So, why the hell would....

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Jazz, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:09 PM.

  1. Martin Mayers

    Martin Mayers Well-Known Member

    Jul 29, 2008
    Manchester
    Given the fist they've made of their country so far wouldn't you back them to make the correct decisions and have plans in place to deal with their future?
     
  2. Blackcloud6

    Blackcloud6 Well-Known Member

    Apr 20, 2004
    Shangrila

    I have a friend who retired and moved to Las Vegas. He and his wife just moved back to here to the metro-Detroit area after less than two years. he said the summers were brutal, they stayed inside most of the time. I'm not so sure I would like the heat either and in the old the South the humidity is brutal too.
     
  3. Marty Ward

    Marty Ward Active Member

    Feb 17, 2006
    Maryland
    You think they have something to replace the oil revenue? Herring maybe?

    The only reason they could build a fund was from the oil. If they stop selling oil then eventually the fund will run dry which is why despite all the warnings from the Norwegian government that the world needs to stop using it they will continue to sell it.
     
  4. MrP

    MrP Smile,you won didn't you?

    Feb 17, 2003
    Woof? Bark? Whine?
    Sounds terrible doesn't it?
     
  5. Martin Mayers

    Martin Mayers Well-Known Member

    Jul 29, 2008
    Manchester
    Oh right. Yes I agree. They will probably continue selling whilst buyers exist.
     
  6. Marty Ward

    Marty Ward Active Member

    Feb 17, 2006
    Maryland
    It would if they decided to follow what they tell others and stop selling oil. They spend ~3% of it each year so even if they didn't need to spend more to replace lost oi revenue it would run out in 30 years or so. Of course I expect them to keep selling oil while continuing to warn of the catastrophic consequences of using oil.
     
  7. MrP

    MrP Smile,you won didn't you?

    Feb 17, 2003
    Woof? Bark? Whine?
    I'm not getting your point Marty - this is a bad thing because? They have a social fund worth over a trillion $ and you seem to be painting a picture that it's awful that they have such a thing? Maybe it's just overall negativity but isn't the fact that they have such a thing (and we don't and never will) a good thing?
     
    Sand Bar Bill likes this.
  8. Dave68124

    Dave68124 Active Member

    May 9, 2005
    United States
    I guess all that global warming that funded it is no longer an issue?
     
  9. Martin Mayers

    Martin Mayers Well-Known Member

    Jul 29, 2008
    Manchester
    The green eyed monster is strong on this thread.

    It's comical. A country uncompromisingly looks after it's own best interests and puts itself first and "piss piss, whine whine". Whereas a president says "I'm gonna put this country first and make it great....MAGA....shitholes....etc." and sticks two fingers up to the rest of the world and it's lapped up like honey by some and heaven help those whom dare criticise it :)

    Can't beat this forum sometimes.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018 at 1:26 AM
    bendizoid likes this.
  10. Martin Mayers

    Martin Mayers Well-Known Member

    Jul 29, 2008
    Manchester
    Interesting moral dilemma isn't it? They're clearly going to use earnings which some might think are immorally earned to create a better future.

    GB sort of did a similar thing. We banned slavery then the Industrial Revolution happened, funded by wealth created from the slave trade.

    Countries can be so fickle.
     
  11. Marty Ward

    Marty Ward Active Member

    Feb 17, 2006
    Maryland
    No it's a good thing but it is what they based their whole society on, it pays for a lot of programs. So when they say everyone should stop using oil then it makes no sense since they can't afford to not sell oil without screwing up theiier society.
     
  12. Marty Ward

    Marty Ward Active Member

    Feb 17, 2006
    Maryland
    Do you blame the drug user or the drug supplier for the problems caused by drugs?
     
  13. Martin Mayers

    Martin Mayers Well-Known Member

    Jul 29, 2008
    Manchester
    Neither and/or both and/or lots of other people in the equation (Governments, cartels, peers of the user and others), dependant on a lot of factors.

    No idea what the relevance is but I've already stated that Denmark's income from oil sales would be "immoral". But, they're just putting their country first. Which is something that some of you Americans on this forum are fond of in your own personal case. Which is fine. But when other countries do it, then you can't condemn it.
     
  14. Martin Mayers

    Martin Mayers Well-Known Member

    Jul 29, 2008
    Manchester
    Are they saying everyone should stop using oil. My take is they're saying "we are going to stop using oil".

    Like, some of the Japanese and German car companies are committed to selling cars within the EU with very low emissions by a certain point because the EU have a view on the impact of such emissions on the environment. Doesn't mean they aren't going to keep selling big pickups and noisy 7 Series' outside the EU.

    Is it hypocritical. Probably. Welcome to the world of business and nation states looking after number 1.
     
  15. Marty Ward

    Marty Ward Active Member

    Feb 17, 2006
    Maryland
    Definitely because they probably would have stolen it from Norway! ;)
     
  16. Marty Ward

    Marty Ward Active Member

    Feb 17, 2006
    Maryland
    No what I'm saying is that the government of Norway has said it needs to stop being used while they continue to sell it to fund their society. Sort of like the bar owner telling the drunk to get off the hootch as he slides another shot to him!
     
  17. Martin Mayers

    Martin Mayers Well-Known Member

    Jul 29, 2008
    Manchester
    Doh....ya got me.

    Bloody Norway, Sweden, Denmark....it's all Viking Country.
     
  18. Martin Mayers

    Martin Mayers Well-Known Member

    Jul 29, 2008
    Manchester
    Isn't the County they brew Jack Daniels in legally a dry county? It's a bit like that I guess.

    I don't disagree with you actually. But, their attitude is clearly "fuck it, we'll look after number 1". As I've insinuated if it were Trump doing this you'd be jumping up and down and showing "WOOOOOO.....MURICAA"
     
  19. zgrose

    zgrose Active Member

    Jun 13, 2004
    Pinole, CA
    It's not hypocritical to lead by example. Nor is it hypocritical to fall short of a goal that one is attempting to achieve. Clean energy, democracy, human rights, poverty, cultural hegemony are all continuums. The characterization that seems most apt in this sub-thread would be 'cynicism.'
     
  20. Marty Ward

    Marty Ward Active Member

    Feb 17, 2006
    Maryland
    Attempting to achieve a goal? So drug dealers really don't want people using their product? That's why they sell them?
     

Share This Page