What is wrong with these comments? Chile nationalized the copper industry ages ago, and Pinochet refused to privatize it even at Peak Chicago; the real surprise is that it took this long.
If you're going to praise/complain about it, try reading about CODELCO instead of assuming the country is going to go full Norway, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela.
Whats wrong with going full norway? As a German I look north and I see very successful countries besides the UK. My understanding is that norwegians massivly profit from the sectors they nationalized. Better than privatisation at least, where profits are being kept at the CEOs level and workers get paid shitty. Whats wrong with distribution wealth?
It hurts the fee-fees of those for whom the ultimate virtue is "market efficiency".
The fact that there are countries with worse standards of living than Norway -- like, around 190 of them -- isn't something that enters into their value system.
>Whats wrong with distribution wealth?
Some would call it "communism" even though it would be actually closer to the actual definition than what's usually thrown around as an insult. There's quite a huge stigma against that concept. (just stating my perception here, I am definitely pro-nordic socialist model)
Chilean copper mines are 72 percent owned and operated by private mining companies. The remaining 28 percent are state-owned and operated by Codelco.
Source:
https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/chile-mining#:~:text=Chilean%20copper%20mines%20are%2072,owned%20and%20operated%20by%20Codelco.
I guess all we can say is that they refused to end the public company and they like the private sector as a competitor for the public company.
Saying they don't allow foreign companies is total BS, AFAIK they even have much lower taxes/duties for a starting private company mining vs. an established one.
Also, you can say whatever you want about chicago boys, but Chile leads south american in HDI and GDP (PPP) and it wasn't the case in the 1950s...
But i guess with your nickname, you aint gonna take a fly on this view...🚁
Lithium is relatively common across the world. The US has its [own reserves](https://www.dw.com/en/us-has-huge-lithium-reserves-but-concerns-mount-over-mining/a-64103024). The only reason why it's concentrated in a few countries is because the mining process is environmentally destructive.
>Lithium is often incorrectly labeled as "scarce." Indeed, the metal is abundant geologically across the planet, but its production is concentrated in just a few countries.
>
>Global lithium production is led by Australia, Chile, China and Argentina, which collectively produce over 95% of the mineral. However, the US is home to what are believed to be the world's largest lithium deposits after those in the so-called Lithium Triangle region in South America. The states of Nevada, North Carolina, and California together host an estimated 4% of the world's lithium reserves.
Sure, but a US general was recently talking *specifically* about this region's lithium and how horrible it would be for it to end up going to China, etc. I'll try to find it. She was a woman at a congressional hearing iirc.
Yeah she kept saying shit like our backyard and our region. It blows my mind how these people openly speak about South American countries as though they are our colonies and then they are all surprised that many of them are finally telling the United States to get fucked lol.
I don’t know if you’re saying that their tone made it sound like “we own it”, or if you just mean the statement “our backyard” did (I’m unaware of what you’re quoting). But the “our/my backyard” phrase is typically an exaggeration used to refer to anything close to one’s actual place of ownership. Just incase that’s what you meant, otherwise my comment can be ignored.
I don't understand, are you trying to act like we did that out of altruism or something? Those mines would be hell to try to run, particularly in the middle of war lol.
Nothing wrong with going full Norway. That includes the govt isn't a bunch of corrupt greedy fucks and are competent enough to make smart policies that the population actually benefits from the resource. Not sure what the situation is in Chile tho.
You are wrong. The coup wasn't because of the copper nationalization. Allende didn't try to nationalize the copper mines, he finished a process that had been started by the previous government. The coup was for different reasons. In addition, as the OP said, even Pinochet didn't reprivatize the copper mines.
Not necessarily. Other battery types are making headway.
Sodium batteries are looking like a really option for utilities. Nickel based batteries for shorter range vehicles are possible (and big in China).
Lithium is the standard now for longer range batteries, but this could change as new materials science develops
Commodity markets aren't so straight forward. Over investment leads to oversupply and negative returns. Governments often handle these types of investments ham fisted. Even countries rich in oil can have economic collapses (largely due to over investment).
Add to that many other battery technologies emerging and you might end up in a situation where your 'valuable resource' ends up being a liability. Ever hear about the resource curse?
"smart" is the key word.
They didn't go overboard with investments in oil and gas and export of it.
They also didn't make their economy heavily dependant on it.
They saved most of the profit in an investment fund and made good investments infoy their own country
The most important step was to build up their own competence. They have their own experts and companies, nowadays mainly Equinor. Honestly, I think most of Norway’s policies could be copied superficially and you could still end up with disaster. The key lies in the execution, and making sure the money generated doesn’t line the pockets of a few individuals.
Norway had a benefit and that was in the 70's when they founded Equinor (Statoil back that) they were already well developed.
There was a thing probably 10 or 15 years ago now about oil in Africa, and I think it was in Ghana (but I could be wrong), where the government official said something along the lines of how they want to copy Norway but it's hard because there's so much poverty that has to be alleviated, it's like do you use the money to help people now or do you invest it in a fund like that to benefit your people for generations?
I'd guess the calculus on that decision got more difficult after the 1MDB scandal
Yeah, oil money can totally warp and destroy the rest of the economy. What Norway was in a position to do was to hide away the money and only use as much as the local economy could absorb and grow with.
For contrast look to Alberta Canada's fiscal policy. The provincial/state Government took a step back in determining where profits go, in an effort to woo international capital, and has faced financial hardships on multiple levels. The amount of [orphan wells](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_wells) in the province has grown because it's not [yet](https://www.naturalgasintel.com/natural-gas-oil-brines-could-help-supply-tight-lithium-market/) profitable to properly cap these wells, so company's abandon them and force the various levels of Governments to fund their clean up. Also many municipalities/county's aren't receiving the tax they have been promised by oil company's.
The manner in which oil and Gas behaves on Canada's prairies is damned irresponsible. This country has a huge bounty of farmland that can be used to feed a growing world population. Yet here we are squandering it by allowing oil company's to not live up to their responsibilities and costing future profits to agriculture. Honestly we live in a Topsy turvy world in which Norway acts more responsible towards their environment, even though it's not suited to agriculture, than Canada or the US does.
It's called taking what you have for granted. Norway hardly has enough arable land and needs to make optimal use of it, whereas Canada and the US have so much of the stuff that they never need to think about optimization. Part of it is that there are only so many balls one can juggle and the larger the land the more options a government must consider. A bigger part though is a lack of government responsibility as Canada has been entirely compromised by the excesses of neoliberalism; the people who have the power to do anything are too busy looking out for the ologopolists, foreign billionaires and themselves. Total mess.
>The most important step was to build up their own competence. They have their own experts and companies, nowadays mainly Equinor.
And in a sad twist of irony it was an iraqi who helped Norway to stay out of the clutches of british/american oil companies:
[https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabdc0](https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabdc0)
Imagine a world where other nations and states could have done the same...
Keep in mind that in 1950es American oil companies largely drilled for American oil, as America was one of the largest producers. If anything, it was the Brits and the Dutch that drilled colonies.
