Should natural resources like coal, gas, iron, etc. be nationalized

>>115226275
Yes

There are liberals that are still fighting to keep coal, oil, and natural gas in the ground. I wouldn't worry about whether or not the country or private industry extracts them if these people are trying to push for government subsidized, inefficient energy.

>>115226275
Yes, 100% Yes.

Look at Norway.

There are liberals that are still fighting to keep coal, oil, and natural gas in the ground. I wouldn't worry about whether or not the country or private industry extracts them if these people are trying to push for government subsidized, inefficient energy.

>>115226544
Private industry could and probably would be in charge of extracting them, it just wouldn't own the rights to the minerals or possibly land itself and make money directly from them but rather from extracting them.

>>115226275
It should be less regulated so smaller producers aren't weeded out of the market.

File: 82ed22d2db643b026db5f998d5c8265a8fbb7d04dc2ba7bdc486ccfa522da76d.jpg (63KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 850x400px

>>115226275

Yes

>>115226698
Are you fucking kidding? Enjoy oil tsunamis rolling down every street.

>>115226698
See >>115226691, that isn't contradictory to what I'm saying, extraction would probably still be done locally and privately, resource money or benefits don't even need to be nationally distributed, it could happen at a city, county, state, etc. level depending on what was worked out.

>>115226797
Why would that happen?

>>115226918
Would this not simply embody the "economic calculation problem" of central planning?

>>115226275
yes. if they arent then they will be sold to investors like they did here

>>115227309
No, what exactly does property ownership have at all to do with economic calculation? Private firms would still be planning when to mine/drill etc. to bring things to market at the optimal time, etc. to generate the most revenue, it's just they'd be paid more for extraction than the resource itself and could possibly be given a chunk of the resource money instead of an entire monopoly.
> Muh Austrian economics
Babby's intro to econ, high-capital industries in many instances can benefit from centralization or collectivization in limited domains because of information discrepancies. Check out economist Kenneth Arrow's work on healthcare economics.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf

File: 1484411161693.png (398KB, 817x663px)

398KB, 817x663px

yes

but there is too much of an issue with corruption for it to work in a massive country like america, the amount of buerocracy needed would be emmense and it would destroy faith in investment, causing massive inflation, if you just start appropriating stuff for the state at random. Not to mention the collosal damage to international relations as you start seizing the assets of foreign owned companies

its great for small countries with new discoveries though, but it needs to be managed very carefully

>>115226275

only if you are by far a net exporter of that resource

for example if we nationalized energy resources in the US it would just result in less efficiency and higher prices because we are a net importer

govt would get some revenues but it would be offset by the higher gas, electricity, heating prices that they pay

countries like norway can have nationalized oil & gas and it works well for them because they are an exporter and the costs of the loss of efficiency due to government control are paid by everyone else who imports on the international market

>>115227821
> Muh Austrian economics
You bet.
So what I'm asking is how would a nation, state, city, etc. decide where to allocate those resources, and subsequently signal to the private firms when they should mine/drill, sell, etc.?

>>115228620
Private and/or public speculation, geological, investment, etc. firms, pretty much how it's done now.

>>115228813
And is that more efficient than an unregulated pricing system?
>pretty much how it's done now.
Where?

>>115226275
Obviously yes.

>>115226275
Birds got some serious thigh on her. Crush your head like a watermelon...

File: 4ebc82c779c2db2d2975af75b6af7dff.jpg (47KB, 564x669px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 564x669px

>>115226275
I'm only interested in oil when i'm drilling it

>>115229230
Do you seriously believe that the pricing and speculation, discovery, etc. system now is unregulated?
> Where?
Literally virtually every country with a resource industry. Ancap is retarded.

>>115226275
No, but the land property shouldn't exist. Thus, the state may repeal it if necessary. Otherwise, taxes are fine.

>>115226275
Strategic industries need to be run for the benefit of the state, they cannot be trusted in the market. In the UK our nationalised utilities were sold off to private owners, now none of them are UK owned. Relationships go south, cutting a nations gas, electricity, water etc is a key move, as Ivan did to the ukraine.

>>115226275

Collectivists should be collected and converted to fuel

File: pari.webm (2MB, 460x264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 460x264px

No. Get out of /pol/ you leftypol faggots.

