A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition.” -Rudyard Kipling
Joined April 2011
- Tweets45.7K
- Following351
- Followers1.2K
- Likes64.4K
Pinned Tweet
Hjelpe meg Bjella, du har vært drøy før, men dette tar kaka.
1) Nei, norsk oljeindustri fikk ikke betydelig statlig støtte. De fikk ingen, 0 støtte. Det er riktig at det på 60-tallet var noe gunstige skatteregler for å tiltrekke seg leting. Men staten hadde ingen utgifter i denne perioden til olje. Selskapene lette etter olje helt for egen regning og risiko.
Da det først ble funnet olje og startet produksjon, ble skattesystemet lagt om og dagens skattesats på omlag 80% ble innført.
Nei, det var ikke store offentlige investeringer i startfasen. Tvert i mot i startfasen krevde staten at de andre selskapene i lisensene dekket statens (Statoils) andel.
Dette er rett og slett grov løgn, Bjella og jeg forventer at en voksen mann korrigerer det.
2) "vannkraften ble bygget opp med betydelig offentlig involvering"
I starten var det ikke slik, nei. Fra slutten av 1800-tallet og til begynnelsen på 1900-tallet var det i hovedsak private som bygget opp vannkraft. Fra 1907 og utover kom de såkalte panikklovene, for å sikre kraften på offentlige hender.
Men fortsatt med liten eller ingen offentlig kapital involvert. Fra 1920-tallet og utover begynte det offentlige, kommuner og staten/NVE å bygge, men fram til ca 1950, var det like mye private som offentlige. Først fra 1950-tallet ble det offentlige den dominerende kraftutbyggeren.
Igjen, en grov løgn.
3) Hydro ble ikke bygget med statlig kapital, nei. Hydro ble stiftet som et rent privat selskap av forskeren Kristian Birkeland og industrimannen Sam Eyde. Kapitalen kom fra Wallenbergfamilien, Banque Paribas og noe norsk privat kapital.
Staten ble eier i Norsk Hydro fordi Tyskland røvet til seg eiendelene under invasjonen og staten så sitt snitt til å overta dem etter krigen. Staten ble eier med nazihjelp altså. Nice.
Men igjen, grov løgn, Bjella.
4) Du har forsåvidt mye rett i det med Kongsberg, det ble stiftet som en statlig våpenfabrikk for å produsere våpen til egen hær. Og ja, staten, er heldigvis eneste kunde til forsvarsindustrien. Noe annet ville være litt merkelig.
5) Ja, staten bruker en liten del av skatteinntektene på å bygge infrastruktur, men det er da virkelig ikke sammenlignbart med å subsidiere ulønnsomme næringer.
6) "Virkeligheten er at de ser arbeidsplasser, teknologiutvikling og fremtidige markeder."
Hvis de hadde sett det, så hadde de selvfølgelig funnet det lønnsomt å satse selv, helt uten subsidier.
Dette er en så utbredt misforståelse blant de på venstresiden, at du skal slippe karakteren grov løgn. Men sprøyt er det.
Ser vi bort fra en del vås og en riktig men, banal observasjon, så har du ljugd grovt om vår nære industrihistorie, et hvert skikkelig menneske hadde korrigert dette.
Er du et skikkelig menneske, Bjella?
Dette er oppsiktsvekkende. FrP har altså passert Jaglands berømmelige 36,9. Innenfor feilmarginen dog, men hvor lenge varer det?
Det er omtrent umulig å finne ord til å beskrive hvor fordummende denne NRK-reportasjen er. Dette er hva du får for 8 milliarder. 8 milliarder hadde rukket langt for å kvitte den berømmelige veibruksavgiften.
Defund NRK.
Steven Viddal retweeted
The Iron Law remains undefeated
The opposition Conservative Party won an election in the Canadian province of British Columbia for the first time in nearly 100 years, promising to ramp up liquefied natural gas production, provisional results showed on Sunday. reuters.com/legal/litigation…
NHO bør avvikles i sin nåværende form. Organisasjonen har degenerert til en lobbyorganisasjon for tilkarring.
vg.no/nyheter/i/R5n5lA/nho-t…
Steven Viddal retweeted
Et godt eksempel fra målstyringsvanvidd er «Nasjonal transportplan 2029-2040» – sett klimamål uten en forutgående kost/nytte analyse som kalibrerer og realitetsorienterer målet.
De fleste virksomhetene har satt seg mål om 50-55% reduksjon fra 2020 og fram mot 2030.
I rapporten sies der fornuftig nok “Mer for pengene” for å sikre lavest mulige kostnader for samfunnet for å nå NTP-målene.
