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.

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.

And yet all the investments, their value, and what percentage of ownership the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund possess are all publicly available on their website.

If I filter by ‘Russia’, they still show 51 companies. Today. Let’s look at their top five, which you can also view by accessing their own data.

Highest Percentage of Ownership:

1. Lenta International Co PJSC: 2.25%
2. Rosseti Centre PJSC: 2.69%
3. Ufaorgsintez OAO: 0.99%
4. Segezha Group PJSC: 1.16%
5. Bank St Petersburg PJSC: 1.76%

Highest Amounts of Investment in NOK:

1. Gazprom PJSC: 731,368,780
2. LUKOIL PJSC: 536,571,485
3. Sberbank of Russia PJSC: 523,299,961
4. Novatek PJSC: 118,267,597
5. Surgutneftegas PJSC: 76,130,966

^ these alone = ~$185,140,710 USD.

What fiduciary obligations does a pension fund have that is somehow more complex, important, and forgivable vs obligations belonging to Pepsi Co?

Let’s break down that January 31, 2023 article once more:

1: The investments in Moscow listed equities dropped from $2.7 billion to a mere $300 million.

It would be laughably naive to think this is purely because they’ve been ‘pulling out’ of Russia. By all means, review the article and let me know if it states the exact reason for the decrease in value.

2: By December 31, 2022, Norway still had shares in 51 Russian companies.

It’s September 2023. If they were aggressively pulling out, wouldn’t they have zero investments by now?

Nice try.

How would the richest sovereign wealth fund in the world pulling out their investments from Russia bring about living in the freezing cold?

It isn’t as if Norway’s fund haven’t already said they would divest. It’s just that they haven’t taken any concrete action on what they promised for more than a year.

Why?

Who would collapse?

Again: The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund still have active investments in Russia.

Where is the outrage for them?

According to this Norwegian publication in an article published January 31st 2023:

the Norwegian oil fund still holds hundreds of millions worth of shares in petroleum companies like Gazprom, Novatek, Bashneft and Lukoil

Even if the value of their investments lower, they still haven’t pulled out any from Russia. The investments could be worth very little, but they still have something invested in Russia.

Norwegian Government on February 28, 2022, ordered the Oil Fund to freeze all investments in Russia and prepare a plan for divesting with the goal of totally exiting the Russian stock market

What’s stopping them?

Can I still have a go if I change my name to Jeremy Corbyn by deed poll first?

It generally comes down to convenience of access mixed with some ethical consideration for me personally. Out of print books, textbooks, and history or research titles that are in the hundreds I’m simply not going to buy. I use JSTOR where I can, but will get academic research as I need if it’s not readily available. I tend not to pirate indie publishers for any media if I can help it. Sometimes I do to check it out before I purchase it. I try to support creators wherever I can, whenever I can. I like that options are available, and I don’t think anything should truly be off limits.