>>115229388
>>115229741
>>115229950

Communists pls go. Your cancerous, nation destroying policies are not welcome here

>>115229527
>oil driller
It's overrated mate. I worked on oil platforms and none of them looked like your pic. If anything they were mostly hairy arsed ugly blokes with nine fingers...

>>115229950
Agreed entirely on the general theme.

But in the Ukrainian case, it's stunning how much Russia put up with there, still providing so many vital necessities while Russians were being murdered and extremes of russophobia being stoked up by the junta in Kiev.

>>115229596
>Do you seriously believe that the pricing and speculation, discovery, etc. system now is unregulated?
No, when did I ever say that? It is regulated, and oil/gas is an oligopoly.
>Ancap is retarded.
I agree.

>>115230199
>Communists
Wut? You need to look up the definitions of fascism mate.

"Fascist governments tend to nationalize key industries, closely manage their currencies and make massive state investments."

>>115230382
> No, when did I ever say that? It is regulated, and oil/gas is an oligopoly
Well earlier in >>115229230 you said
> And is that more efficient than an unregulated pricing system?
And yes, you need a level of regulation to enforce transparency and many other conditions which are critical to the healthy functioning of a free market. That's why the government and private industry in general in high-investment industries like resources work together, because it's the most efficient way to do things. The level of regulation in oil and gas now isn't terrible, it's about fine, you could do with a little more or less but that's not so much about the level of regulation as it is how well designed and implemented the regulation itself is.

>>115230565

I don't give a shit what you call it. Anyone who advocates for removal of property rights or nationalization of mineral rights held by citizens should be fucking hung like the seditious communist rats they are.

>>115226275
Serious question, how is this not Communist?

Isn't this "controlling the means of production"?

>>115230849

It literally is. Leftypol is on a raiding party today, apparently

>>115230565
>NatSocs still try to argue they are any different than commies

Socialism is socialism, no mental gymnastics in the world will change that. Sharing one of the core standpoints of commies doesn't help creating a difference.

>>115230138
What if it were done in order to, or could be shown to actually help markets function better in order to increase transparency, etc., remove the potential for collusion and many other things in government by making companies more accountable and removing monopolies and oligopolies by making it cheaper to operate while allowing for them to make less obscenely huge amounts of money?
>>115230199
It's not communism, collectivization and even nationalization can still be done within the confines of a market system. The people and companies extracting the resources would be making the primary source of income from the minerals as they should be.

>>115230199
Nah, I feel very much welcome and would prefer to stay.

No.
They should be well regulated and completely transparent and accountable but not nationalized.

>>115230817
Then you misunderstood me.
>And yes, you need a level of regulation to enforce transparency and many other conditions which are critical to the healthy functioning of a free market.
>but that's not so much about the level of regulation as it is how well designed and implemented the regulation itself is.
I agree, but it looks like we're getting too deep into abstract opinion/speculation that probably won't take us anywhere, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the talk.

I think that nations currency should be backed by natural resources. that way people would fight to protect them.

>>115231184

>It's not communism, collectivization and even nationalization can still be done within the confines of a market system.

No it cannot. You are removing the forces of incentive which allow the market to exist.

>>115231236

Obviously you can post whatever you want, but no, you aren't welcome. Honestly, I would think a russian would understand the failings of collectivism, but apparently not.

File: pcgraphpng.php.png (3KB, 480x400px)

3KB, 480x400px

fuck no, stupid commies

File: mad chuck.jpg (120KB, 640x373px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 640x373px

>>115226275
Hell No!

You dumb-asses.

If you are a land owner, you should benefit from the resources under your property. You pay property taxes. When the resources are extracted the states get monies from the sale of those resources in the form of a Severance Tax.

It's your property.The government nor anyone else should be allowed to come and dig up or drill on your property without your prior approval.

>>115231433
Is this sort of what the God Standard used to be?

>>115231433
>>115231695
topkek meant the gold standard

Yeah, (((they))) stole our copper and lithium

>>115231642

You're talking with leftypol they don't even think you should be allowed to own land

>>115231695
Yeah pretty much. Resources like gold, silver, ore oil etc... Also their value should somehow reflect the value of other resources like water, forests renewable energy etc...

>>115230848
>>115231033
Kek, you negroes I'm a right-leaning classic liberal/libertarian, no statist, just included the fascist bit to counter the commie accusation. But I've seen what happens if you don't secure your strategic industry. I'd include that as one of the duties of the minarchy as it's part of the defence of the realm.

