Were we to find a brand new resource nowadays, we could choose similar policies hut unless we're going to expropriate a bunch of stuff and deter all future investment, that's not really an option. (See Venezuela for examples of nationalising an existing resource.)

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

We also have gigantic oil reserves. Which we should absolutely expropriate.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'm curious, what do you understand the consequences of expropriation to be?

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

A lot of companies will make a lot of noise about theft and how they will never invest in Canada again and some might even pull out for awhile but we'll ultimately be fine because we have loads of resources the world needs. They sure as hell wouldn't be turning their noses up at our oil right now.

But really, I'm a socialist and would much prefer if governments invested in our country instead, so that the value created goes to Canadians rather than, for example, Texas based oil and gas companies.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

A lot of companies will make a lot of noise about theft and how they will never invest in Canada again and some might even pull out for awhile but we’ll ultimately be fine because we have loads of resources the world needs.

Why would we be okay?

Every future project and investment now costs every Canadian substantially more so as to compensate for the risk that we take all the investors' stuff.

Guess who manufactures the specialized equipment that will need replacing?

Or who runs the mines that access those critical minerals and other resources?

Who would be crazy enough to invest in any other Canadian project? Think about the massive capital required for housing, which is a huge issue for us right now.

"That's okay, we'll bulls and run it ourselves!" Except, what insane lender would give us the capital when we've shown property rights aren't a thing? This is part of why even resource rich developing nations struggle.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Print money as necessary. As long as that new money is going into developments that will grow in value over time, it will be fine. Trading a depreciating asset for an appreciating asset. Also expropriation already happens all the time, for example land for HSR tracks, and investment still happens. Investors will get over it.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Print money as necessary.

These suggestions just keep making things worse!

Okay, now that you've made it significantly harder for anyone to invest in anything Canadian ever again your solution is to spark massive inflation (do you not remember how much that sucks?) while making every import more expensive...

This feels like trumpian economics/worldview wherein it's just easy answer now, long term real world consequences be damned!

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

No, I just disagree with neoclassical economics. We can look back over the last 40 years and see that an overreliance on private investment leads to wealth inequality and unstable societies, the rise of right wing pseudo populism and figures like Trump. The style of economics you favour is an abject failure and needs to be abandoned.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 3 points 5 days ago

The fact that real downsides exist doesn't magic away the myriad problems your solutions would cause.

[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 days ago

One word, Congo. Three letters, DRC.

Congo (DRC) has a bunch of wealth in their soil, but it is stolen from them.