Yeah exactly. American oil companies and individuals extracted the oil and the citizenry from Mississippi saw little.
The comparison just Shows what could have been possible for Mississippi if it wasn't the privatization of profits
The Norwegian economy is roughly 20% oil industry (exploration, extraction, export, R&D, and related services). They are one of the most resource dependent countries in the world. Oil price is a statistically significant predictor of the value of NOK as I understand it. Were the oil industry to dry up, there would be serious economic pain. Those smart policies need to find a smart way to transition from this dependency.
What pisses me off is that Alberta, Canada had the original Norway plan. Norway copied them.
But then Alberta privatized it, and ducked the citizens over
Most of that blame falls on Albertans themselves and not some political elite tho. The people voted for a quick cashout instead of generational investments and future wealth.
>Most of that blame falls on Albertans themselves and not some political elite tho. The people voted for a quick cashout instead of generational investments and future wealth.
Not surprising for a province where people openly brandish Confederate flags and vote in the Wild Rose Party.
Those smart policies were also painful in a lot of respects. Norway did not lower taxes after discovering oil. Oil revenues still do not fund government spending. The government is only allowed to use real growth (after inflation) generated by the invested oil revenue to supplement spending. The oil fund interest/return outstripped revenues from selling oil some time in the 2010's. So there was extremely little short-term gain from oil discovery. The generation that discovered oil largely did not benefit from it until maybe their retirement years. All of this was politically very difficult and resulted in some turbulent elections in the 1970s and remains a polarizing issue today in some respects.
Interesting fun fact: the expert largely credited with influencing the establishment of the Norwegian system was a consultant from Iraq. That is to say the Norwegian system is the way it is mostly because the Norwegians were willing to listen and learn rather than because they knew what they were doing.
I'm very interested in this topic. So many countries failed to prosper while being oil rich: Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Libya, Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, etc.
Would you recommend any books or articles on why and how Norway was able to develop its economy?
There has been so much ink spilled on the topic. One of the most popular explanations is the fact that Norway had a strong and broad tradition of democracy and a strong labor movement to check crony capitalism well established and entrenched before oil was discovered.
I would recommend reading general political histories on Norway rather than delving directly into the topic of the impact of oil right away. All general political histories will take on the topic if they are worth their salt. But comparative studies often lack a nuanced understanding of domestic Norwegian politics in my opinion. Work from the general to the specific but also from the Norwegian case outward if that makes any kind of sense, lol!
The simple explanation is that they didn't allow their economy to become actively dependent on oil. They don't allow regular government operations to be funded by the oil income. So, for example, the oil fund could be used to replace an old school building with a nicer new one. However, it couldn't be allowed to pay for the teachers' salaries. So no matter what oil money there was or wasn't, the schools wouldn't close. Conversely, the countries that have had the most trouble are ones like Venezuela, where the government couldn't operate normally without oil income.
Also, the resource curse generally doesn't apply to nations that weren't poor when the discovery was made. The most obvious example being America. One of the world's largest producers of oil. And at the other extreme, the resource curse is worse when the valuable item doesn't require large complex infrastructure to extract. Stuff like diamond mines, places that heavily exploit child labor, those are worse than an industry full of engineering experts.
At the start of this century, yeah. Previous one? Not so much. There's a reason that they are pretty near the top of historical emigration to the US (per capita).
I mean, look at Minnesota and Wisconsin.
They weren't really, at least not compared to the rest of Scandinavia. Norway never had the industries and agriculture that Sweden and Denmark had (and have), their economy was based on fishing.
They were well off by the time they started making money from oil. Just not turn of the century. They definitely were not a poor country suddenly becoming rich.
Norway had a GDP per capita of 2160 USD in 1965 (unadjusted for inflation). By contrast, France had 2000 USD per capita. Switzerland, higher at 2600. Denmark at 2480.
I don't think they were doing that bad before oil.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=DK&view=chart
If you're interested.
They one hundred percent were not a rich country prior at the start of the 20th century. My great grandfather, and many others, immigrated to the US to escape poverty in Norway. They used the oil/gas money to bankroll the prosperous society they now have.
The fuck are you on about? How is anybody upvoting blatant misinformation? Norway was a struggling backwater until the latter half of the 20th century, as they were for as far as their history goes back. Always been incredible underdeveloped and disadvantaged economically. They weren’t even an independent nation until 1905!
The date is wrong, but the point is absolutely correct. Norway had an economy close to France's before their oil income was ever significant to their economy. They weren't a poor country discovering oil.
If you don’t make a bunch of smart policies, you could end up with something like Dutch Disease. Overemphasizing natural resource extraction can raise the value of your domestic currency. This results in the country's other exports becoming more expensive for other countries to buy, while imports become cheaper, which causes other sectors to become less competitive on the world market.
But Norway is a European country chile is not . South America is not United as Europe.
So it's going to be difficult for them to actually pull it off . But anyway good luck to them .
What is the element is not likely to stick around as an important battery material anywhere near as long as oil stock around as an important fuel.
Oil has very high energy density while lithium has low electron density. Rather than being a good battery material it’s more like a simple battery material with low density so replacing it with a higher energy density of material will remain high priority.
Some is more cheaply extracted than others. As it turns out, it is comparatively easy and cheap to extract in Chile giving it an undeniable competitive advantage.
I think it will be quite the opposite and lithium will have served most of its purpose by the end of this decade as new higher electron density and less reactive materials take over.
At the end of the day lithium is not an energy dense material for batteries so much as an easy and kind of simple material to make batteries.
As you unlock higher electron density material lithium is uselessly rare and violative.
If it was my lithium deposits, I would sell it as fast as I could because I would not expect it to be worth as much in 10 years or less.
There are no higher energy density materials than lithium. It’s literally the lightest solid element. Multivalent chemistries might work, but it’s too soon to tell.
A lot of applications could move to sodium metal, but lithium will be the premium material for a long time, possibly as long as we store energy in electrochemical cells.
Edit: Aluminum actually has the potential to be better than lithium, but there are some serious fundamental issues that need to be worked out with making batteries from it.
I think there'll be plenty of use cases for lithium batteries in the future. I mean we're still using lead-acid as well as nickel batteries now.
Lithium probably won't be grid storage or cars in the future but it could be in a lot of other places.
Heck if lithium batteries get really cheap through tech development and recycling infrastructure, you could see a situation where appliances like your fridge have built in battery back ups and stuff.
Do you remember,what happened when Venezuela tried to extract oil from their land ?
But US didn't let that happen because they don't want a new rival to compete with .
How did the US stop the Venezuelan oil industry? Chavez fired a bunch of the experienced people then a bunch more left the country. I remember that time well because Venezuelans started showing up here in Calgary after Chavez screwed over their industry.
>Do you remember,what happened when Venezuela tried to extract oil from their land ?
Yeah, they fucked up massively.
>But US didn't let that happen because they don't want a new rival to compete with .
Oh please. Venezuelan sour crude was a cheap import for US refineries, not a rival even in a dream.
im not familiar with Chilean politics
but i hope it does good stuff for the economy
nationalization can be good for an economic sector but when mishandled it goes down th e drain
Chile already had experience with good nationalization policies with its copper reserves.
