons is the start of a fascinating plot in the Occupied TV series. It's got its moments.
- cblconfederate 5y agoPretty sure the author knows that, and he s making an argument ad absurdum, doesn't literally want norway to stop oil extraction. That said, i dont understand your point, does norway have some moral advantage vs other oil producing countries?
- samvega_ 5y agoOne could draw a comparison between the US and the East India Company, in that they invade countries, overthrow governments and fuels civil wars in the Middle East and Africa (partly) in order to enforce US dollars as the de facto medium currency of international oil trade, and the subsequent funneling of oil profits into western financial assets and companies.