>>115231642
The fact that you pay property taxes and if you don't pay them the government comes after you implies that the state/government actually owns the land and you're just a tenant.

>>115231642
I can't believe that /pol/ is being overrun with all these left thinking pinko, commy fags. Private land ownership is one of the notions behind the founding of this great country. Being able to do whit what you want with your own property is as American as apple pie.

>>115226275
Here, I'm not sure. You have to be responsible for it. In western and Northern Europe, certainly.

>>115232000

Protip, retard, your own state can and will cut off resources under collectivism as readily as a foreign power might try to in a free market scenario. With the difference being, you can resist foreign powers in a free market scenario, you can't resist your own state when it owns all of your food and steel.

File: Disapointed Mel.jpg (98KB, 1156x725px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1156x725px

And I guess you dumb-asses think that you should be able to grow pot own your property without the government taking it because it is against the law.

But you want all natural resources owned by the government.

Stupid logic..

>>115230266

Is because Russia can't afford to embargo it's neighbors

>>115231558
>Honestly, I would think a russian would understand the failings of collectivism, but apparently not.
Yes, having experienced it firsthand, Russians' opinion is reputable. But you don't seem to know what kind of opinion this is.
Absolute majority of Russians consider collapse of the Soviet Union a disaster. The most popular ruler of Russia is one of the Soviet leaders. The second one is Putin. Absolute majority of Russians approve of Stalin. Lenin is viewed positively, although a lot of people have no opinion about him. Russian people overwhelmingly disapprove the last Soviet leader and the first Russian leader.

So here you go.

>Obviously you can post whatever you want, but no, you aren't welcome.
Obviously, you are in no position to welcome or deny welcome to anyone here.

>>115231558
Russia is owned by resource (oil, gas, etc.) oligarchs who have become unimaginably wealthy meanwhile Russia is still a poor and shitty country overall where tons of people go hungry, infrastructure is shit, etc.

>>115232000
There's no need to be statist if you've got a good population. The real problem that happened in America is that we brought in slaves and mass immigration, especially non-whites. You can't have a white form of government upheld by peoples of third world countries.

Read The March Of Titans. Excellent analysis of the situation in the West.

>>115232940
Russians have only two types of leaders. Idealistic, almost godlike leaders with a personality cult that still fuck everything up, or secret-police type dictators.

File: German Ovens.jpg (417KB, 1200x797px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 1200x797px

>>115231965
We have been infiltrated. We need a cleansing.

>>115232347
Resist foreign powers: like the Ukraine resisted Russia? Good resisting anything when your power, steel, and coal stop. Half the time you don't even know who owns this stuff any more, with int conglomerates like schlumberger etc

File: 1304361304601.jpg (36KB, 333x432px)

36KB, 333x432px

>>115232300
amen

>>115232023
No. Property Taxes is another scam for the government to get money. It is the regulations that the government places on properties, in the guise of industry regulations and zoning ordinances, that is a hindrance to land owners. That is the sign that the government wants to get their hands on your land.

>>115226275
No, businesses only make their money by providing things people are willing to pay for, governments don't have to. So by definition natural resources are better off in private hands. It's the most efficient allocation of resources, but perhaps not the most equitable.

>>115226275
In most countries this is the case. The US is one of the few nations on earth where individual people can own mineral rights to their property. In some cases other people can own mineral rights to your property which can lead to some disputes.

Look at most OPEC nations. Even though resources are nationalized there are still a few wealthy elites who pay off the masses with large welfare spending. Once they mismanage the resources and the wealth dries up the nation collapses.

>>115234007
Without the government how would your private property land claims be enforced? Property tax isn't a scam at all, if anything it's by far the most legitimate tax since it's used to fund the legal framework to defend property rights, which are secured by the government.

File: NorwayOilPension.png (30KB, 833x507px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 833x507px

>>115234310
> Look at most OPEC nations. Even though resources are nationalized there are still a few wealthy elites who pay off the masses with large welfare spending. Once they mismanage the resources and the wealth dries up the nation collapses.
You're also comparing countries which are not alike at all really, shitty low-IQ cultures full of low-trust people who can't manage anything effectively. Look at how Norway runs their oil fund, it works very well and benefits all normal Norwegians very much.

