I've got a friend from Uruguay who lives in Finland (very similar standard of living compared with Norway) and who recently visited me in America. I can confirm that this article is not satire. He was absolutely shocked to see the amount of homelessness and poverty in New York city and he tried very hard not to talk about the rock-solid financial security available to every citizen in Finland.
this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
677 points (99.0% liked)
The Onion
4588 readers
1801 users here now
The Onion
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The famous science fiction author Robert Heinlein wanted to tour the world with his wife Virginia. They had no interest in the northern hemisphere, they wanted to see the southern half.
Everywhere they went Robert wanted to get eyeballs on the economy, see what was really going on. He would always ask the cab drivers to take him to the worst part of town, where the poorest of the poor lived.
In Uruguay the driver took him to a modest neighborhood. The houses were very tiny, but well built, well taken care of. Flower beds out front, all that. Heinlein was a bit upset.
"I clearly asked you to take me to the poorest neighborhoods."
"Oh no senior! These are the poorest people! They are on government welfare and are very ashamed to live like this."
That was in the 80's. Imagine that.
As an American who has visited Finland and has Finnish friends, I wish we could live there so bad. We just felt like we fit in with culture better too.
I would kill to live there. I feel like I would get long well with the culture there, but I am uneducated and an unskilled laborer, so they definitely don't want me.
and willing to kill, apparently.
As a child, I remember seeing Uruguay after most of South America. We had just gone through Argentina and Brazil, and then we saw this huge hydro-dam. It apparently supplies a big chunk of the county, and I just remember it being so clean. It wasn't quite as advanced as Brazil (I don't know why their traffic lights with a countdown aren't everywhere), but it seemed so nice and well thought out, if small. It was modest and well maintained... Not primitive in any way, clean and basic, but well cared for
The insanity here in the US is intense. The other day a coworker was trying to say health care in Europe is worse "because you have to wait". No nuance or acknowledgement that in the US you often have to wait AND pay.
I had to wait 3 months in the US to get wound care for a staph infection. I now have permanent vein damage in my leg. I live in the US and have fancy, tech worker insurance. It's totally fucked. Unbelievable until you see it first hand.
Healthcare in the US is amazing IF you have amazing insurance. Unfortunately that's the exception so it's absolute dog shit for most people.
My peer group mostly had good insurance and we still have a lot of stories about being dicked around by it. The dysfunction here isn't just the cost, but also the stress and overhead of dealing with it. Plus the occasional "insurance is denying my claim for bs reasons".
Yeah, I have great insurance, and they still deny a bunch of stuff you'd expect to be covered.
Back in the 90's I popped a lung. Excellent care, about wouldn't let me leave the hospital. Couple of years later I shattered my femur with no insurance. "Here's some charity crutches. GTFO."
In the US you pay, wait, pay, possibly don't even get the healthcare because some uneducated shit-for-brains says "lol nah", pay, and then pay.
Norwegian healthcare is remarkably shit for allegedly having infinite money or whatever people ITT think, but at least it ain't murica.
Sadly our politicians are slowly privatizing public services and making public services worse.
Police and medical services are getting reduced on a yearly basis.
We are selling our independence to the EU by letting other markets control the price of our electricity. Starting new industries relying on cheap electricity was a unique feature for us. We are making aluminium in small towns far away from large cities. Starting new plant will not be possible in the future.
Corruption and nepotism between politicians and industries are being exposed more often than before.
It's nice living in Norway. But our politicians and capitalists have decided that this should come to an end. Norway's peak has been reached.
The race to the bottom has begun years ago.
You could also say that they are instead together with the rest of Europe. United. There's no reason Norway would have super cheap power and Germany should struggle even more without Russian gas.
I disagree.
Germany dismantled their electric infrastructure by shutting down their nuclear plants. Only because boomers were afraid of hot metal in a pool. They replaced the green energy with coal and gas.