Men problemet er at det samtidig sies “At transportsektoren samlet, og hver av virksomhetene for seg, skal ta sikte på å nå sine respektive klimamål ligger fast»
&
at uttrykket «mer for pengene» betyr «lavest mulig samfunnsøkonomiske kostnader per tonn CO2e kuttet over tid, under forutsetning om at tilstrekkelige tiltak gjennomføres for å nå fastsatte klimamål».
Det er derfor ikke uten grunn at Frp er blitt kunnskapspartiet i Norge og som etterspør kost/nytte-vurderinger av alle klimatiltak – og at dersom disse er høyere er forventet kvotepris skal de ikke gjennomføres.
Dette må jo være et rimelig krav for bruk av felleskapets midler – alle tiltak over kvotepris skrotes og klimamålene må revideres, kvalitetssikres og realitetsorienteres. Derav følger #KlimalovenMåBort
CC:@Anduril100 @mpenergi @StevenViddal
regjeringen.no/globalassets/…
Norge er ikke et seriøst land, del,....Hvem fanden vet, gav opp å telle for lenge siden.
Strengt tatt trenger de vel ikke droner en gang, vi beskytter vårt viktigste luftvåpen med telt. @sjakhaaheim
Norge er ikke en seriøs nasjon.
Min antagelig upopulære hill to die on, er at forsvarsbudsjettet må kuttes drastisk, for all del ikke økes. Ikke fordi et sterkt forsvar ikke er ønskelig i disse tider, tvert i mot. Men fordi vårt forsvar ikke er i stand til å produsere økt kampkraft for de pengene de får, så har antagelig økte bevilgninger negativ marginalnytte.
Når vi ennå holder på med så opplagt - og farlig, tull som dette, er det bekmørkt. @Anduril100 @sjakhaaheim
Steven Viddal retweeted
Two days ago I wrote about the trap this generation keeps falling into. 1.5M of you read it. The most common reply: "OK, but who builds the trap?"
Fair question. Here's my answer. And let me be clear from the start: there is no secret room. No puppet master. What exists is far more banal and far more durable: a machine of incentives, where every person in the chain is paid to keep the same story alive. Nobody has to coordinate. The money does it for them.
Let's start at the bottom of the machine, with the person nobody ever looks at.
PART ONE: THE MACHINE, LINK BY LINK
A. The NGO bureaucrat.
His salary depends on the problem existing. He isn't paid to solve it. He's paid to document it, denounce it and campaign about it. An NGO that actually solved housing would have to lay itself off. So the incentive is never "fix." It's "mobilize." And nothing mobilizes like a villain.
B. The program officer.
The person who decides which NGO gets funded. He has to show "impact" to his board, and impact means reports, campaigns, reach, people in the street. A group that quietly builds 200 homes produces a boring report. A group that fills a square produces a great one.
C. The fiscal sponsor.
The plumbing. Many activist groups have no legal structure of their own, so their money flows through an umbrella nonprofit that receives and redistributes it. This is legal and common, and it makes the money nearly impossible to trace from donor to banner.
D. The university administrator.
Subsidized tuition didn't buy better teaching. It bought administration: entire offices whose job is to read every interaction between students as a power relation. Remove the lens and the office has no reason to exist.
E. The academic.
Careers run on grants and peer committees. Publish inside the dominant frame and you rise. Publish outside it and you're "problematic." Nobody has to forbid anything, because everyone can read the incentives.
F. The subsidized artist.
Film, theater and festivals are funded by committees that reward the "right" themes. The capitalist villain isn't a creative choice. It's a funding criterion nobody writes down.
G. The public broadcaster.
Paid by the taxpayer, never by the viewer. It never has to win you over. It has to please the people who renew its budget. Guess which villain it will never investigate.
H. The teacher.
Usually sincere, usually underpaid, trained in the same universities as everyone else. He passes on the lens he received, in good faith. That's what makes it so effective: the people transmitting it believe it.
I. The international institution.
Agencies and programs built around permanent crises. When a crisis ends, so does a budget. The narrative of eternal oppression becomes, quite literally, a business model.
J. The politician.
The last link, the one who cashes in. The machine produces anger. The politician harvests it and sells, as the cure, more of what caused the disease.
Ten links, and not one of them needs to be evil. Each one just follows its interest. That's what makes the machine so hard to stop: you can't arrest an incentive.
PART TWO: NOW THE REAL NAMES
The European Commission.
