4 ms·

You seem to be saying here that the USA isn't economically able to use certain natural resources but that these unprofitable resources should not be open to pur

You seem to be saying here that the USA isn't economically able to use certain natural resources but that these unprofitable resources should not be open to purchase on a free market by Canadian companies. That sounds a lot like a soviet style planned economy.

_delirium 12y ago
You don't have to be the USSR to manage at least substantial portions of a country's infrastructure and natural resources in a rational way, designed to maximize national welfare. It's a reasonably common way to operate in prosperous western democracies: Statoil (Norway), Hydro-Québec (Canada), DONG Energy (Denmark), Vattenfall (Sweden), Électricité de France (France), LKAB (Sweden), Deutsche Bahn (Germany), are all well-run state-owned companies, with no gulags in sight.
- shiven 12y ago
  national welfare Now, now! You are one step away from being labeled a Socialist and then, a Commie! In the US of A, we don't ever say national, unless the next word is defense, and welfare is a dirty word you know, just a step from thievery. Dangnummit!
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  None of those countries ban companies from other countries they are at peace with from ownership of land containing mineral reserves, which is the policy that was suggested. edit - one of the consequences of which would be foreign investors hiding the existence of useful minerals on any land they own and are using for something else, so it doesn't get taken away from them.
  - _delirium 12y ago
    For minerals and energy, it's usually not done by restricting ownership of the land itself, but by retaining at least some mineral rights in state hands (or at least managed under a different legal regime). For example, the Norwegian state owns Norway's oil and gas reserves (originally outright, now via the partially privatized company Statoil). Anyone can buy land in Norway, but it doesn't come with ownership of oil/gas reserves. Separating ownership of surface rights and mineral rights is fairly common in the U.S. as well, it's just that it's usually another private company that retains the mineral rights, not a publicly owned company. For example, the house I grew up in in Indiana did not come with ownership of mineral rights. The company that developed the subdivision sold us surface rights to the 1/4-acre lot our house was on, but retained the mineral rights underlying the entire subdivision (presumably just in case there turned out to be something there).
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      There is a massive difference between stopping all companies trading by enforcing national ownership of a resource and stopping foreigners trading resources that are legally on the market. The question posed was not: "Why are we selling something considered a national resource?" It was: "Why are we selling something considered a national resource to foreign owners?" edit - also, I fully support mixed market economies with nationalised infrastructure, I think they seem to get more benevolent outcomes, but not with protectionist markets on the bits that are privately owned.
      - _delirium 12y ago
        I agree with that, yeah (especially the last edit). I think the "national capitalism" approach, where things are privately owned but preferential access is given to important domestic corporations, often ends up mixing together the bad parts of public/private ownership rather than each of their good parts.
  - hyperpape 12y ago
    And peace even understates it: we're allies and they're our largest trade partner.

_delirium 12y ago

You don't have to be the USSR to manage at least substantial portions of a country's infrastructure and natural resources in a rational way, designed to maximize national welfare. It's a reasonably common way to operate in prosperous western democracies: Statoil (Norway), Hydro-Québec (Canada), DONG Energy (Denmark), Vattenfall (Sweden), Électricité de France (France), LKAB (Sweden), Deutsche Bahn (Germany), are all well-run state-owned companies, with no gulags in sight.

shiven 12y ago
national welfare Now, now! You are one step away from being labeled a Socialist and then, a Commie! In the US of A, we don't ever say national, unless the next word is defense, and welfare is a dirty word you know, just a step from thievery. Dangnummit!
lotsofmangos 12y ago
None of those countries ban companies from other countries they are at peace with from ownership of land containing mineral reserves, which is the policy that was suggested. edit - one of the consequences of which would be foreign investors hiding the existence of useful minerals on any land they own and are using for something else, so it doesn't get taken away from them.
- _delirium 12y ago
  For minerals and energy, it's usually not done by restricting ownership of the land itself, but by retaining at least some mineral rights in state hands (or at least managed under a different legal regime). For example, the Norwegian state owns Norway's oil and gas reserves (originally outright, now via the partially privatized company Statoil). Anyone can buy land in Norway, but it doesn't come with ownership of oil/gas reserves. Separating ownership of surface rights and mineral rights is fairly common in the U.S. as well, it's just that it's usually another private company that retains the mineral rights, not a publicly owned company. For example, the house I grew up in in Indiana did not come with ownership of mineral rights. The company that developed the subdivision sold us surface rights to the 1/4-acre lot our house was on, but retained the mineral rights underlying the entire subdivision (presumably just in case there turned out to be something there).
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    There is a massive difference between stopping all companies trading by enforcing national ownership of a resource and stopping foreigners trading resources that are legally on the market. The question posed was not: "Why are we selling something considered a national resource?" It was: "Why are we selling something considered a national resource to foreign owners?" edit - also, I fully support mixed market economies with nationalised infrastructure, I think they seem to get more benevolent outcomes, but not with protectionist markets on the bits that are privately owned.
    - _delirium 12y ago
      I agree with that, yeah (especially the last edit). I think the "national capitalism" approach, where things are privately owned but preferential access is given to important domestic corporations, often ends up mixing together the bad parts of public/private ownership rather than each of their good parts.
- hyperpape 12y ago
  And peace even understates it: we're allies and they're our largest trade partner.