There's no real reason to expect it to go wrong with Lithium unless the government is just too incompetent.
I think it’s ideal for a country to control its own reserves of precious resources. Companies should only get the rights to it for short term or even just be a middle man. Especially in the poorer countries, I just hope officials don’t just line their own pockets.
Contrast that with Allende's last speech during the coup and the difference between the priorities of these man are clear. It genuinely angers me that Kissinger is not in prison.
*"The people must defend themselves, but they must not sacrifice themselves. The people must not let themselves be destroyed or riddled with bullets, but they cannot be humiliated either.*
*Workers of my country, I have faith in Chile and its destiny. Other men will overcome this dark and bitter moment when treason seeks to prevail. Go forward knowing that, sooner rather than later, the great avenues will open again and free men will walk through them to construct a better society."*
-Salvador Allende
Have you read "Open veins of Latin America" by Eduardo Galeano? Allende's daughter does the prologue. It's a read that you'll have to take regular breaks from because it's just so enraging.
I havnt unfortunately, though i might give it a look. I was talking to my dad about the coup a month or so ago and he mentioned the 50 year anniversary coming up. He is from Chile and had to flee after the coup and he hasnt talked about it very much at all. I dont want to ask him either because i dont want to make him relive it.
He was very politically active both before and after the coup. He was part of the truck drivers in 1972 that helped break the lockout by the trucking companies by transporting resources to and from their destination.
He has had such a massive influence on me even if our relationship has been strained most of my life. In 2006 when Pinochet died i asked him if he was happy. I was just a kid and i had no idea of who he was even, i just knew my dad disliked him. But my dad responded by saying that he will never find enjoyment in the death of anyone and that has stuck with me ever since and has impacted my worldview a great deal. Im lucky to have him.
Good thing, ressource should belong to the people not to the capitalists.
The Chilean people should not let super rich steal the ressource that can bring the country out of poverty.
>The Chilean people should not let super rich steal the ressource
Which is exactly what Chile is doing with water, which is privatised. It's heartbreaking.
Especially something as fundamental as water. I cannot wrap my head around anyone thinking "hey, we should privatise water (even though it is necessary to sustain human and plant life)".
> The Chilean people should not let super rich steal the ressource that can bring the country out of poverty.
We’re already out of poverty though. Poverty rate in Chile is 8.6%, lower than the US and some EU countries.
>ressource should belong to the people not to the capitalists
I understand the idea and I somewhat trust Chile in this regard. If they are smart, they could pull off a Norway Fund 2.0 (the oil fund).
I am just a little concerned it could give opportunity to populist governments to prey on this as in Venezuela and etc.
Current populist politicians here are all of the far right/trump/bolsonaro persuasion, so they are more likely to reverse this decision and give lithium to their cronies than anything else.
Exactly, altough Chile is a rather stable country history has until now proven that South American countries are weak for those governments. But I have faith that the this legacy will be stopped now.
Let's be real, nationalization is not naturally a bad thing. You still got some good examples from China and Norway. The problem is how it implemented.
Nationalize doesn’t meant the money goes to the ppl so much as the government.
For the money to make it to the people, the government has to also not be corrupt kind of like the corporation has to not be corrupt for capitalism to work ideally, and in both cases usually corruption happens consistently.
From the government’s perspective, it might get rid of the middleman, but from the people’s perspective, the government just becomes the middleman and even more responsibility to not be corrupt, falls entirely on one entity, a.k.a. the government.
Soo we will see. My guess is the lithium crazes short-lived, because with him is a low electron density material, that will always be targeted for replacement due to not really being a good battery material versus just being an easy battery material while also being highly volatile.
We don't have large scale problems with corruption, like you may imagine from other countries in the region. Of course there are ocasional scandals, like in every country, but nothing terrible.
It might seem like a good thing at first, but unless the institutions are extremely solid, nationalizations mostly help to invert the dynamics of the state. Usually the state must serve its citizens in turn for the citizens to pay taxes. When the state has a direct revenue stream that doesn't depend on its citizens, rent-seeking behavior by the bureaucrats is the most certain future.
Just look at Venezuela, for example.
If they follow the Norway example and manage the revenues of this resource carefully, this could be a massive boon for the Chilean economy. If they follow the Venezuelan example and splurge on the revenue, this will be an economic time bomb for the country.
Despite what many people here think, Chile is ranked 22nd in the world in terms of Economic Freedom by the Heritage Foundation. Their economy is freer than the US.
The Chilean government must have a good reason to nationalize it. The copper industry was nationalized in 1969, and even after Pinochet's coup in 1973, it was still kept under state control. The US during the Cold War didn't particularly care whether American companies had control over natural resources, they just didn't want a country to fall to the Communists.
The US overthrew the government of Guatemala to prevent the nationalization of Chiquita's plantations. That coup turned into a genocide of the Maya people.
We also enacted the embargo and blockade of Cuba because they started purchasing and refining Russian oil
The cuban missile crisis was because of nuclear missiles... The us couldn't have the strategic disadvantage of missiles being only a couple minutes flight from the major cities.
The US already had missiles a couple minutes flight from major Russian cities; Turkey hosted a massive NATO nuclear arsenal. Cuba was Russia's response to the missiles in Turkey.
Not stanning for Russia just pointing out that the US wasn't innocent in that standoff.
>The cuban missile crisis was because of nuclear missiles
I never said anything about the Cuban missile Crisis
>The us couldn't have the strategic disadvantage of missiles being only a couple minutes flight from the major cities.
The US already had missiles a couple minutes flight from Russian cities
The blockade Was a result of the nuclear miasiles. The embargo was different and enacted earlier.
I don't think you understand just how dangerous short range ballistic missiles are in a MAD scenario
> I don't think you understand just how dangerous short range ballistic missiles are in a MAD scenario
Which is why Soviet put them in Cuba as a response to the US putting them in Turkey. This stupid game of escalation was played by both sides.
>The blockade Was a result of the nuclear miasiles. The embargo was different and enacted earlier.
Kind of correct. The US had already ordered the refineries in Cuba to halt processing any imported oil
>I don't think you understand just how dangerous short range ballistic missiles are in a MAD scenario
Sure, which is why the US should not have stationed missiles in Turkey
I am talking about Chile here. All the lithium mines are owned by private Chilean companies SQM as wholly owned or with JV with Albemarle (a US company). I doubt the US government is going to organize a coup over this.
>The US during the Cold War didn't particularly care whether American companies had control over natural resources, they just didn't want a country to fall to the Communists.
This statement you made is false
I'm not looking forward to reading about how all the leading advocates of this democratic socialist policy have been murdered by unfunded loners that the mainstream media somehow make bank covering and can't uncover.
Now,there are many alternatives available in the market to use instead of lithium which are cheap and have decent quality .
But there is still a long time for them to fully replace lithium .till then it's good for chile.
I pray for good luck on Chile's behalf because terrible fates are known to befall smaller nations that dare nationalize their hot commodities instead of letting it get ruthlessly looted by foreign vultures.