Between 2021 and 2023, more than €7.4 billion of EU money went to NGOs, in internal policy areas alone. In 2025 the EU's own Court of Auditors concluded that nobody, not even Brussels, has a reliable overview of where it all goes. When MEPs looked into the LIFE environmental program, the Commission itself admitted that some NGO work programmes it had funded contained "undue lobbying activities." In plain terms, public money paid activists to lobby the institutions that pay them. The auditors found nothing illegal, and that's exactly the point. It's all legal: the state paying people to ask the state for more state.
Open Society Foundations.
Less a puppet master than a patron. By its own records, it gave Jewish Voice for Peace $875,000 between 2017 and 2022, a group active in the Columbia protests, and it has funded the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights. Does it pay kids to pitch tents? There's no evidence of that. It does something more powerful. Year after year, it funds the organizations that produce the frames, the slogans, the trainings and the talking points. You don't need to pay the protester when you pay for the lens.
The fiscal sponsorship networks.
The money doesn't have to go to the group on the poster. It goes to an umbrella, which passes it on. That's how fact-checkers can honestly say "no direct grant to the student group" while the ecosystem around it is funded. Both statements are true. That's the design.
The French state.
€1,714 billion of public spending in 2025, 57.3% of GDP, the highest in Europe. Public debt hit €3,595 billion at the end of June, 119% of GDP, a record since INSEE started measuring. Interest alone runs around €79 billion this year. On top of the bill sit public universities, public broadcasting, a centralized curriculum and culture funded by committees. In France the machine isn't an ecosystem. It's an administration.
New York City.
In June, a Rent Guidelines Board with six of its nine members appointed by the mayor voted to freeze rents on about a million stabilized apartments. That included the first two-year freeze in the city's history. One board member resigned, saying the board had been rebuilt to deliver the freeze. The first leases under it took effect on October 1st. Watch what happens to maintenance, to new construction, to the vacancy rate. Every city that has run this experiment got the same result. And when it fails, the machine will already have its culprit ready: the landlord.
THE LOOP
Now put it together. The state funds demand and blocks supply, so prices explode. The young suffer. The state then funds the NGOs, universities, culture and media that explain to them why they suffer. Those institutions point at the market. The young vote for more state. More state funds more NGOs, and the loop closes.
The flag on those kids' shoulders the other morning wasn't the start of anything. It was the output, the last screen of a machine that runs all day, every day, on your taxes.
You can't arrest an incentive. But you can cut its funding, and you can teach people to see it.
That's what this account is for.
On my way to the office this morning, I passed a group of young people protesting, a Palestinian flag draped over their shoulders.
And I asked myself a question I can't shake: why does this generation always fall into the same trap? No matter the history. No matter the context. Even the ones from wealthy families, who went to the best schools, who were dealt every good card. Always the same trap.
I don't think it's stupidity. I think it's a mechanism. And a mechanism can be taken apart, piece by piece.
A. The observation: everything the state touches becomes unaffordable.
Look at economist Mark Perry's famous chart, the one people call "the chart of the century." It tracks US prices since 2000.
At the top, what explodes: hospital services, college tuition, textbooks, childcare, housing. Increases of +100%, +150%, up to +250%, far above general inflation.
At the bottom, what collapses: TVs, software, phones, toys, clothing. A TV today costs a fraction of what it did in 2000, for an infinitely better product.
Look at what separates the two groups. It isn't technology. It isn't complexity. It's one variable: how much the state is involved.
At the top, sectors that are subsidized, regulated, shielded from competition, where the state funds demand and blocks supply. At the bottom, sectors where companies fight every single morning to serve you better and cheaper.
B. The mechanism: why it's systematic.
When the state subsidizes demand without freeing supply, prices rise. Every time. Guaranteed student loans, and universities raise tuition. Housing aid plus blocked building permits, and rents skyrocket. Administered healthcare, and bureaucracy eats the budget before it ever reaches the patient.
In France it's even more vicious, because the price doesn't disappear: it hides. You never see the hospital bill, you pay it through payroll contributions. You never see the cost of school, you pay it through taxes. Public spending at 57% of GDP, one of the heaviest tax burdens in the world, more than €3.4 trillion in debt. And the result? Overflowing ERs, falling PISA scores, young people who can't afford to live in the city where they work.
The market didn't fail in these sectors. It was never allowed in.
C. Suffering demands a culprit.
A 22-year-old lives all of this in their bones. They can't find a place to live. Their degree either buries them in debt or opens no doors. The future feels blocked. That suffering is real, and I don't deny it for a second.
But human beings can't stand suffering without a culprit. They need a face. A scapegoat.
And this is where everything is decided: who taught them how to read the world?
