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?
Right, you could disagree on which things to prioritize over dollar profits. My main point is that these preferences are not irrational like was asserted. At the scale of a sovereign wealth fund or pensions, you need to care about externalities; in the case of Denmark vs SpaceX you have something relatively concrete, in other cases we need to keep in mind that the goal of these funds are to improve the welfare of who they serve, and see past the dollar signs to take into account the consequences of the investments.
> 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.
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.
You have a point. I'd hope most of us actually do care about virtues and integrity, but 90% of the time it doesn't need to be said. It's how we were raised. Now, true virtue signalling is saying X to change the perception but yet doing 100 evil things in the background.
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?
Yeah, but they say it is because of weapons and climate change and not because of all of this
Right, you could disagree on which things to prioritize over dollar profits. My main point is that these preferences are not irrational like was asserted. At the scale of a sovereign wealth fund or pensions, you need to care about externalities; in the case of Denmark vs SpaceX you have something relatively concrete, in other cases we need to keep in mind that the goal of these funds are to improve the welfare of who they serve, and see past the dollar signs to take into account the consequences of the investments.
It’s not virtue signaling if they’re actually doing something, it’s virtue action. They’re acting according to their virtues.
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]
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.
That is two claims: that the Danish fund lacks judgment, and that its policy is performative. Any evidence?
'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.
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?
Railing against virtue signalling of some people is the preferred virtue signalling for some other people.
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.
You have a point. I'd hope most of us actually do care about virtues and integrity, but 90% of the time it doesn't need to be said. It's how we were raised. Now, true virtue signalling is saying X to change the perception but yet doing 100 evil things in the background.
> Now, true virtue signalling is saying X to change the perception but yet doing 100 evil things in the background.
No, thats hypocrisy.