File: AmericanFlag.jpg (33KB, 564x846px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 564x846px

>>115234320
I'm not saying that we should do away with the government. The problem with property taxes is that the local governments are taxing land owners to death and cuts need to be made in those governments. Family owned farms are disappearing and property taxes aren't helping things any.

we should nationalize all sector, éxcept minor business like barber which must be highly-regulated. an economy almost controlled by state is the better way to have an equitable redistribution of wealth and ensure a more ecologic future to next generations

File: gaston.jpg (12KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 275x183px

>>115236454

>>115236454
Yeah I definitely don't agree with that at all, take that Venus Project bullshit somewhere else, free markets and private property are still the pillars of a functioning and healthy Western state, we can protect the environment as needed via regulation or something similar without becoming literal communists.

File: 1487699094315.jpg (98KB, 459x640px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 459x640px

>>115226275
Tragedy of the Commons

When everybody owns a resource nobody owns it. Nobody takes care of it and it gets depleted in a race to the bottom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

No because you have counties like mine that will fuck it up

>>115237090
private property yes but not free market , it's a disaster in term of wealth's redistribution, and regulation are not efficient with all these lobby who corrupt the governement

>>115226544
why shouldn't it be kept in the ground
we can just mine the ore we need in space, and leave the land looking pristine and comfy

>>115237850
There needs to be a specific term for Space LARPers

>>115238351
It's utopism. Very common among globalists and lefties in general. At times I have the feeling really influential globalists are talking with fucking ET, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense for them to circlejerk over space exploration that much. Also, their main argument for a One world government is that that is needed for the space age.

>>115226275
No.

Corporate interests are better for citizens.

>>115226649

Exactly, Ahmed.

Look at Brazil, a good example for the opposite situation.

>>115239816
Be honest though, do you really think things would be much better in Brazil's case if it were handled privately? You would still have tons of corruption and oligarchs and a monopoly/oligopoly which used collusion. A country like Norway is totally different.

>>115240090

>third world countries are all corrupted, and cant run shit

Is it what you gringos actually believe?

Corruption is only a small loss when you compare the benefits of a nationalised mining/oil industry. Petrobras is one the best oil companies, and we could efficiently run other areas too.

I'm sick of seeing your jewish american corporations exploring our natural resources and leaving only environmental destruction behind.

Democracy and free market are totally meme, national socialism is the way.

>>115241230
So you're saying that nationalization of resources is a good thing for Brazil then? Sorry for that last post then, I must have misinterpreted what you were saying earlier.

>>115226275
didnt the last country that did that get brutallly ass fucked by a group of western nations?

>>115241230

Yes, nationalisation is good and Norway is a good example.

It was a shithole before the found huge oil deposits there. They created a state ruled oil company, and their profits make possible their economical and social development.

>>115241466

>>115241969

>>115226275
The only way those resources can benefit the elite is by providing them to everyone so they benefit everyone

The idea is that we need to conserve some resources so we aren't reducing the capabilities of the country for the future.

When it comes to coal and gas and iron, exploit away, as we're already seeing alternatives spring up and using them recklessly has pretty mild consequences.

>>115226275

Mineral wealth doesn't mean guaranteed profits. You could make huge investments in building up the extraction infrastructure only to watch prices nosedive, then it's the public that's stuck with the bill.

Land ownership should come with mineral rights. The population will still benefit from industrial development, malinvestment will be minimal and the risk will be spread out.

Gotta pay for them aircraft carriers somehow. Nationalizing the mines is a better solution than an income tax.

Of course this only works with ethnic nationalism and expelling the Jews. It's gotta be our own people running it for the benefit of the nation.

>>115243150
This has been discussed before in the thread though, we aren't talking about nationalized extraction or even extraction infrastructure. See:
>>115226691
>>115226918
>>115227821
>>115228813

>>115231033
Where do you think you are you neocon moron? National Review?

>>115244727
>being against collectivism
>neocon
Reddit needs to fucking stop LARPing.

>>115244138

So concession? It's just another way for government to monopolize the sector, especially rife with corruption.

Instead of the operator having to pay market prices, he'll get a preferential deal in turn for campaign contributions.

>>115241969
>Norway
>a shithole before the found huge oil deposits there

it was in the top 10 in GDP per capita lmao

File: 1347563493706.gif (2MB, 176x220px)

2MB, 176x220px

>>115226275
Whites get it all

Europe, US and Straya (piss off leafs)

>>115229527
At the percentage I'm looking at it's more akin to cappuccino

And that's alright