Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 560 posts

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#351

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

tordrt wrote: post #338
eigenspace wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slavery part doesn't seem like a rational decision to me. Why are we pretending that slavery doesn't provide an immense amount of value for humanity, and that it's horrible to invest or support building out any slavery production whatsoever? Lets not do produce it ourselves, lets just instead outsource it to Africa... ___________________________________ Snide comparisons aside, I'd just say that we can accept tha…

Slavery is evil. Fossil fuels is actually still a net good for humanity. E.g. the consequences of removing access to these energy sources, would be overwhelmingly more negative for humanity right now, than the consequence of global warming. 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 s…

Doesn’t one major fund reducing investment in fossil fuels and increasing investment in renewable energy precisely migrate towards the notion of helping solve demand and encourage technological breakthroughs and innovation?

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#352

Post by myk9001 »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #317
myk9001 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... part of the reasons that Trump wants Greenland is to site ICBM detection and interceptor systems. Nothing is stopping the US from deploying those in Greenland right now. The only reason Trump wants Greenland is he's not all there -- Greenland looks big on the map so he's fixated on it.

> Nothing is stopping the US from deploying those in Greenland That would require the (politically unlikely) agreement of the Danish government. See article 2 of the relevant treaty [1]: "...establishing and/or operating such defense areas as the two Governments, on the basis of NATO defense plans, may from time to time agree to be necessary..." > The only reason Trump wants Greenland is he's not all there -- Greenla…

So, you're saying the US (300+ mln, #1 military) never actually requested to deploy them and Denmark (5 mln) never actually refused. But because you think an agreement is unlikely, it's straight to annexation by force. Do I have that right?

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#353

Post by Ray20 »

dchftcs wrote: post #315
sgt wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

SpaceX is headed by a person who is a strong ally of a politician who openly challenges Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland. Guess you wouldn't mind selling your organs to the same group of powerful people for a few bucks because you're not virtue signalling?

Yeah, but they say it is because of weapons and climate change and not because of all of this

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#354

Post by tordrt »

pietervdvn wrote: post #319
tordrt wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fossil fuel part doesn't seem like a rational decision to me. Why are we pretending that fossil fuels dont provide an immense amount of value for humanity, and that its horrible to invest or support building out any fossil fuel production whatsoever. Lets not do produce it ourselves, lets just instead outsource it to the gulfs and Russia…

The fossil fuel industry is both the most subsidized industry worldwide ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies ) and the second most expensive source of energy (at least for electricity production). The only energy source that is more expensive is nuclear (!).

The second most expensive source of energy is misleading in terms of whole picture. They are using a theoretical cost per kwh generated. You have to account for the much higher infrastructure and systemic cost of electricity generation you can not control (wind/solar). You cant simply use wind or solar without pairing it with an controllable source like hydro, gas, coal or batteries. Which is why the world is still very much using gas and coal (and still building more). Renewables are a cheap and good supplement to these sources, you just cant replace them cheaply (yet).

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.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#355

Post by chabska »

Natfan wrote: post #283
petesergeant wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s exactly what you would want your money manager to say. It’s their job to turn a profit. In turn you also want democratically elected politicians above that saying “yes, but the people want their money made ethically, so you can’t do that”.

sorry, but i wouldn't want my money manager to attempt to engage in unethical or illegal practices in order to turn a profit...

The point is that it's the job of the democratic legislature to codify what you just stated here into law, so that all money managers have to abide by this standard, not just those that have a personal conviction for it. That's the essence of rule of law.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#356

Post by haaz »

pietervdvn wrote: post #319
tordrt wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fossil fuel part doesn't seem like a rational decision to me. Why are we pretending that fossil fuels dont provide an immense amount of value for humanity, and that its horrible to invest or support building out any fossil fuel production whatsoever. Lets not do produce it ourselves, lets just instead outsource it to the gulfs and Russia…

The fossil fuel industry is both the most subsidized industry worldwide ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies ) and the second most expensive source of energy (at least for electricity production). The only energy source that is more expensive is nuclear (!).

[flagged]

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#357

Post by emj »

tristanj wrote: post #316
SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The datacenter thing is mostly just a meme that billionaires say because it makes them feel smart and gets them media attention, it doesn't seem to move stock significantly. The actual distortion field is around Starlink. Which is the main product and the only one that's (nominally) profitable. It's the one all the hype centers around. xAI is barely even notable in the AI space. This also makes it possible to judge t…

I find it amusing to read comments like these, because they remind me of the massive awareness gap between people who understand SpaceX's product line, and those who don't. 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 pro…

Isn't Spaceship an requirement to make starlink profitable?

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#358

Post by ninjagoo »

sgt wrote: post #285
petterroea wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Norway the oil fund are actively arguing against boycotting these kinds of companies saying, and I paraphrase: "but our job is to earn money and we can't do that if you hippies keep standing in the way with your morals" Good to see it isn't necessarily the case.

[flagged]

  > Norway is the 5th largest weapons and defense manufacturer
Any evidence for this? Norway shows as 13th on the list of arms exporters, and is 1/42 of US exports [1]. If counting total manufacturing, Norway is 1/100th to 1/150th of US volume, based on how you count. [2]

  > while the so called Oil Fund doesn't directly invest in them, Kongsberg is 50% state owned.
Kongsberg is a conglomerate with non-defense businesses [3]. The volume of defense-related product is not called out but Norway's total is just around $2.5B [4] compared to US at $334B [5] or about 1/133. Your point does stand as hypocrisy at the state level; though management decisions are likely separate between the two entities and not coordinated at the state level.

  > Glad Norway's oil fund has some sense and is above the virtue signaling of the Danes.
That is two claims: that the Danish fund lacks judgment, and that its policy is performative. Any evidence?

  > so called Oil Fund
'Oil fund' is fair shorthand - it's funded by petro wealth. 'so called Oil Fund' seems to be a sneer. Combined with 'some sense' and 'virtue signaling,' it reads less like argument and more like contempt.

  [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

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#359

Post by Zigurd »

bluescrn wrote: post #187
throwfaraway135 wrote: post #166

The criticism seems politically motivated. Considering what happened to Blue Origin, SpaceX's success is commendable. Although I agree $1.8T seems crazy.

While the Starship project may be struggling, Falcon 9 is still a massive success, with a successful launch every couple of weeks, making up most of humanity's access to space/LEO right now. And Starlink is a pretty big deal, particularly in a time of conflict where undersea cables are very vulnerable. If Elon hadn't shifted so far to the right, these threads would be near-universally praising SpaceX despite Starship…

Falcon 9 is a serendipitous technical success for a rocket that wasn't designed to land and be reused. It is an operational success. Whether that makes it a financial success is very questionable.

Starship is meant to answer all those questions about design intent and financial viability and then some. It could readily turn out to be an example of second system syndrome.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#360

Post by chinathrow »

tristanj wrote: post #316
SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The datacenter thing is mostly just a meme that billionaires say because it makes them feel smart and gets them media attention, it doesn't seem to move stock significantly. The actual distortion field is around Starlink. Which is the main product and the only one that's (nominally) profitable. It's the one all the hype centers around. xAI is barely even notable in the AI space. This also makes it possible to judge t…

I find it amusing to read comments like these, because they remind me of the massive awareness gap between people who understand SpaceX's product line, and those who don't. 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 pro…

Enlighten us then, please. What are we missing?
Post reply on HN