Answering the first two questions that came to my mind: And Adjusted for inflation that's a little over half the 2022 loss. So it's a historic loss, and a meaningful percentage of the total value,...
Answering the first two questions that came to my mind:
The so-called Government Pension Fund Global, among the world’s largest investors, returned -14.1% last year, which it said was 0.88 percentage points better than the return on its benchmark index.
And
The fund’s previous largest loss was 633 billion kroner in 2008 amid the global financial crisis.
Adjusted for inflation that's a little over half the 2022 loss. So it's a historic loss, and a meaningful percentage of the total value, but slightly better than it might have been in historically challenging market conditions.
The fund still increased in value in NOK last year due to the crazy oil and gas prices. That's probably the craziest part of it all. There's no wonder the rest of Europe expects solidarity and...
The fund still increased in value in NOK last year due to the crazy oil and gas prices.
That's probably the craziest part of it all.
There's no wonder the rest of Europe expects solidarity and contributions when the war profiteering is so large.
I read a article about Norway's pension fund a few years ago. It's an enviable money-making monstrosity. Like, Norway is set for decades and centuries, money-wise. In the 90s, they took their oil...
I read a article about Norway's pension fund a few years ago. It's an enviable money-making monstrosity. Like, Norway is set for decades and centuries, money-wise. In the 90s, they took their oil money and did the absolute smartest thing possible and just kept buying assets worldwide.
Simultaneously, it almost feels really gross. Earn all their money through unethical means to forge ahead in front of the rest of the world. They are so rich that this fund could give every single...
Simultaneously, it almost feels really gross.
Earn all their money through unethical means to forge ahead in front of the rest of the world.
They are so rich that this fund could give every single Norwegian $30,000 USD if it wanted to.
I mean, yea, money is gross on that scale (and most) if you look really close at its origin. But I think Norway is still a best case scenario for this much financial power to be held. I would...
I mean, yea, money is gross on that scale (and most) if you look really close at its origin. But I think Norway is still a best case scenario for this much financial power to be held. I would trust them more than most other governments (including my own) to do something at least vaguely ethical with its management.
Exploitation of oil and gas resources, which they sell. The fund is made from profits from those sales. There's the general concerns of profiting from (and pinning a certain part of your economy...
Exploitation of oil and gas resources, which they sell. The fund is made from profits from those sales.
There's the general concerns of profiting from (and pinning a certain part of your economy on) the sale of fossil fuels, and the more specific concern of large profits arising from the war in Ukraine.
That's a strange statement to me. It depends on what resource and how it is being exploited. Is it ethical for the Brazilian government to allow unrestricted logging in the Amazon rainforest,...
That's a strange statement to me. It depends on what resource and how it is being exploited. Is it ethical for the Brazilian government to allow unrestricted logging in the Amazon rainforest, within its borders?
I'd guess not. But it's not exactly analogous. You can take and use wood from forests in sustainable ways that allows the forest to be refreshed and doesn't cause damage. You can't, by contrast,...
I'd guess not. But it's not exactly analogous. You can take and use wood from forests in sustainable ways that allows the forest to be refreshed and doesn't cause damage. You can't, by contrast, replenish oil or gas, and you can't use them as fuel (at least!) without causing pollution. I don't think it's controversial to say that's unethical.
That's why I said "unrestricted", to make the analogy accurate. But I think you knew that, and I don't feel like your questions are really trying to engage with what I said, so I'll leave it here.
I'm trying to figure out how the use of a countries resources, resources that are a worldwide necessity, in order to ensure the wellbeing of that country's citizens via a fund that puts to good...
I'm trying to figure out how the use of a countries resources, resources that are a worldwide necessity, in order to ensure the wellbeing of that country's citizens via a fund that puts to good use the proceeds from the resource is unethical. Since time immemorial fuel has been required for human survival and development. All fuel, be it wood, coal, fossil, or nuclear, pollutes. All of it. If Norway never pumped a drop of oil it wouldn't have made a difference, it wouldn't have magically created cold fusion reactors to power every ship and vehicle, it wouldn't have stopped climate change, all it would have done is make Norway poorer and its citizens less secure in their lives. The mere act of living creates pollution, if polluting is what makes something unethical, then life itself is unethical.
Sorry, I would have tried to post it had I remembered the website. I tried searching but all you find right now are headlines about how it wrote a -14% loss (and not a word about how it beat its...
Sorry, I would have tried to post it had I remembered the website. I tried searching but all you find right now are headlines about how it wrote a -14% loss (and not a word about how it beat its benchmark, lol).
Answering the first two questions that came to my mind:
And
Adjusted for inflation that's a little over half the 2022 loss. So it's a historic loss, and a meaningful percentage of the total value, but slightly better than it might have been in historically challenging market conditions.
The fund still increased in value in NOK last year due to the crazy oil and gas prices.
That's probably the craziest part of it all.
There's no wonder the rest of Europe expects solidarity and contributions when the war profiteering is so large.
I read a article about Norway's pension fund a few years ago. It's an enviable money-making monstrosity. Like, Norway is set for decades and centuries, money-wise. In the 90s, they took their oil money and did the absolute smartest thing possible and just kept buying assets worldwide.
Simultaneously, it almost feels really gross.
Earn all their money through unethical means to forge ahead in front of the rest of the world.
They are so rich that this fund could give every single Norwegian $30,000 USD if it wanted to.
I mean, yea, money is gross on that scale (and most) if you look really close at its origin. But I think Norway is still a best case scenario for this much financial power to be held. I would trust them more than most other governments (including my own) to do something at least vaguely ethical with its management.
What unethical means?
Exploitation of oil and gas resources, which they sell. The fund is made from profits from those sales.
There's the general concerns of profiting from (and pinning a certain part of your economy on) the sale of fossil fuels, and the more specific concern of large profits arising from the war in Ukraine.
So it's unethical to use the resources within a country's borders?
That's a strange statement to me. It depends on what resource and how it is being exploited. Is it ethical for the Brazilian government to allow unrestricted logging in the Amazon rainforest, within its borders?
Does Norway allow the unrestricted extraction of it's oil?
I'd guess not. But it's not exactly analogous. You can take and use wood from forests in sustainable ways that allows the forest to be refreshed and doesn't cause damage. You can't, by contrast, replenish oil or gas, and you can't use them as fuel (at least!) without causing pollution. I don't think it's controversial to say that's unethical.
That's why I said "unrestricted", to make the analogy accurate. But I think you knew that, and I don't feel like your questions are really trying to engage with what I said, so I'll leave it here.
I'm trying to figure out how the use of a countries resources, resources that are a worldwide necessity, in order to ensure the wellbeing of that country's citizens via a fund that puts to good use the proceeds from the resource is unethical. Since time immemorial fuel has been required for human survival and development. All fuel, be it wood, coal, fossil, or nuclear, pollutes. All of it. If Norway never pumped a drop of oil it wouldn't have made a difference, it wouldn't have magically created cold fusion reactors to power every ship and vehicle, it wouldn't have stopped climate change, all it would have done is make Norway poorer and its citizens less secure in their lives. The mere act of living creates pollution, if polluting is what makes something unethical, then life itself is unethical.
Sorry, I would have tried to post it had I remembered the website. I tried searching but all you find right now are headlines about how it wrote a -14% loss (and not a word about how it beat its benchmark, lol).