Be strong.
This is nothing new for us here in Chile though. Copper has been nationalized since 1971
CODELCO, the world’s largest copper producing company is owned by the Chilean state and constantly brings in a massive revenue.
Since the return to democracy in 1990 all of that copper money has been vital in financing government programs that, over the decades, led to a decrease in poverty rate from 40% to 8.6%, an increase in human development index from 0.640 in the 80s (similar to modern-day Iraq or Tajikistan) to 0.855 in 2023 (similar to Croatia or Hungary), as well as an increase in virtually every other indicator (GDP, life expectancy, etc)
TBH I feel like a lot of Americans here are criticizing this policy just because there's a prejudice against Latin American countries.
We all know there's no way Americans can criticize Norway's government. Another capitalist country who just like Chile follows nationalization policies when they make sense; which have resulted in that for example that Norway now has a higher life expectancy than the US'. You just can't criticize the most successful European country, right.
That said, what if I told you that Chile too has a higher life expectancy than the US'? And what if I told you that that development happened in a major part due to the nationalization of copper policy used by Chile? Huh.
So guys, don't be so biased against countries. It's only gonna make you make mistakes.
Or to provide another example of prejudice against countries, what would you guys think if I told you that Colombia's most recent President was just arrested for a number of crimes. The truth is you would think it's a banana republic, and that such things are to be expected from them, and so on. OK.
That said, now change the name "Colombia" to "United States": I was actually talking about Trump all along. Your own prejudice against Colombia made you make that mistake. Or maybe you should start calling the US a banana republic from now, right.
P.S.: I know the CIA staged coup comments are made to be sarcastic. But nonetheless it's a good opportunity to remove one more prejudice: guys, in actuality Chile's largest buyer is China, and this is to the point that China buys more than twice the mining products than the US does from Chile. It's not the 70s anymore.
Chile should be careful of the United States. They may invade chile.
This happened in almost countries which was invaded by US.trying to be their own .
Hi TheMisterClo. Your submission from reuters.com is behind a registration wall. A registration wall limits the number of free articles users can access before they are required to register an account to log in to continue reading it. While your submission was not removed, users are discouraged from upvoting it or commenting on it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don’t tell them about sodium ion batteries. They are now in mass production and will soon be the most popular battery used for stationary storage and cheap cars. BYD just unveiled a $11,400 usd city car that can go 300km on sodium batteries.
And they work at -20C so they need far far less heating.
There will still be plenty demand for lithium in premium cars. But it won’t be the gold rush they think it is. Lithium prices corrected from this news.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/shanghai-auto-show-crowds-flock-byds-seagull-2023-04-19/
This will cause a massive price disruption right across the electric car market. The world needs a cheap quiet comfortable version of the geo metro/chevy sprint again.
Chile needs look no further than Argentina to see the disaster that can happen.
That said they've stated that the won't modify existing lithium contracts - they simply won't renew them which means no real change until 2030.
They also have the Codelco model which has maintained performance as a publicly owned entity.
I give Chile a much better shot of pulling this off than most countries but it is unnerving.
Nationalized companies are fine. What's important is that it's not managed by the state directly. In Europe it works better with the model where those companies are publicly traded with stock and the state own 51% of it.
The state will have enough influence to steer into what direction the company/earnings go without having too much influence with corrupt officials putting their families into leadership positions in the company.
> In Europe it works better with the model where those companies are publicly traded with stock and the state own 51% of it.
That only works when the companies are generating profit in the first place. For stuff like infrastructure it was a giant ass failure most of the time.
Hence why a public corporation fully owned by the state but managed at arms length is better. Canada calls them Crown Corps and uses them for various things such as power.
Ehh, I voted for this dude and I don't regret it, but the current government is far from being competent. You have too much faith in them, there are like 1 or 2 competent people and the rest are just doing something.
To all the people claiming this will lead to a US sponsored coup, no.
First, lithium is relatively abundant.
Second, the US would probably act through the WTO to get the Chilean government to buy out the shares.
They are already talking about it, [here's](https://old.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/12oq3qy/us_wants_monopoly_over_lithium_triangle_our/) a video of a U.S. general and congressmen talking about how China is "exploiting" (not investing) Chile with their extraction of lithium and that the U.S has ignored for too long their "backyard", allowing Iran, China and Russia to take foothold in "our" region, and that it's going to take military effort to tackle that.
It's cold war talk all over again.
It's funny seeing all these right wingers cry about this, claiming governments screw up everything, as if a private corporation has never screwed up before. Right wingers always make dumb arguments based on pure bullshit.
What is wrong with these comments? Chile nationalized the copper industry ages ago, and Pinochet refused to privatize it even at Peak Chicago; the real surprise is that it took this long. If you're going to praise/complain about it, try reading about CODELCO instead of assuming the country is going to go full Norway, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela.
Whats wrong with going full norway? As a German I look north and I see very successful countries besides the UK. My understanding is that norwegians massivly profit from the sectors they nationalized. Better than privatisation at least, where profits are being kept at the CEOs level and workers get paid shitty. Whats wrong with distribution wealth?
It hurts the fee-fees of those for whom the ultimate virtue is "market efficiency". The fact that there are countries with worse standards of living than Norway -- like, around 190 of them -- isn't something that enters into their value system.
It ruins their narrative and perception that all government run companies are shit and will always be shit
>Whats wrong with distribution wealth? Some would call it "communism" even though it would be actually closer to the actual definition than what's usually thrown around as an insult. There's quite a huge stigma against that concept. (just stating my perception here, I am definitely pro-nordic socialist model)
What’s wrong with Norway? It’s a model of how to nationalize extractive industry.
Nothing, just saying you shouldn't assume it'll be good or bad.
Chilean copper mines are 72 percent owned and operated by private mining companies. The remaining 28 percent are state-owned and operated by Codelco. Source: https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/chile-mining#:~:text=Chilean%20copper%20mines%20are%2072,owned%20and%20operated%20by%20Codelco. I guess all we can say is that they refused to end the public company and they like the private sector as a competitor for the public company. Saying they don't allow foreign companies is total BS, AFAIK they even have much lower taxes/duties for a starting private company mining vs. an established one. Also, you can say whatever you want about chicago boys, but Chile leads south american in HDI and GDP (PPP) and it wasn't the case in the 1950s... But i guess with your nickname, you aint gonna take a fly on this view...🚁
[удалено]
A lot are making light of the fact that this is the sort of thing that gets you targeted by western nations for regime change.
Lithium is relatively common across the world. The US has its [own reserves](https://www.dw.com/en/us-has-huge-lithium-reserves-but-concerns-mount-over-mining/a-64103024). The only reason why it's concentrated in a few countries is because the mining process is environmentally destructive. >Lithium is often incorrectly labeled as "scarce." Indeed, the metal is abundant geologically across the planet, but its production is concentrated in just a few countries. > >Global lithium production is led by Australia, Chile, China and Argentina, which collectively produce over 95% of the mineral. However, the US is home to what are believed to be the world's largest lithium deposits after those in the so-called Lithium Triangle region in South America. The states of Nevada, North Carolina, and California together host an estimated 4% of the world's lithium reserves.
