10 ms·

Mexico having control over its own resources instead of multi-national corporations is a good thing. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand energy or min

Mexico having control over its own resources instead of multi-national corporations is a good thing. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand energy or mineral independence. "Close to a dozen foreign companies currently hold contracts to explore potential lithium deposits. The largest is a site in the northern state of Sonora run by Bacanora Lithium, which is controlled by Chinese firm Ganfeng Lithium Co." Why would you want a foreign company in control of your mineral deposits? Populism has nothing to do with it. The article in Financial Times is biased.

the_only_law 4y ago
> Why would you want a foreign company in control of your mineral deposit? For the kickbacks they give you?
- stevespang 4y ago
sgt 4y ago
It can still benefit private companies (local ones, in particular), so state vontrol of mineral deposits is not anti capitalist.
- marcusverus 4y ago
  From the article: > Since taking power in 2018, López Obrador has fought to reverse resource reforms under previous governments which opened up the oil and electricity sectors to private investment. He has pushed a model of development that gives primacy to resource exploitation by state-controlled companies. This would appear to be anti-capitalist by definition.
  - dimensionc132 4y ago
    Private investment by national companies is very different to private investment by foreign hostile companies. A Chinese company (and by default, Chinese gov) controlling the majority of Mexico's Lithium deposits is insane, no matter how people try to spin that, as populist or anti-capitalist. A country has the right to control the resources in its territories.
carride 4y ago
As quoted in the article, Mexico is many years from producing any lithium. So far only discovered in clay which has no known method to extract. Different from any other productive location in the world. If the private enterprises were just beginning to research this weak potential, how can The State expect to make better progress?
- lovich 4y ago
  Not that I have enough information here to have an opinion on whether the Mexican government will succeed in this or not, but not everyone thinks that private enterprises are superior to the to government enterprises by definition
belval 4y ago
The article is pretty clear that "analysts" don't think Mexico has the capability to develop lithium production at scale in a near time frame and therefore it would be a populist move. I'm all for nationalising resources (really am) but you need to have the upfront capital and trained workforce ready otherwise they are just kicking out Bacanora and replacing them with nothing. The other examples in the articles (Bolivia for example) have failed miserably at extracting the lithium themselves. It's not oil. You can't just plant a big straw in the ground and pump it out...
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  That's fine too though. Why do we feel entitled to their natural resources? If they can't or don't want to extract it, in the ground is a fine place for it to be.
- dimensionc132 4y ago
  it's like saying, well, because DRC doesn't have the means to excavate and mine all of their resources like diamonds and metals in the next 20 years, foreign companies should come in and do it for them, keep all the profits and materials....all your diamonds belong to us now (queue evil laughter). doesn't seem like a good argument. a country should have control over its resources, not foreign companies. Seems like a very simple and business savvy concept to me.
  - helloworld11 4y ago
    A country can allow foreign companies to extract its resources without turning into an exploited disaster or being a poster child for neomarxist cliches of modern colonialism. The DRC's problems are far more deeply rooted and severe than foreign companies taking advantage of its natural resources. Internal corruption widely facilitates their uglier practices anyhow. For example, Canada (among a number of other developed nations) regularly allows foreign investment in its natural resources without being ruined by this practice. Good, transparent government and well-applied rules of the playing field go a long way towards enabling reasonably fair execution of corporate mining/extraction projects like these.

the_only_law 4y ago

> Why would you want a foreign company in control of your mineral deposit? For the kickbacks they give you?

stevespang 4y ago

sgt 4y ago

It can still benefit private companies (local ones, in particular), so state vontrol of mineral deposits is not anti capitalist.

marcusverus 4y ago
From the article: > Since taking power in 2018, López Obrador has fought to reverse resource reforms under previous governments which opened up the oil and electricity sectors to private investment. He has pushed a model of development that gives primacy to resource exploitation by state-controlled companies. This would appear to be anti-capitalist by definition.
- dimensionc132 4y ago
  Private investment by national companies is very different to private investment by foreign hostile companies. A Chinese company (and by default, Chinese gov) controlling the majority of Mexico's Lithium deposits is insane, no matter how people try to spin that, as populist or anti-capitalist. A country has the right to control the resources in its territories.

carride 4y ago

As quoted in the article, Mexico is many years from producing any lithium. So far only discovered in clay which has no known method to extract. Different from any other productive location in the world. If the private enterprises were just beginning to research this weak potential, how can The State expect to make better progress?

lovich 4y ago
Not that I have enough information here to have an opinion on whether the Mexican government will succeed in this or not, but not everyone thinks that private enterprises are superior to the to government enterprises by definition

belval 4y ago

The article is pretty clear that "analysts" don't think Mexico has the capability to develop lithium production at scale in a near time frame and therefore it would be a populist move. I'm all for nationalising resources (really am) but you need to have the upfront capital and trained workforce ready otherwise they are just kicking out Bacanora and replacing them with nothing. The other examples in the articles (Bolivia for example) have failed miserably at extracting the lithium themselves. It's not oil. You can't just plant a big straw in the ground and pump it out...

giraffe_lady 4y ago
That's fine too though. Why do we feel entitled to their natural resources? If they can't or don't want to extract it, in the ground is a fine place for it to be.
dimensionc132 4y ago
it's like saying, well, because DRC doesn't have the means to excavate and mine all of their resources like diamonds and metals in the next 20 years, foreign companies should come in and do it for them, keep all the profits and materials....all your diamonds belong to us now (queue evil laughter). doesn't seem like a good argument. a country should have control over its resources, not foreign companies. Seems like a very simple and business savvy concept to me.
- helloworld11 4y ago
  A country can allow foreign companies to extract its resources without turning into an exploited disaster or being a poster child for neomarxist cliches of modern colonialism. The DRC's problems are far more deeply rooted and severe than foreign companies taking advantage of its natural resources. Internal corruption widely facilitates their uglier practices anyhow. For example, Canada (among a number of other developed nations) regularly allows foreign investment in its natural resources without being ruined by this practice. Good, transparent government and well-applied rules of the playing field go a long way towards enabling reasonably fair execution of corporate mining/extraction projects like these.