Most of Europe use gas for heating and cooking. In Norway we use electricity for those purposes. It's also very cold in most parts during the winter. So cheap electricity is a vital part of our infrastructure.
Transporting electricity from Norway to Germany and GB is not efficient as there is a loss of power on the grid to heat during transport.
France is a great opposite to Germany in this discussion. They are invested in their nuclear energy and has an export industry. France was the biggest exporter of electricity in Europe before Capitalists sold out the Norwegian people for some fat paychecks.
Germany dismantled their electric infrastructure by shutting down their nuclear plants.
It was a well-planned phase-out that de facto started in the 90s, when no new plans were getting built, and got formalised (and properly planned) early 2000s. It was flanked by expansion of renewables, in fact Germany doing that is what gave renewables the initial investment necessary to make them competitive.
Then a conservative government came along and fucked up the transition, decided to exit from the nuclear exit and then to exit from the exit from the exit after Fukushima, but that's another story. They also destroyed the German solar industry, the Chinese then bought the tech for cheap and are now owning the world market.
Only because boomers were afraid of hot metal in a pool.
Anti-nuclear is not a generational stance in Germany.
They replaced the green energy with coal and gas.
Nope. We still have coal plants to be able to export to France so they can claim they are CO2-neutral. Gas is an interim technology, they're going to run on synthesised gas in the future, the pipeline network can store up to three months of total energy consumption (not just electricity) it's ideal long-term and backup storage.
Transporting electricity from Norway to Germany and GB is not efficient as there is a loss of power on the grid to heat during transport.
HVDC is very efficient also your hydrostorage makes excellent batteries. Generally speaking why are you so worried about efficiency, would you rather have wind mills shutting down when they overproduce?
Germany didn't "dismantle" their infrastructure, its mistake was to rely on cheap russian gas and shutting down their PV industry while they were ahead of China.
The unanticipated war increased the prices and while it would have been great to still have the nuclear plants, they were really old already anyways.
Nuclear energy is way too expensive, because it can only exist while being heavily subsidized. On top of that they are a big risk in combination with climate change. You mentioned France, but forgot the fact that they had to shut down their reactors due to drought in 2022 and had to import electricity for the first time in decades. Not really a technology that I would count on for the future, especially considering the long time it takes to build them.
As you can see, shit happens and the idea in Europe is to stick together. I'm glad to be part of this. You sound like you're angry and want to vote for politicians that don't "sell you out to Europe", I can imagine which kind of party that might be, good luck with that.
Way to go attacking me at the end there.
The electrical grid needs a balanced energy. When everyone now goes apeshit on wind because of the subsidies we basically fuck ourselves over big time. When it stops blowing in Germany it doesn't blow in Norway. Most of the wind is generated by high pressure on the Atlantic and low pressure over Europe. The most common wind direction is from the ocean.
Huge oil companies goes all in on wind. Can you guess why? When it doesn't blow we have to burn gas.
As of not selling us out to Europe. Guess which country has the most healthy fishing industry? You're god damn right. We don't want EU's short sighted policies bankrupt us. EU countries are queuing up to fish us dry as they fished their own waters dry.
Labeling me as some kind of extremist because I want to conserve the climate and environment is pretty rad.
You're making some strong claims, while using an even stronger language:
-
The "race to the button" has begun because of corrupt politicians and "Capitalists", who sold out the Norwegian people for some "fat paychecks".
-
Germany "dismantled" their electric infrastructure, because of "boomers", that are afraid of "hot metal in a pool", generally everyone who is against nuclear is "just afraid of what they don't understand".
-
Oil companies invest in wind energy, to keep people relying on oil in the future.
-
The EU wants to fish Norway dry.
I already said my part about nuclear energy.
That wind energy is an oil company conspiracy to keep people hooked on oil and not a diversification of their portfolio, similar to what Saudi Arabia is doing, I'm not going into much either.