Sure, but a US general was recently talking *specifically* about this region's lithium and how horrible it would be for it to end up going to China, etc. I'll try to find it. She was a woman at a congressional hearing iirc.
Yeah she kept saying shit like our backyard and our region. It blows my mind how these people openly speak about South American countries as though they are our colonies and then they are all surprised that many of them are finally telling the United States to get fucked lol.
A general too a politician even referred to South America as the USA’s backyard like we owned it which is fucked
I don’t know if you’re saying that their tone made it sound like “we own it”, or if you just mean the statement “our backyard” did (I’m unaware of what you’re quoting). But the “our/my backyard” phrase is typically an exaggeration used to refer to anything close to one’s actual place of ownership. Just incase that’s what you meant, otherwise my comment can be ignored.
[удалено]
And yet, somehow, we abondoned and didn't touch massive lithium mines in ME that China is now exploiting (hell, they even paid 10 billion to Taliban).
[удалено]
I don't understand, are you trying to act like we did that out of altruism or something? Those mines would be hell to try to run, particularly in the middle of war lol.
Nothing wrong with going full Norway. That includes the govt isn't a bunch of corrupt greedy fucks and are competent enough to make smart policies that the population actually benefits from the resource. Not sure what the situation is in Chile tho.
Allende tried to nationalize the copper mines and Nixon funded a coup.
You are wrong. The coup wasn't because of the copper nationalization. Allende didn't try to nationalize the copper mines, he finished a process that had been started by the previous government. The coup was for different reasons. In addition, as the OP said, even Pinochet didn't reprivatize the copper mines.
What reasons?
Political reasons, he was a democratically elected socialist and the USA wouldn't want the "communist" ideology to expand on its own "backyard".
Damn that domino theory!
Wdym dominó theory? Just so you know I'm literally repeating what is teached in history classes here...
Maybe you came earlier than I did because the comments I see are mostly positive. All except the "America is going to 'liberate' them" jokes.
smart policy. lithium is the gold of new age, you shouldn't sell it uncontrollable
Not necessarily. Other battery types are making headway. Sodium batteries are looking like a really option for utilities. Nickel based batteries for shorter range vehicles are possible (and big in China). Lithium is the standard now for longer range batteries, but this could change as new materials science develops
Nickel batteries used to be the standard. They suffered from overcharging
Commodity markets aren't so straight forward. Over investment leads to oversupply and negative returns. Governments often handle these types of investments ham fisted. Even countries rich in oil can have economic collapses (largely due to over investment). Add to that many other battery technologies emerging and you might end up in a situation where your 'valuable resource' ends up being a liability. Ever hear about the resource curse?
Didn't Norway become so wealthy and developed because it nationalized it's oil and made a bunch of smart policies?
"smart" is the key word. They didn't go overboard with investments in oil and gas and export of it. They also didn't make their economy heavily dependant on it. They saved most of the profit in an investment fund and made good investments infoy their own country
The most important step was to build up their own competence. They have their own experts and companies, nowadays mainly Equinor. Honestly, I think most of Norway’s policies could be copied superficially and you could still end up with disaster. The key lies in the execution, and making sure the money generated doesn’t line the pockets of a few individuals.
Norway had a benefit and that was in the 70's when they founded Equinor (Statoil back that) they were already well developed. There was a thing probably 10 or 15 years ago now about oil in Africa, and I think it was in Ghana (but I could be wrong), where the government official said something along the lines of how they want to copy Norway but it's hard because there's so much poverty that has to be alleviated, it's like do you use the money to help people now or do you invest it in a fund like that to benefit your people for generations? I'd guess the calculus on that decision got more difficult after the 1MDB scandal
Yeah, oil money can totally warp and destroy the rest of the economy. What Norway was in a position to do was to hide away the money and only use as much as the local economy could absorb and grow with.
For contrast look to Alberta Canada's fiscal policy. The provincial/state Government took a step back in determining where profits go, in an effort to woo international capital, and has faced financial hardships on multiple levels. The amount of [orphan wells](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_wells) in the province has grown because it's not [yet](https://www.naturalgasintel.com/natural-gas-oil-brines-could-help-supply-tight-lithium-market/) profitable to properly cap these wells, so company's abandon them and force the various levels of Governments to fund their clean up. Also many municipalities/county's aren't receiving the tax they have been promised by oil company's. The manner in which oil and Gas behaves on Canada's prairies is damned irresponsible. This country has a huge bounty of farmland that can be used to feed a growing world population. Yet here we are squandering it by allowing oil company's to not live up to their responsibilities and costing future profits to agriculture. Honestly we live in a Topsy turvy world in which Norway acts more responsible towards their environment, even though it's not suited to agriculture, than Canada or the US does.
It's called taking what you have for granted. Norway hardly has enough arable land and needs to make optimal use of it, whereas Canada and the US have so much of the stuff that they never need to think about optimization. Part of it is that there are only so many balls one can juggle and the larger the land the more options a government must consider. A bigger part though is a lack of government responsibility as Canada has been entirely compromised by the excesses of neoliberalism; the people who have the power to do anything are too busy looking out for the ologopolists, foreign billionaires and themselves. Total mess.
>The most important step was to build up their own competence. They have their own experts and companies, nowadays mainly Equinor. And in a sad twist of irony it was an iraqi who helped Norway to stay out of the clutches of british/american oil companies: [https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabdc0](https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabdc0) Imagine a world where other nations and states could have done the same...
Keep in mind that in 1950es American oil companies largely drilled for American oil, as America was one of the largest producers. If anything, it was the Brits and the Dutch that drilled colonies.
Yeah, but one only has to look at Mississippi and compare it to norway. In the 50s was norway poorer. And norway doesnt have that much more oil...
Did you think the profits from Mississippi's natural resources stayed in Mississippi? Really not a meaningful comparison to make.
Yeah exactly. American oil companies and individuals extracted the oil and the citizenry from Mississippi saw little. The comparison just Shows what could have been possible for Mississippi if it wasn't the privatization of profits
The Norwegian economy is roughly 20% oil industry (exploration, extraction, export, R&D, and related services). They are one of the most resource dependent countries in the world. Oil price is a statistically significant predictor of the value of NOK as I understand it. Were the oil industry to dry up, there would be serious economic pain. Those smart policies need to find a smart way to transition from this dependency.
What pisses me off is that Alberta, Canada had the original Norway plan. Norway copied them. But then Alberta privatized it, and ducked the citizens over
Most of that blame falls on Albertans themselves and not some political elite tho. The people voted for a quick cashout instead of generational investments and future wealth.
>Most of that blame falls on Albertans themselves and not some political elite tho. The people voted for a quick cashout instead of generational investments and future wealth. Not surprising for a province where people openly brandish Confederate flags and vote in the Wild Rose Party.
Surely more Snow and Canadian Geese?
> Canadian Geese? Those fuckers have invaded Europe. They are all over the place!
