Comment by devlovstad

I don't know the AUM of this pension fund but if the managers were doing their jobs they should have had at least a tiny bit of exposure to SpaceX years ago.

By who exactly ?

The pension fund is the user of the stock here.

Pensioners should get the same amount regardless of investments, as long as there is enough funding, which it seems there is for the moment.

Of course, if someone wants to risk their own money, they can invest in whatever they want. They can even sell their pension for a cash lump sum and invest that.

How is Tesla destroying the planet? In my mind, Tesla is one of the most important companies in transition to clean energy. Yet it got dropped from the S&P ESG index.

ESG is just another phony way for someone to manipulate stock prices, because it's decided by some committee with arbitrary and opaque ways. And that's why no one takes it seriously any more.

[dead]

> That’s exactly what you would want your money manager to say. It’s their job to turn a profit.

The job of the police is arresting people who break the law, but similarly to your money manager, you really don't want them to do this regardless of anything else, there is more things to consider than just "do everything you can to arrest people", and hopefully the same for your money manager. But also, I might be too European to understand the true value of "money grow regardless of society cost at large".

Of course, some back-and-forwards is healthy.

In a good system both sides fight for their interests, and the outcome is some middle road compromise that optimizes for everyone's benefit.

sorry, but i wouldn't want my money manager to attempt to engage in unethical or illegal practices in order to turn a profit...

SpaceX is headed by a person who is a strong ally of a politician who openly challenges Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland. Guess you wouldn't mind selling your organs to the same group of powerful people for a few bucks because you're not virtue signalling?

It’s not virtue signaling if they’re actually doing something, it’s virtue action. They’re acting according to their virtues.

  > Norway is the 5th largest weapons and defense manufacturer

Any evidence for this? Norway shows as 13th on the list of arms exporters, and is 1/42 of US exports [1]. If counting total manufacturing, Norway is 1/100th to 1/150th of US volume, based on how you count. [2]

  > while the so called Oil Fund doesn't directly invest in them, Kongsberg is 50% state owned.

Kongsberg is a conglomerate with non-defense businesses [3]. The volume of defense-related product is not called out but Norway's total is just around $2.5B [4] compared to US at $334B [5] or about 1/133. Your point does stand as hypocrisy at the state level; though management decisions are likely separate between the two entities and not coordinated at the state level.

  > Glad Norway's oil fund has some sense and is above the virtue signaling of the Danes.

That is two claims: that the Danish fund lacks judgment, and that its policy is performative. Any evidence?

  > so called Oil Fund

'Oil fund' is fair shorthand - it's funded by petro wealth. 'so called Oil Fund' seems to be a sneer. Combined with 'some sense' and 'virtue signaling,' it reads less like argument and more like contempt.

  [1] https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/fs_2603_at_2025.pdf
  [2] https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/fs_2512_top_100_2024.pdf
  [3] https://nordicdefencereview.com/operating-in-more-than-40-countries-kongsberg-norway-2024-performance-review-and-growth-outlook-kongsberg-norway-2024-results-and-growth-trajectory/
  [4] https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/6052795/aerospace-and-defense-in-norway
  [5] https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2025/sipri-top-100-arms-producers-see-combined-revenues-surge-states-rush-modernize-and-expand-arsenals

Choosing to not invest in something is the complete opposite of virtue signaling... stop using words you don't know the meaning of

Based on any rational indicator SpaceX is extremely overvalued though.

Of course it does not mean that its stock price will crash after the IPO, stock markets in the US especially are not exactly behaving rationally.

> Norway is the 5th largest weapons and defense manufacturer

What's the issue with that? Unilateral disarmament would be an exceptionally stupid idea for any country and then you do need need someone to produce weapons for your military and those of your allies.

It’s not about virtue signaling. It’s that SpaceX (or xAi like it should be called because that’s most of the company) is a shitty deal where they changed the rules just to make large funds bail out Elon.

> Glad Norway's oil fund has some sense and is above the virtue signaling of the Danes.

How would you know if they are doing those moves because it's what they believe in, vs it's just a position they'd like to broadcast publicly?

In my mind, a symbolic gesture would be to speak against Tesla and SpaceX without actually doing something, that'd be "virtue signaling" in my mind, but since they're actually doing something, a practical action to not just speak but also not invest into those companies, doesn't it stop being "virtue signaling" at that point?

I've always wondered, do people who complain about virtue signaling just simply not believe in the concept of virtues or integrity at all? Human nature is pure vice mediated by violence and contract law, that's it.

I get the cynicism about performative acts vs. authentic values but where's the line? Putting your money where your mouth is has to count for something.

