Yeah, it's not quite the Norwegian model as we didn't just discover a massive pot of cash. Unless someone magically discovers an untapped resource, our model will have to look a little different.

Our resources are harder to get at and get to market (perk of being the second largest country on Earth), so large scale public/private partnerships are probably required (eg, I'm not sure I want the government trying to pivot to being the sole partner and trying to figure out how to build and manage LNG pipelines.) But that's not to say in such a partnership, we can't stipolate that the returns of that project are to be taxed according to investment etc.

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 28 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

The state of Norway has part ownership of their country's oil resource wealth, so they're getting not just tax revenue but also a direct portion of the profits to invest into their actual Sovereign Wealth Fund (which directly benefits citizens themselves, and which reinvests the funds around the world but never in Norway itself, to avoid domestic conflicts of interest). What he's doing really is the opposite of Norway's incredibly successful fund, turning to citizens to bolster the revenue of already profitable companies. It's not like the promised return is any better than a stock investment.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 6 points 5 days ago

Again, we don't know the terms. I could very easily see something like government taking a 25% stake in an LNG refinery/pipeline in return for a direct share of the profits with which to invest. Or, simply using those profits as the investment.

The difference between this and regular investment is that with government as a partner, the private partners have less worry of a future government cancelling the project, which makes it a much more appealing investment.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 19 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The Norwegians didn't just discover 3 trillion in their couch cushions. It's the result of their policies. We are doing the opposite of those policies. Instead of nationalizing industry and using the boons that come from that for the public good, we are instead selling off public assets to shovel money into the private sector. The only reason these funds share a name is because Carney is deceitful and thinks we are too stupid to see through it.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 7 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Finding massive oil reserves is exactly the geopolitical equivalent of finding trillions in the couch and has nothing to do with policies.

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.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Untapped resource: we give the fossil fuel industry ridiculous tax breaks (4.8B in 2022). Let's do away with those tax breaks and tap those billions of dollars in tax revenue.

[–] HeroicBillyBishop@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

its cause the star is owned by yankee billionaires

...they will undermine and smear any good news stories about Canada

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

The Star is not Postmedia, it is Canadian owned.

[–] HeroicBillyBishop@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

billionaire canadian, same dif

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

So why did you make the differentiation, then? The Star has endorsed the Liberal party in every election except one, by the way, including Carney. Which doesn't make the paper a friend to me but they are certainly not diehard enemies of the current government.

[–] HeroicBillyBishop@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

becuase private media here is in the pocket of yankee billionaires set on destroying this country

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago

Did you read the opinion piece? The observations and arguments made are largely opposed to anything the typical billionaire (who would tend to be deeply invested in the oil industry regardless of their initial source of wealth) would want said. On a quick search, I also got the impression the author may have a track record of criticizing centrist politicians from the left.