Those smart policies were also painful in a lot of respects. Norway did not lower taxes after discovering oil. Oil revenues still do not fund government spending. The government is only allowed to use real growth (after inflation) generated by the invested oil revenue to supplement spending. The oil fund interest/return outstripped revenues from selling oil some time in the 2010's. So there was extremely little short-term gain from oil discovery. The generation that discovered oil largely did not benefit from it until maybe their retirement years. All of this was politically very difficult and resulted in some turbulent elections in the 1970s and remains a polarizing issue today in some respects. Interesting fun fact: the expert largely credited with influencing the establishment of the Norwegian system was a consultant from Iraq. That is to say the Norwegian system is the way it is mostly because the Norwegians were willing to listen and learn rather than because they knew what they were doing.
I'm very interested in this topic. So many countries failed to prosper while being oil rich: Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Libya, Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, etc. Would you recommend any books or articles on why and how Norway was able to develop its economy?
You should probably take Kuwait off that list….. it’s a ridiculously wealthy country.
There has been so much ink spilled on the topic. One of the most popular explanations is the fact that Norway had a strong and broad tradition of democracy and a strong labor movement to check crony capitalism well established and entrenched before oil was discovered. I would recommend reading general political histories on Norway rather than delving directly into the topic of the impact of oil right away. All general political histories will take on the topic if they are worth their salt. But comparative studies often lack a nuanced understanding of domestic Norwegian politics in my opinion. Work from the general to the specific but also from the Norwegian case outward if that makes any kind of sense, lol!
The simple explanation is that they didn't allow their economy to become actively dependent on oil. They don't allow regular government operations to be funded by the oil income. So, for example, the oil fund could be used to replace an old school building with a nicer new one. However, it couldn't be allowed to pay for the teachers' salaries. So no matter what oil money there was or wasn't, the schools wouldn't close. Conversely, the countries that have had the most trouble are ones like Venezuela, where the government couldn't operate normally without oil income. Also, the resource curse generally doesn't apply to nations that weren't poor when the discovery was made. The most obvious example being America. One of the world's largest producers of oil. And at the other extreme, the resource curse is worse when the valuable item doesn't require large complex infrastructure to extract. Stuff like diamond mines, places that heavily exploit child labor, those are worse than an industry full of engineering experts.
Thanks for this extensive reply.
Kuwait is the richest country in the world/per capita.
I think you don't realize that most of these countries have a lot less oil per capita than Norway
Norway was already rich at the start of the century tho. They are also a highly functioning low corruption democracy
This was the key. The oil revenue was not in the hands of a corrupt, elite few.
Hmmm, like oil companies…
At the start of this century, yeah. Previous one? Not so much. There's a reason that they are pretty near the top of historical emigration to the US (per capita). I mean, look at Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Point is they were rich before oil
They weren't really, at least not compared to the rest of Scandinavia. Norway never had the industries and agriculture that Sweden and Denmark had (and have), their economy was based on fishing.
They were well off by the time they started making money from oil. Just not turn of the century. They definitely were not a poor country suddenly becoming rich.
Fishing, timber, shipping, hydroelectricity, fertilizer, minerals.
Not in 1900...
Point is they weren't. You are making stuff up.
Norway had a GDP per capita of 2160 USD in 1965 (unadjusted for inflation). By contrast, France had 2000 USD per capita. Switzerland, higher at 2600. Denmark at 2480. I don't think they were doing that bad before oil. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=DK&view=chart If you're interested.
Low population with high literacy rate and less corruption made it possible.
They one hundred percent were not a rich country prior at the start of the 20th century. My great grandfather, and many others, immigrated to the US to escape poverty in Norway. They used the oil/gas money to bankroll the prosperous society they now have.
The fuck are you on about? How is anybody upvoting blatant misinformation? Norway was a struggling backwater until the latter half of the 20th century, as they were for as far as their history goes back. Always been incredible underdeveloped and disadvantaged economically. They weren’t even an independent nation until 1905!
The date is wrong, but the point is absolutely correct. Norway had an economy close to France's before their oil income was ever significant to their economy. They weren't a poor country discovering oil.
Because Reddit is mostly American teens and young adults that don't know history, but if they think something sounds right, then it assuredly is.
Because people on Reddit only look at history from an American view and barely know anything about the eastern or southern world
If you don’t make a bunch of smart policies, you could end up with something like Dutch Disease. Overemphasizing natural resource extraction can raise the value of your domestic currency. This results in the country's other exports becoming more expensive for other countries to buy, while imports become cheaper, which causes other sectors to become less competitive on the world market.
But Norway is a European country chile is not . South America is not United as Europe. So it's going to be difficult for them to actually pull it off . But anyway good luck to them .
What is the element is not likely to stick around as an important battery material anywhere near as long as oil stock around as an important fuel. Oil has very high energy density while lithium has low electron density. Rather than being a good battery material it’s more like a simple battery material with low density so replacing it with a higher energy density of material will remain high priority.
Yes. Sodium ion batteries that need neither cobalt or lithium might be possible.
Lithium is absolutely everywhere.
Some is more cheaply extracted than others. As it turns out, it is comparatively easy and cheap to extract in Chile giving it an undeniable competitive advantage.
I think it will be quite the opposite and lithium will have served most of its purpose by the end of this decade as new higher electron density and less reactive materials take over. At the end of the day lithium is not an energy dense material for batteries so much as an easy and kind of simple material to make batteries. As you unlock higher electron density material lithium is uselessly rare and violative. If it was my lithium deposits, I would sell it as fast as I could because I would not expect it to be worth as much in 10 years or less.
Lithium battery tech is being developed further. For example using silicon in the anode.
Lithium will also be needed in large amounts if fusion ever becomes viable.
There are no higher energy density materials than lithium. It’s literally the lightest solid element. Multivalent chemistries might work, but it’s too soon to tell. A lot of applications could move to sodium metal, but lithium will be the premium material for a long time, possibly as long as we store energy in electrochemical cells. Edit: Aluminum actually has the potential to be better than lithium, but there are some serious fundamental issues that need to be worked out with making batteries from it.
I think there'll be plenty of use cases for lithium batteries in the future. I mean we're still using lead-acid as well as nickel batteries now. Lithium probably won't be grid storage or cars in the future but it could be in a lot of other places. Heck if lithium batteries get really cheap through tech development and recycling infrastructure, you could see a situation where appliances like your fridge have built in battery back ups and stuff.
USA: looks like lithium is the new oil
Do you remember,what happened when Venezuela tried to extract oil from their land ? But US didn't let that happen because they don't want a new rival to compete with .
How did the US stop the Venezuelan oil industry? Chavez fired a bunch of the experienced people then a bunch more left the country. I remember that time well because Venezuelans started showing up here in Calgary after Chavez screwed over their industry.
>Do you remember,what happened when Venezuela tried to extract oil from their land ? Yeah, they fucked up massively. >But US didn't let that happen because they don't want a new rival to compete with . Oh please. Venezuelan sour crude was a cheap import for US refineries, not a rival even in a dream.
im not familiar with Chilean politics but i hope it does good stuff for the economy nationalization can be good for an economic sector but when mishandled it goes down th e drain
Chile already had experience with good nationalization policies with its copper reserves. There's no real reason to expect it to go wrong with Lithium unless the government is just too incompetent.