I think a lot of people actually dont realize the value it gives humanity. Lots of people think we would have been better of in an alternate universe where we never discovered oil & gas.

How is this short therm value for people using them? They are drivers of the most fundamental stuff in our day to day lives. Either enabling billions of people cheap efficient transport, efficient agriculture producing cheap food, cheap and efficient global shipping of goods, a great portable and ajustable source of electricity.

I think as of now its a question on how much you are willing to sacrifice human welfare over preserving current nature/environment. Extreme weather has largely been solved for humans, the trend is still less death and starvation caused by extreme weather, we are immensely adaptable and resilient.

Im not sure our current pace of reducing emissions is that horrible. There are reasons to why it takes time. I might be too optimistic, but I think we will largely solve human issues. Nature as you point out, im worried about, although I know less about. And its hard to quantify what the value is for us.

The second most expensive source of energy is misleading in terms of whole picture. They are using a theoretical cost per kwh generated. You have to account for the much higher infrastructure and systemic cost of electricity generation you can not control (wind/solar). You cant simply use wind or solar without pairing it with an controllable source like hydro, gas, coal or batteries. Which is why the world is still very much using gas and coal (and still building more). Renewables are a cheap and good supplement to these sources, you just cant replace them cheaply (yet).

Regarding "the most subsidized industry worldwide", this wikipedia article does not mention any tax revenue and taxation of these companies. Which are stil very often government cash cows and often pays much more taxes than other corporations. The subsidies are straight to citizen's gas tanks and heating bills.

"Subsidies are mainly on consumption,[3] such as a lower sales tax on natural gas for residential heating; or subsidies on production, such as tax breaks on exploration for oil."

In my country Norway for example, we have tax breaks on exploration to incentivize investment in exploration, but you have to take into account that these companies have an 80 corporate tax rate! In many petro states they are straight up nationalized companies.

[flagged]

Thats not true. We don't know if we would be able to be were we at.

There is also no value in this. If we owuldn't known about progress through oil and gas, who would say that we would be unable to get to the same point just a 100 years later?

No own would be hurt if we would have achieved this 100 years later but healthier.

It was also ignored on purpose. Oil companies knew very well, researchers knew. Apparently there were big demonstrations here in germany in the 70ties so our parents knew too.

Life came inbetween apparently.

And from a pure calculation point of view: Its actually very easy to switch over to renewable. As of today, we do have everything we need.

The only thing missing is people doing it.

And just to be clear: it would repay itself.

How much extra investment to you think green tech companies get for pension funds excluding investment in this sector? They also only invest in publicly listed companies, not green startups. To me it seems like the exclusion is based on them viewing it immoral to invest in these companies..

I think the right way to go about this is to tax consumption of fossil fuels in countries where we can afford it and use the money to subsidize green tech/industry.

I think Europe happily buys from the Gulf currently, and reluctantly buys from Russia if they have to.

Its more about being self sufficient. This is something that can easily be weaponized against us. E.g. Russia using Europes own money to finance their invasion of Ukraine.

We do want to buy it from the Gulf. It’s just that a certain country started a certain war and this is now off the table.

Slavery is evil. Fossil fuels is actually still a net good for humanity. E.g. the consequences of removing access to these energy sources, would be overwhelmingly more negative for humanity right now, than the consequence of global warming.

The transition is moving ahead, it just takes time, and we need more technological breakthroughs and innovation. Trying to attack production instead of solving demand, can cause serious consequences, in which the poorest countries in the world would suffer the most.

we have about 30 years of catching up to do, better defense spending:

1) Saves our lives in Europe, by having access to better training and force multipliers.

2) Seeps into the economies of every country in the union through research spending.

Defence is unambiguously a good thing, it becomes a problem if you put an expansionist cunthead at the helm of it.

Tesla is not and never has been a good investment.

Its a gamble.

The current evaluation of Tesla is still higher than real car companies + robot companies + robot taxi companies.

has it been an insanely good investment because of changes to profit and loss, or because of other factors? (of course, building a car company of the scale they have is impressive. But by looking at tesla's financials vs stock price, youd conclude basically any other car company ever was a great buy by any reasonable metric)

In a liberal society governed by laws, increased scrutiny must follow evidence of wrongdoing, not mere association. If European countries have problems with Musk’s conduct (lord knows I do) they should either pass legislation targeting behavior he has engaged in that is not already illegal, or charge him with a crime/bring a civil suit against him if he has violated existing law.

To be clear, this has already happened to some degree. See Paris prosecutors investigating him for the distribution of child pornography. But targeting companies he is affiliated with for his personal behavior violates the principle of the generality of law.