• Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And when Finland or Denmark were the happiest countries, Norway’s oil wasn’t really that much of a factor.

          • Poiar@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Finding oil tends to fuck up a nation, making the nation’s other industries unable to compete due to the currency being too strong.

            That Norway succeed in remaining a stable state after finding oil is a bit amazing, seeing as oil nations tend to become ruled by oligarchies.

            I.e., the guy you’re responding to makes no sense. Having oil usually means that you become an undemocratic hell hole.

            • incogtino@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m sure this is a stupid simple take, but could a nation like Norway avoid this (at least for a while) by selling oil in other currencies and maintaining their investments in other currencies?

              • w2qw@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                What currency the selling is done in probably doesn’t matter but yes Norway maintains one of the largest sovereign wealth funds.

                The issue is in undemocratic countries there’s usually a preverse incentive to not educate people to maintain control of the country. Non resource rich countries have to educate their population to improve productive output.

    • arglebargle
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They spending is capped at 3% of the fund. A large number for sure, but the investments are meant to be long term so when the oil is gone, they can keep going.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      73
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Social democrats want to pretend they can have their cake and eat it too.

      EDIT unf downvote me harder Lemmy libs! It only makes me harder!

      Oil barons get the fucking wall in Minecraft.

      • voidboi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The rest of the nordic countries have the cake and eat it too without oil money.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          24
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Pay no attention to the legacy of colonialism and slave trade, and certainly not modern imperialist extraction from the third world.

          • Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, Finland (which didn’t exist as an independent state until 1917) definitely has a long history of colonialism and slave trade in the last *checks notes* 106 years.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              Finland, Iceland, and Greenland are certainly different from their cultural contemporaries. They are, historically, victims of colonialism instead of perpetrators like Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands. That’s worth recognizing!

              They still benefit from modern imperialist extraction like every other Western State.

          • archon@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            “If you are not rich because you were lucky, you are rich because you took it.”

            Gotcha. So, what does social democracy have to do with it again?

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Social democracy is a way for capitalism to mask its cruelty by fully exporting all of the suffering it generates. It’s totally unsustainable without other countries to steal from or wrecking the environment, because at the end of the day it’s still capitalism and everything that entails.

              We don’t need to tax the rich. We need to do something else to them. 😘

              • FreeLunch@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Would you say that the average citizen of a developed nation is one of these rich or is benefiting from the rich? They probably make up the most of these statistics about happiness.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I would say that social democracy is better at distributing the superprofits from imperialism among its citizens. I’m even somewhat cynical about it, and believe Norwegians have a legitimate interest in opposing international socialism because they benefit more from imperialism than they would if they were forced into equality with the rest of the world (at least until international socialism uplifted the rest of the world)

                  I also don’t think it is sustainable. Blowback is inevitable.

          • Emptiness
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Please show me how slave trade and colonialism played any part whatsoever in Scandinavia. I’ll wait.

          • GoodEye8
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In what way has any of their imperialistic actions benefited them?

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Exploitation of cheap labor and resources in the global south, which create artificially cheap commodities to subsidize their lifestyles.

              Exporting environmentally destructive resource extraction and production to the global south, allowing them to reap the benefits of plastics and meat without suffering the costs of massive amounts of pollution and hyper-exploitation of local workers.

              Being welcomed under the umbrella of America/NATO protection instead of being labeled as one of its enemies.

              Like, come on.

              • GoodEye8
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Exploitation of cheap labor and resources in the global south, which create artificially cheap commodities to subsidize their lifestyles.

                Exporting environmentally destructive resource extraction and production to the global south, allowing them to reap the benefits of plastics and meat without suffering the costs of massive amounts of pollution and hyper-exploitation of local workers.

                So, like every developed country in the world? Even post-soviet countries that never even existed before 1991 are imperialistic? Who would’ve thunk.

                Being welcomed under the umbrella of America/NATO protection instead of being labeled as one of its enemies.

                You do realize that countries technically speaking Sweden is not even in the NATO yet and a year ago neither Sweden or Finland were in NATO and had no intention to join NATO until Russia threatened them? They achieved their welfare states before they decided to join NATO. Does that retroactively turn them imperialistic?