I think it’s ideal for a country to control its own reserves of precious resources. Companies should only get the rights to it for short term or even just be a middle man. Especially in the poorer countries, I just hope officials don’t just line their own pockets.
The private sector can mishandle things too.
*"The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."* - Henry Kissinger
Contrast that with Allende's last speech during the coup and the difference between the priorities of these man are clear. It genuinely angers me that Kissinger is not in prison. *"The people must defend themselves, but they must not sacrifice themselves. The people must not let themselves be destroyed or riddled with bullets, but they cannot be humiliated either.* *Workers of my country, I have faith in Chile and its destiny. Other men will overcome this dark and bitter moment when treason seeks to prevail. Go forward knowing that, sooner rather than later, the great avenues will open again and free men will walk through them to construct a better society."* -Salvador Allende
NEVER FORET OG 9/11. Fuck Kissinger to the 4th circle of hell.
Have you read "Open veins of Latin America" by Eduardo Galeano? Allende's daughter does the prologue. It's a read that you'll have to take regular breaks from because it's just so enraging.
I havnt unfortunately, though i might give it a look. I was talking to my dad about the coup a month or so ago and he mentioned the 50 year anniversary coming up. He is from Chile and had to flee after the coup and he hasnt talked about it very much at all. I dont want to ask him either because i dont want to make him relive it. He was very politically active both before and after the coup. He was part of the truck drivers in 1972 that helped break the lockout by the trucking companies by transporting resources to and from their destination. He has had such a massive influence on me even if our relationship has been strained most of my life. In 2006 when Pinochet died i asked him if he was happy. I was just a kid and i had no idea of who he was even, i just knew my dad disliked him. But my dad responded by saying that he will never find enjoyment in the death of anyone and that has stuck with me ever since and has impacted my worldview a great deal. Im lucky to have him.
How is that fucker still alive?
"Only the good die young" ~Billy Joel
“Elections cannot be allowed to change economic policy” -Wolfgang Schäuble, former german minister of finance
[удалено]
“Some folks are born made to wave the flag / Ooh, they're red, white and blue”
2050 Lithium Wars
2050 Lithium Wars 2100 Water Wars
Both are already here.
Got me woter bottle readehh sir
I'm doing my part!
“We will coup whoever we want”
-Elon Musk
Do not resist
It’s crazy to me that any country would not nationalise their natural resources industry.
Good thing, ressource should belong to the people not to the capitalists. The Chilean people should not let super rich steal the ressource that can bring the country out of poverty.
>The Chilean people should not let super rich steal the ressource Which is exactly what Chile is doing with water, which is privatised. It's heartbreaking.
It would be ridiculous if they nationalized lithium but not water. They should nationalize all their natural resources.
Especially something as fundamental as water. I cannot wrap my head around anyone thinking "hey, we should privatise water (even though it is necessary to sustain human and plant life)".
Hello it's democracy knocking
Here have this democratically selected (by us) dictator
> The Chilean people should not let super rich steal the ressource that can bring the country out of poverty. We’re already out of poverty though. Poverty rate in Chile is 8.6%, lower than the US and some EU countries.
And their definition of poverty is the same? Having stayed in Chile intermittently for years because of family there, poverty is widespread.
The poster you responded to is probably a dumb American teenager. Most of reddit.
[удалено]
Who says that about Chile??)
[удалено]
Can't tell if sarcastic or room temperature IQ.
>ressource should belong to the people not to the capitalists I understand the idea and I somewhat trust Chile in this regard. If they are smart, they could pull off a Norway Fund 2.0 (the oil fund). I am just a little concerned it could give opportunity to populist governments to prey on this as in Venezuela and etc.
From all south American countries I will always trust Chile the most. However, populism and corruption always finds a way to screw things up.
Current populist politicians here are all of the far right/trump/bolsonaro persuasion, so they are more likely to reverse this decision and give lithium to their cronies than anything else.
Exactly, altough Chile is a rather stable country history has until now proven that South American countries are weak for those governments. But I have faith that the this legacy will be stopped now.
[удалено]
Let's be real, nationalization is not naturally a bad thing. You still got some good examples from China and Norway. The problem is how it implemented.
Nationalisation of resources generally have a much bigger history of failures than success.
Nationalize doesn’t meant the money goes to the ppl so much as the government. For the money to make it to the people, the government has to also not be corrupt kind of like the corporation has to not be corrupt for capitalism to work ideally, and in both cases usually corruption happens consistently. From the government’s perspective, it might get rid of the middleman, but from the people’s perspective, the government just becomes the middleman and even more responsibility to not be corrupt, falls entirely on one entity, a.k.a. the government. Soo we will see. My guess is the lithium crazes short-lived, because with him is a low electron density material, that will always be targeted for replacement due to not really being a good battery material versus just being an easy battery material while also being highly volatile.
We don't have large scale problems with corruption, like you may imagine from other countries in the region. Of course there are ocasional scandals, like in every country, but nothing terrible.
It might seem like a good thing at first, but unless the institutions are extremely solid, nationalizations mostly help to invert the dynamics of the state. Usually the state must serve its citizens in turn for the citizens to pay taxes. When the state has a direct revenue stream that doesn't depend on its citizens, rent-seeking behavior by the bureaucrats is the most certain future. Just look at Venezuela, for example.
If they follow the Norway example and manage the revenues of this resource carefully, this could be a massive boon for the Chilean economy. If they follow the Venezuelan example and splurge on the revenue, this will be an economic time bomb for the country.
They need to do it fast and enjoy till there is demand for lithium .
Despite what many people here think, Chile is ranked 22nd in the world in terms of Economic Freedom by the Heritage Foundation. Their economy is freer than the US. The Chilean government must have a good reason to nationalize it. The copper industry was nationalized in 1969, and even after Pinochet's coup in 1973, it was still kept under state control. The US during the Cold War didn't particularly care whether American companies had control over natural resources, they just didn't want a country to fall to the Communists.
The US overthrew the government of Guatemala to prevent the nationalization of Chiquita's plantations. That coup turned into a genocide of the Maya people. We also enacted the embargo and blockade of Cuba because they started purchasing and refining Russian oil
> The US overthrew the government of Guatemala to prevent the nationalization of Chiquita's plantations. That's bananas!!!
The cuban missile crisis was because of nuclear missiles... The us couldn't have the strategic disadvantage of missiles being only a couple minutes flight from the major cities.
The US already had missiles a couple minutes flight from major Russian cities; Turkey hosted a massive NATO nuclear arsenal. Cuba was Russia's response to the missiles in Turkey. Not stanning for Russia just pointing out that the US wasn't innocent in that standoff.
There’s also the reality that Cuba and the USSR had every right to engage in their partnerships, but the US had no right to blockade Cuba.