Norway, the EU and GB came to an agreement, that also benefits Norway, some quotes:
This traditional deal between the two parties has been particularly demanding this year, as the quotas traditionally fished by Norwegian vessels are now located in the British zone, outside the territory of the European Union.
Norwegian fishermen can now fish the opportunities Norway has acquired from Greenland, including shrimp, Greenland halibut, and redfish, and in the EU zone, such as roundnose grenadier.
"It is gratifying that we have reached an agreement with the EU and the UK. This means that we have agreed on quotas for important stocks that we manage together in the North Sea. This is crucial for sustainable management," concluded Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Cecilie Myrseth.
Maybe if you dial your tone down a bit and add some sources to your claims, you could be taken more serious.
You can live in this fantasy where Norway is without faults and a perfect Paradise as much as you want
I don't care.
Anything happening in the UK and the US is happening in Norway. Just a little bit later. NPM is an unstoppable force at the moment.
People are getting shafted by inflation right now, wages are stagnant and the rich are exporting their wealth to Swiss for tax evasion. Birth rates are down and gang violence is in the rise. The Police force are getting it's back broken with reforms.
Housing is soon unavailable for the upcoming generation without well funded parents.
This Christmas the organizations providing gifts and food for the poor had record numbers of people queuing up.
But hey. Look at this nice street in Stavanger.
Living in Norway is nice. But the welfare state and stable foundation for a trustworthy political system is under huge stress. People should't form their opinion of a country based of social media posts.
You can browse the Norwegian subreddit if you want to know what's moving behind the facade. Norway has good freedom of the press, so follow Norwegian news outlet as well. Even the state media covers scandals.
Dismantling the nuclear plants was the correct decision. Why produce radioactive trash you cannot safely store? The mistake was selling out solar tech. Funny you use france as a positive example because their power plants are in terrible conditions.
We have been safely storing nuclear "trash" for decades. Much of it isn't really considered trash as it will have potential for new energy in the future. Temporary storage is more correct.
France are planning to build six new plants.
Nuclear energy has potential for catastrophes sure. But annual deaths by nuclear disasters Vs. Any other energy sources is pretty funny.
Wind power is considered more lethal than nuclear.
People are just afraid of what they don't understand.
Another point for nuclear, it actually works when it's not sunny and windy. Hot still days in the summer when everyone wants AC? No wind power. Terrible winter days that are super windy with no sun? Still no wind power because the wind is now too strong and will hurt the turbines, and no sun. Where's the heat coming from? Renewable sources are great, but the amount of storage they would need to be practical as a primary source of electricity is a bit prohibitive.
Fully agree. The Norway I moved to was very egalitarian and people were much more socially minded. But lately things have been getting worse the gap between rich and poor is absurd and the government is putting in a lot of not so subtle poor taxes.
“It’s terrible in Norway, don’t come here!”
My third great grandfather left there and came to the US. WHAT WAS HE THINKING!? lol
Depends on how old he was. Things were less rosy before the oil. The Norwegian-American "exodus" is still part of Norwegian cultural memory (if nothing else there are children's songs about it) and apparently there's some remnants of Norwegian-influenced culture around Minnesota or something like that.
At the time, maybe it was a great idea.
It was a great idea at the time. Lots of Norwegians left to search for a better future for themselves and their families.
There's actually more descendents from that generation on the USA than in Norway today. They truly prospered in the US compared to Norway.
Somehow I doubt these numbers.
Regardless, does "prospering" mean "had a lot of offspring" in your mind? Not to say that I don't think they led a better life than their Norwegian counter parts at the time, it's just a really odd phrasing to me
some history in Norwegian. With more numbers.
200 years ago it was beneficial to leave the country for many. The emigration had a big impact on Norway at the time. We are lucky to live in a nice periode now. But this periode has only lasted about 70 years. Its a really short time for a state. We have been an independent state for only 119 years after we got separated from Sweden in 1905.
