> Norway is the 5th largest weapons and defense manufacturer

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

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

  > so called Oil Fund

  [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

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 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.

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".

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

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.

Wind and solar are also much cheaper than fossil fuels, everybody is just really dumb and evil and decides to use fossil fuels anyway, it's not because renewables have massive infrastructure costs due to unreliability and lack of energy density.

You are an idiot

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.

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.

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.

I didn't realize this. That's really scammy.

In your world, you only see and interpret SpaceX's existing products. You then see SpaceX's eye-watering valuation, and then are confused where this comes from.

Meanwhile, people who understand SpaceX's product line, and the implications these products in five or ten years, can analyze the situation more accurately.

I can tell you are in the unaware group, since you don't mention nor analyze two of SpaceX's world-changing products (Starship and Starlink Mobile).

A significant portion of their valuation is based on this. The spacex private stock price moved significantly based on this data center narrative.

> And for what it concerns shareholders, a strictly worse one than a conventional ISP.

This is ignorance. There is absolutely zero meaningful competition to Starlink in the maritime, aviation, and remote internet markets. 150mbps down with <80ms latency isn’t impressive in a city but it’s mind blowing on an airplane 1000 miles from land.

> The EU is even building their own Starlink equivalent.

No they aren’t. The only somewhat credible competitor so far is Amazon Kuiper(Leo) and they are still nascent.

You also forgot starshield.

E.g. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx21669452lo

I waited hours in Newark even before the current joke of a government. The risk of being in a jail without my phone which has a life-saving app to manage my diabetes is a risk I am not going to take.

I think you're right that e.g. Anthropic wouldn't be on the block list, because: It's an IT company, and I suspect that even Palantir might make the cut. It is fairly annoying, because my pension fund won't invest in Rheinmetall, SAAB or Kongberg, which I think they should, but they will probably invest in Anthropic, OpenAI, and SpaceX, which I don't really like.

They're valued like software companies, but they have terrible margins compared to software. Investors haven't figured out how to value these companies.

Also, when you buy into an index fund, you are not funding the companies that the index tracks. That’s a misunderstanding of how the markets and index funds work.

You'd sing a different song quite quickly once the threat stops being abstract as you don't get to free-ride on the security a defense industry provides.

What difference with Microsoft, amazon and google? They all heavily support the military.

How is this even debatable.

Even if the Star Trek utopian future materialises, it is very likely to be a long time from now.

1. SpaceX has competitors. Most are making reusable rockets.

2. SpaceX has no moat.

3. The concept of money itself might change dramatical by the time SpaceX becomes a multi-planetary mega corporation. Investing now may not return returns in any meaningful sense.

He had period where he though he can become hero for the democrats due to green cars. It did not worked, neither democrats nor left accepted him as unconditional hero.

The racism, the villingness to cause harm to get more power for himself were there whole time. He was far right the whole time, just became more extreme and open when it stopped being disadvantage.

Especially now that every failure results in a massive wave of negative publicity

In other words, look one level deeper and you'll see it's not the S&P500 that's overvalued. It's you and me and 100 million other people desperately attempting to make sure young people pay for them for 20-30 years when they're old.

And then you calculate it out ... and see it's not happening. No matter what the number on the account says.

I don't think it is similar therefore.

Imagine in 2010 if investors had real transparency into how much money YouTube or Maps was losing, along with the governance structures to enforce their concerns.

You’re calling it “political motivation” as some sort of blind hate or vendetta out of principle, cutting off the nose to spite the face. But you can no longer separate Musk from politics and aggression towards Denmark.

The pension fund’s assessment looks entirely valid, objective and justifiable to me. But for anyone who personally favors Musk and his political views any dismissal will look politically motivated. It’s easy to cry foul. In this light your shallow dismissal might be just as politically motivated.