                Like, come on.

                Yeah, come on. Use your brain for once and don’t just spew tankie bullshit.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  So, like every developed country in the world? Even post-soviet countries that never even existed before 1991 are imperialistic? Who would’ve thunk.

                  Every first world country in the world. The second world (post-soviet countries) aren’t really allowed to benefit from imperialism.

                  Surely you’ve noticed how much worse off they are? Do you think that’s just because the USSR ruined them and they still haven’t recovered? Do you not realize how much better things were before the West’s so-called “shock therapy” destroyed all of their social programs?

                  You do realize that countries technically speaking Sweden is not even in the NATO yet and a year ago neither Sweden or Finland were in NATO and had no intention to join NATO until Russia threatened them? They achieved their welfare states before they decided to join NATO. Does that retroactively turn them imperialistic?

                  Sweden still fell under the umbrella of protection! Do you really think if Russia invaded Sweden a year ago that the US would allow it?

                  Use your brain.

                  • reinar@distress.digital
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    that’s just because the USSR ruined them…

                    Germans still pay solidarity tax lil bro… USSR was one of the most talented entities in fucking up entire countries for decades to come, politburo was producing most vile, scheming and backstabbing ruling class ever to imagine. The very same people were running privatization and scraping all the social security programs in place, your boys from the West in Yeltsin’s team were simply lacking and couldn’t keep up.

                  • GoodEye8
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Every first world country in the world. The second world (post-soviet countries) aren’t really allowed to benefit from imperialism.

                    Lol, what? Do you think the products made from the resources from southern countries don’t end up in post-soviet countries? Do you think they still drive Ladas there? Those countries ABSOLUTELY have cheap commodities imported in to subsidize their developed country lifestyles. Not to the same extent as the big players, but we’ll get to why that is.

                    Surely you’ve noticed how much worse off they are?

                    Are they? They are worse, but depending on the region not by much. Take a look yourself, The same report that puts Nordic countries at the top has Czechia (formerly a part of Czechoslovakia) just a smidge below US and UK and actually above Belgium and France. Now you can argue “that’s a satellite state and not an actual USSR aligned country” but it’s not like Estonia is that far behind and according to the CCCP Estonia was hardcore in the CCCP, you know ECCP.

                    Do you think that’s just because the USSR ruined them and they still haven’t recovered?

                    Well, kinda. Most of those countries have issues with a Russian minority who refuse to integrate into the local culture. It creates tensions in their societies which then hinders their progress. It’s going to take at least another generation or two before that issue essentially “solves itself”. And remember, that’s an issue only because the CCCP did deliberate mass deportation of locals into foreign lands. You can still find some Baltic people in Siberia, not because they want to be there but because they were forced to be there.

                    Do you not realize how much better things were before the West’s so-called “shock therapy” destroyed all of their social programs?

                    Unlike you I actually know how thing were before and things were pretty shit before the collapse, it’s literally one of the reasons the Soviet union collapsed. Sure things right after the collapse were worse but guess what, in less than 10 years it was already better than the end of union. The “shock therapy” didn’t destroy all social programs, it restarted the economy and social programs got rebuilt. Overall a net positive.

                    Sweden still fell under the umbrella of protection! Do you really think if Russia invaded Sweden a year ago that the US would allow it?

                    The fuck kind of a stupid question is this? Obviously US wouldn’t allow it, but it’s not like the EU would allow it either. And it’s a stupid question because Sweden (and most neighbors of Russia) wouldn’t even need the umbrella of protection if Russia wasn’t such a fucking asshole towards its neighbors. Just to prove that point Finland and Russia had normal relations, until Putin decided to threaten them out of nowhere and now Finland is in NATO because Russia acted like an asshole. The umbrella of protection point has literally nothing to do with how well Nordic countries are doing. You could argue that the umbrella would mean they don’t have to spend that much on defense, but guess what else would make them spend less on defense? If Russia wasn’t such a fucking prick. Regardless they’re still doing well.