I think compared to families starving, having lots of kids is definitely prosperous. From what I can tell from ancestry, they prospered in the traditional sense too though. My third great grandfather was apparently a blacksmith who got a job at a mine, then went to Oregon territories during the gold rush, and came back to the Midwest and bought tons of land. Like hundred of acres. I'm thinking maybe he opened a shop selling shovels or something but it's a total guess. Not many get rich off finding gold but maybe. Hard for me to really track what happened with him because he sold all his land to his daughter for almost nothing and his son (my great great grandfather) moved south.
He was probably thinking that he was hungry due to a shortage of potatoes and that his older brother would get the farm, so he'd better come up with a different plan. I hear the US was real socialist back then, giving away land left and right.
The modern day dumbasses who come here either got a high paying tech job, fell in love with an American, or possibly both.
Norway is a country built on oil, oil and lots and lots of oil. While I love Norwegians, everything is easy when you have one of the largest sovereign wealth funds literally funding the country (I know, I know, it isn’t because it’s well managed. But pretty easy for the state to borrow against it and what not).
If you want an example of a Nordic country that’s just built on taxes, strong work ethic, unions and corporate success, visit another Nordic country, like Sweden, Finland or Denmark.
Just because your have large natural reserves does not mean you will manage it well.
It's easy to dismiss Norway and say that oh well they have all this money. But remember that it's not that long ago that Norway was a very poor country. And then culture that was built up remained through the economic growth.
Norway wasn't that poor before the oil either. Their main exports before the oil were boats, fish and lumber. The oil definitely didn't hurt them, but they would likely have done okay without it, like their Nordic neighbors.
Just for the avoidance of doubt: Norway would have done complete fine without the oil. They are hard-working, great people and I don’t have a bad word to say about them. I’m just saying that the oil definitely does do something for them.
All Nordic countries are built on that, Norway included. The Norwegian oil fund is rarely tapped into beyond a small fraction of the capital gains, although it did smooth out some 2008 financial crisis pains which hit Sweden harder.
Denmark has had some oil, but nowhere near what Norway did. Sweden has hardly had any oil reserves, nor Finland.
I’m aware that Norway manages its oil wealth extremely well. Probably better than any other country, which should be no surprise given it’s Norway.
But having an ENORMOUS bank balance does mean Norway can invest in projects and take up loans with extremely favourable rates.
Fun fact: Sweden was once offered half of the Norwegian oil in exchange for half of Volvo. Sweden declined.
In their defense, this was before we had any way to get the oil up from the bottom of the ocean, so Sweden was basically asked to gamble that there was a cost-effective way to do it.
I didn’t know this. Do you have a source I could read?
Volvo was not "offered half of Norway's oil". But there was indeed a large collaboration in the works. Norway would trade cash and the rights to three unprospected regions of the North Sea to Volvo, and would get 40% of the shares of Volvo.
The deal was declined by the Volvo general assembly. Even if it had been approved by the assembly, it would also need to be approved by the Norwegian Parliament afterwards, and it's not a hundred percent clear that would happen.
Here is one article on the matter. It is a bit confusing, because the main proponent for the deal (CEO of Volvo at the time) says the deal would have been worth $85 Billion. While the main opponent of the deal thinks Volvo made the right call because only one of the three regions had gas, and none of them had oil. Both sources are biased though, so it's a bit hard to know how true these statements are.
https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-made-85-billion-mistake-2016-6?r=DE&IR=T
So it's true there was a major deal in the works which would trade rights to natural resources for Volvo shares. But it was a much more technical deal than simply "half of the oil for half of Volvo".
Canada could have had the same amount of wealth but instead of socializing the profits, individuals pissed it all away and now there is nothing left
Funny thing is that we Americans always make fun of Europe, while eating absolute shit in our "best country in the world".
It's not very effective!
America used Blame Socialism!
It's not very effective!
Jethro-Bob used Tax Complaint! He hurt himself in his confusion!
It is satire after all
view more: next ›