By “heavily taxed” I do — of course — mean “nationalised”. I do not view non-renewable natural resources as appropriate commodities to be traded for profit.
Not a very clever one, but hearts on sleeves and all that.
So the global mining industry is to be put into the hands of governments then I assume. The Soviets certainly did that really well. Farmland is a non-renewable natural resource…in fact all land is. It ain\’t just fossil fuels that fall under this rubric.
So, can I run the nationalised Office of Scandium supply? Or does the fact that I know something about it rule me out?
Probably does rule you out.
Or does the fact that I know something about it rule me out?
Probably. I remember having my statements on the workings of the oil and gas industry dismissed on a left-wing discussion forum for the sole reason that I worked in it.
One advantage of nationalizing mining is that when a better alternative to the mined material is found, we get to keep all of the miners employed at taxpayer expense, rather than leaving them helpless. What will happen, with the current system, when lacrosse-stick-makers work out that they can make lighter and stiffer sticks with nanotechnology and manipulation of other materials? It will be a bloodbath in the scandium market, and the children of the unemployed Scandium miners will suffer most.
[…] in response to my Constructivism entry, Tim posted One Way of Looking at the World. Here he takes the following statement of mine: By “heavily taxed” I do — of […]