this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2026
81 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

12412 readers
287 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


🌐 Other Relevant Communities


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

I think the good faith version of the scheme is that not every billion invested produces the same amount of goods and services as every other billion. E.g. a billion invested in a luxury yacht-building shipyard compared to a billion invested in high-speed rail. The yach shipyard produce few goods/services for very small group of people. The high-speed rail produces goods/services for a lot of people and businesses. If you take the materialist perspective that the wealth a nation has, constitutes of all the goods/services we produce, then if we take billion from airports, put it in developing or expanding some other activity that produces more goods/services for us, we get more g/s. And then the good faith bet would be that the value/quantity of those would be higher than the value lost from the higher cost from the profit the new airport operator will get (and possibly exfiltrate abroad). Are the new investments gonna do that? I don't know. I am skeptical for a set of reasons. Either way we're getting less airport for our money in the (not too) long term as you suggested.