D. Whoever tells the story picks the villain.
Schools are public. Universities are public. Culture runs on grants. Film goes through funding committees. Public broadcasting shapes the narratives. The people handing down the interpretive framework are, overwhelmingly, paid by the very system that creates the problem.
Do you really think that system is going to name itself as the culprit?
No. It names the capitalist. The boss. The landlord. "The rich." The multinational. The commercial West. Same role, same casting, every time.
E. One lens, a thousand causes.
And this brings me back to that flag. A generation taught to read every situation through a single lens, oppressor on one side, rich, Western, capitalist, oppressed on the other, will apply that lens everywhere. To housing. To climate. To conflicts on the other side of the world. The cause changes, the lens stays. That's why the trap is always the same: it's not the cause that draws them in, it's the way of thinking that was installed in them.
F. The perfect inversion.
Here's the irony. Capitalism is the force that drove down the price of almost everything it touched. The state is the force that blew up the price of almost everything it captured. And young people blame the first for the crimes of the second.
It's like blaming the firefighter for the fire because you saw him at the scene.
G. The ballot box confirms it.
In the US, a few weeks out from the midterms, a large share of urban young voters is getting ready to vote Democrat for more state, more spending, more regulation. New York elected a self-described socialist mayor, carried by young voters, on promises of rent freezes and city-run grocery stores. Rent freezes, the policy that has made housing scarcer everywhere it's been tried. The cure that worsens the disease.
In France, it's the same play in two acts. Part of the youth votes for the radical left, which promises more state. Another part votes for the center, which promises to "manage" the state well, and has dug the debt deeper than ever. Two different ballots, one shared assumption: the problem is the market, the solution is the state.
H. The way out.
These young people aren't stupid. They're right to be angry. They're just aiming at the wrong target.
The day they understand that their rent, their tuition and their hospital are expensive precisely because the state runs them, their anger will change direction. They'll stop protesting against those who create. They'll start protesting against those who capture.
That day, the greatest intellectual scam of our time will be over.
Steven Viddal retweeted
Trist at det finnes nordmenn som ikke støtter Paris-intifadaen. Regjeringen har i dag tatt initiativ til en giverkonferanse for de palestinske selvstyremyndighetene i Paris.
Steven Viddal retweeted
Burde ikke Norges Utenriksminister Espen Barth Eide og den norske Regjeringen snart innføre handelsforbud mot Frankrike, ettersom de ikke føyer seg og inngår en tostatsløsning med islamistene? Det er jo eneste veien til fred?
Forøvrig mener jeg at forsvarsbudsjettet må kuttes radikalt. Fortsatt.
aftenposten.no/norge/i/16g80…
Steven Viddal retweeted
It is delusional to think that the EU is getting tough on China. Whenever the EU imposes a sanction on a Chinese company, China responds by restricting rare-earth exports, on which EU supply chains are critically dependent. The reality of the bilateral relationship is one of an unchanged deep co-dependency.
eurointelligence.com/
Dette er fornuftig.
Vi påberoper oss NATOs atomvåpenparaply og har nylig inngått en avtale med Frankrike omkring kjernevåpen. Det er bent frem hyklerisk om vi ikke skal kunne investere i atomvåpen.
nettavisen.no/nyheter/ny-rap…
Bård Larsens intellektuelle nedsmelting er fullført. Det har vært et trist skue, men nå er det nå over.
minerva.no/bokanmeldelse-luk…
Foruten å vise at Søreide er dypt upopulær og ute av takt med den nye høyrebølgen, viser denne målingen noe annet interessant: At det er bortkastet tid for FrP å tone ned egne standpunkt for å tekkes Høyre og forsøke å bygge "borgerlig samling". Som med Sponheim foretrekker Venstre egentlig en Ap-regjering. Og store deler av Høyre gjør egentlig også det.
Det vil være komplett galskap for FrP å ta en Høyre og gripe regjeringsmakt for regjeringsmaktens skyld. Det vil utradere FrP om de går i regjering med et Høyre som helst har lyst til å løpe etter lillavelgere og EU-kommisjonen.
Det må enten være en FrP-regjering med i hovedsak enten FrP-politikk, med H som holde-seg-for-nesen juniorpartner, eller så tenker jeg det er like greit å la være.
Straffen for å gå i regjering og så videreføre Støreide-politikk ville blitt uvanlig brutal for FrP.
vg.no/nyheter/i/4Or0v9/stats…
Steven Viddal retweeted
MUST READ by human rights champion and former Soviet prisoner Natan Sharansky, writing in Tablet:
‘Is the Whole World Wrong? Yes. We should stand firm in the conviction of what we know to be true.’
tabletmag.com/sections/news/…
