4 ms·
That's the crux of the problem. 1. You have a country that is, broadly speaking, industrially oriented towards selling raw goods (wood, metals) to other countr
by 1attice 3y ago
That's the crux of the problem.
1. You have a country that is, broadly speaking, industrially oriented towards selling raw goods (wood, metals) to other countries, from whom you buy back finished products. It might not technically be mercantilism, but the dynamic is the same, and, like mercantilism, it's a mug's game. It's also increasingly unpopular with your population, which is increasingly aligned with environmentalists, because of this whole world-endy forest-firey junket that's on trend. (Fun aside: look up 'TMX'. They will never get that built.)
2. So: you want to move to a more modern economy that doesn't make you a vassal state to 'allies' (who are also your customers, who are also your employers, who also run the general store from which you buy your shovels,) and does not inflame the ire of your increasingly restive voters, who have just spent a summer inhaling the fumorous remains of several hundred thousand trees. (And not the fun kind.) So, why not just laissez the faire and let the economy sort it out?
3. (Answering 2) Because, it turns out, that unguided markets entrench existing patterns. Left to their own devices, I'm sure Canada's engineering firms would come up with _even better ways_ of ripping oil from tar sands, but, again, by 1. and 2., you really don't want to do that these days, and besides, what are you going to do when demand for dilbit goes down? There are these 'solar' panels, now, you see, and ---
And so,
4. You meddle with the shape and direction of the market. You know this will cause ineffiencies, and you know that some quotient of well-connected asshats will get rich from this by doing essentially nothing. But it's still more appealing than sticking with 1 and 2.
5. If you can do this in a way that hooks into existing trends (and AI is, for most normal people, still a Big New Thing,) you may also win a leapfrog opportunity over your neighbours, pulling a TSMC-but-AI out of thin air. (Perhaps the aurora borealis.) That's a lotto ticket worth scratching. Just ask Taiwan.
That's why the government funds things up here. Because they wouldn't happen at all, otherwise, and that outcome is less optimal than having them happen inefficiently. The waste along the way is a necessary evil. No pump is 100% efficient, but if gets water from the well, who cares?
In a hundred years, we don't want to be still selling maple syrup to the ever-warring states of Trumpida and Greater Oregonifornia. We want to be selling the shovels. (A nation can dream, can't it?)
And this fund, which is less than a 40th of what was spent on a nonexistent and unworkable oil pipeline, helps get us closer to that.
- skeeter2020 3y agoWe are huge exporters, but I don't agree with your premise; one of the things we export in huge volume is the engineering talent needed to make progress. These are young economic migrants, who leave to enrich a new country, typically the US. If they come back it's generally after they've made their career contributions and are ready to draw on a more generous social system. >> You meddle with the shape and direction of the market. It's worse than that; they're picking winners and losers, and that's inexcusable.
- 1attice 3y agoWhy, to you, is that inexcusable? This sounds like market-worship to me. Markets are a useful tool. But like LLMs they can make mistakes. Also, why not put those brilliant young minds to work here instead, rather than give their best years to the competition? That's brain drain, my friend