Vinegar on iOS is also still working perfectly

It’s a myth that capitalism alone has lifted people out of poverty. In fact, many nations have fought to implement strong social policies just to try and shield their citizens from its excesses. For every claim of progress, there are countless tales of exploitation, dispossession, and environmental ruin. Saying no system is perfect trivialises the issue. With capitalism, the true cost is often hidden behind the glittering façade of consumerism, at the expense of human dignity, ethics, and our planet’s health.

How fortunate! Anything to add to my growing research pile? What’s your take on the store norske leksikon?

Start here:

Backer, Larry Catá, Sovereign Investing and Markets-Based Transnational Rule of Law Building: The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund in Global Markets

"By 2009 the NSWF was reported to own about 1% of global stocks and 2.25% of every listed European company."

"The Fund is to be used not merely to protect and increase the value of the Fund itself, but to influence behaviors among the pool of potential targets of investment."

"The objectives also contribute to the complex relationship between law and norm, between state regulatory policy and state projections of power through active participation in private markets, and between national legal structures and the internationalization of behavior standards."

"Responsible investing is not constructed merely to produce the highest achievable returns, but also to bend that objective to other Norwegian political objectives."

"The Norges Bank may not acquire more than ten percent of the voting shares of an enterprise. Unlike other SWFs, the NSWF does not aspire to be a controlling shareholder, just an influential one. Additionally, the NSWF may not invest in domestic companies or in fixed income instruments issued by governments."

"Private in form, active ownership provides a method for the transposition of national policy onto the operations of companies over which the Norwegian state has no legal claim to control. Additionally, this projection of public power through shareholding also appears to open a back channel to communication with other states."

"The NSWF does not merely lobby the companies in which it has an interest, it takes the position that its stakeholding gives it a means of lobbying states for changes in their legal regimes to conform to those that Norway prefers."

"Norwegian preferences themselves seek to universalize the Norwegian legal order by seeking to incorporate (and transpose) international law and norms onto Norwegian regulatory space, and thus onto the domestic legal orders of foreign states (whether or not the foreign states have embraced those international norms)."

The fund is only the tip of the iceberg. Norway’s PR game is absolutely stunning.

Their extensive (and curious) involvement ranges from importing Jewish prisoners to build infrastructure during WWII, later secretly moving thousands of the bodies of those same victims using paper/asphalt bags as bodybags, to deforestation of the Amazon in Brazil for the benefit of Norwegian Salmon, and so much more.

It’s a wild ride — buckle up.

Well gee, next to Norway and NATO, they’re my favourite regulators!

What a bright future for information.

Haven’t logged in since Apollo stopped working. old.reddit + every ad blocked. May they slowly decay, someday existing in archive alone.

Who decides what is, or receives the label of, misinformation?

You seem confused. Let me be clear:

• I have no criticism for the Finnish Parliament or their choice of soft drink selection.

• I have no belief that a government office cafeteria is equally as complex as a pension fund.

Now if you’ve made it this far, why are Finland choosing not to support Pepsi? Let’s look to the article:

The Finnish parliament will no longer carry Pepsi products as the American soft drink giant continues to support the Russian economy by continuing its operations in the aggressor country

So, from the article, the Finnish Parliament have taken a stand against Pepsi because Pepsi won’t cease operating in Russia. And Pepsi Co failing to stop their operations in Russia is bad. Right?

Still with me? Great.

Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund also isn’t ceasing their operations (by way of their investments) in Russia.

Again: where is the equivalent outrage? Why isn’t anyone taking a stand against Norway for not divesting? They said they would, but haven’t. The amount is pennies when compared to their other investments. So why are they hanging on to them? Why don’t they do what they said they would? And why isn’t anyone speaking out against them for failing to divest, especially while their former PM is leading NATO?

Hope that helps!

I did not. Happy to help!

My original comment (to which you responded) regarding the obligations of Pepsi Co were highlighting a critical comparison between a corporate drinks manufacturer and the pension fund. The Finnish Parliament can do what they like. If they’re doing it because Pepsi Co hasn’t fully pulled out of Russia, and thus Pepsi deserves to be shunned, what does Norway deserve?

If action is mandated for entities that don’t divest from Russia, then it must equally be applicable to all entities where this is true. Otherwise, hypocrisy.

Sure, but now tell me how the richest pension fund in the world, currently valued in the trillions, has such fiduciary obligation that it can’t divest ~$300 million of Russian investments.

Make it make sense.