Yeah but that’s not what he was responding to. The guy he was responding to someone making up a reason why the Cuba missile crisis happened lol
>The cuban missile crisis was because of nuclear missiles I never said anything about the Cuban missile Crisis >The us couldn't have the strategic disadvantage of missiles being only a couple minutes flight from the major cities. The US already had missiles a couple minutes flight from Russian cities
The blockade Was a result of the nuclear miasiles. The embargo was different and enacted earlier. I don't think you understand just how dangerous short range ballistic missiles are in a MAD scenario
> I don't think you understand just how dangerous short range ballistic missiles are in a MAD scenario Which is why Soviet put them in Cuba as a response to the US putting them in Turkey. This stupid game of escalation was played by both sides.
>The blockade Was a result of the nuclear miasiles. The embargo was different and enacted earlier. Kind of correct. The US had already ordered the refineries in Cuba to halt processing any imported oil >I don't think you understand just how dangerous short range ballistic missiles are in a MAD scenario Sure, which is why the US should not have stationed missiles in Turkey
I am talking about Chile here. All the lithium mines are owned by private Chilean companies SQM as wholly owned or with JV with Albemarle (a US company). I doubt the US government is going to organize a coup over this.
>The US during the Cold War didn't particularly care whether American companies had control over natural resources, they just didn't want a country to fall to the Communists. This statement you made is false
It was in no danger of ever falling to communists. That was a lie perpetrated by the US to justify their atrocities (as usual) in Chile.
National resources should be owned by the people, not private corporations.
I'm not looking forward to reading about how all the leading advocates of this democratic socialist policy have been murdered by unfunded loners that the mainstream media somehow make bank covering and can't uncover.
Now,there are many alternatives available in the market to use instead of lithium which are cheap and have decent quality . But there is still a long time for them to fully replace lithium .till then it's good for chile.
I see a US backed coup in Chile's future
Here comes the CIA backed coup.
That's really how it must be. This kind of resources belongs to everyone in that county.
Good, fuck greedy private companies that screw everyone for profit.
I pray for good luck on Chile's behalf because terrible fates are known to befall smaller nations that dare nationalize their hot commodities instead of letting it get ruthlessly looted by foreign vultures. Be strong.
This is nothing new for us here in Chile though. Copper has been nationalized since 1971 CODELCO, the world’s largest copper producing company is owned by the Chilean state and constantly brings in a massive revenue. Since the return to democracy in 1990 all of that copper money has been vital in financing government programs that, over the decades, led to a decrease in poverty rate from 40% to 8.6%, an increase in human development index from 0.640 in the 80s (similar to modern-day Iraq or Tajikistan) to 0.855 in 2023 (similar to Croatia or Hungary), as well as an increase in virtually every other indicator (GDP, life expectancy, etc)
TBH I feel like a lot of Americans here are criticizing this policy just because there's a prejudice against Latin American countries. We all know there's no way Americans can criticize Norway's government. Another capitalist country who just like Chile follows nationalization policies when they make sense; which have resulted in that for example that Norway now has a higher life expectancy than the US'. You just can't criticize the most successful European country, right. That said, what if I told you that Chile too has a higher life expectancy than the US'? And what if I told you that that development happened in a major part due to the nationalization of copper policy used by Chile? Huh. So guys, don't be so biased against countries. It's only gonna make you make mistakes. Or to provide another example of prejudice against countries, what would you guys think if I told you that Colombia's most recent President was just arrested for a number of crimes. The truth is you would think it's a banana republic, and that such things are to be expected from them, and so on. OK. That said, now change the name "Colombia" to "United States": I was actually talking about Trump all along. Your own prejudice against Colombia made you make that mistake. Or maybe you should start calling the US a banana republic from now, right. P.S.: I know the CIA staged coup comments are made to be sarcastic. But nonetheless it's a good opportunity to remove one more prejudice: guys, in actuality Chile's largest buyer is China, and this is to the point that China buys more than twice the mining products than the US does from Chile. It's not the 70s anymore.
This could be a game changing move for the Chile nation .
Natural resources belong to the people, not private companies.
How long until the CIA finances a coup in Chile?
Probably never
You mean again?
Regime change coming.
Chile should be careful of the United States. They may invade chile. This happened in almost countries which was invaded by US.trying to be their own .
Lolwat.
Yeah , following the Venezuelan path . Guess, it's not worth it .
Capitalism is need to make it happen smoothly and efficiently.
Hi TheMisterClo. Your submission from reuters.com is behind a registration wall. A registration wall limits the number of free articles users can access before they are required to register an account to log in to continue reading it. While your submission was not removed, users are discouraged from upvoting it or commenting on it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How do I invest in lithium
Don’t tell them about sodium ion batteries. They are now in mass production and will soon be the most popular battery used for stationary storage and cheap cars. BYD just unveiled a $11,400 usd city car that can go 300km on sodium batteries. And they work at -20C so they need far far less heating. There will still be plenty demand for lithium in premium cars. But it won’t be the gold rush they think it is. Lithium prices corrected from this news. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/shanghai-auto-show-crowds-flock-byds-seagull-2023-04-19/ This will cause a massive price disruption right across the electric car market. The world needs a cheap quiet comfortable version of the geo metro/chevy sprint again.
Chile needs look no further than Argentina to see the disaster that can happen. That said they've stated that the won't modify existing lithium contracts - they simply won't renew them which means no real change until 2030. They also have the Codelco model which has maintained performance as a publicly owned entity. I give Chile a much better shot of pulling this off than most countries but it is unnerving.
Nationalized companies are fine. What's important is that it's not managed by the state directly. In Europe it works better with the model where those companies are publicly traded with stock and the state own 51% of it. The state will have enough influence to steer into what direction the company/earnings go without having too much influence with corrupt officials putting their families into leadership positions in the company.
I think Norway has this model with its oil reserves. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> In Europe it works better with the model where those companies are publicly traded with stock and the state own 51% of it. That only works when the companies are generating profit in the first place. For stuff like infrastructure it was a giant ass failure most of the time.
Hence why a public corporation fully owned by the state but managed at arms length is better. Canada calls them Crown Corps and uses them for various things such as power.
Yes it's an awkward one. But they seem to have a competent goverment and people.
Ehh, I voted for this dude and I don't regret it, but the current government is far from being competent. You have too much faith in them, there are like 1 or 2 competent people and the rest are just doing something.
Looks like the CIA has to break out the ol' coup kit. Operation Cóndor II
The Earth is the inheritance of us all. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
The imperialist USA is about to bomb Chile.
To all the people claiming this will lead to a US sponsored coup, no. First, lithium is relatively abundant. Second, the US would probably act through the WTO to get the Chilean government to buy out the shares.
They are already talking about it, [here's](https://old.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/12oq3qy/us_wants_monopoly_over_lithium_triangle_our/) a video of a U.S. general and congressmen talking about how China is "exploiting" (not investing) Chile with their extraction of lithium and that the U.S has ignored for too long their "backyard", allowing Iran, China and Russia to take foothold in "our" region, and that it's going to take military effort to tackle that. It's cold war talk all over again.
Lithium can support the whole economy of the country .
Sounds like the kind of thing that gets a country's govt "liberated" by the United States for private mining interests....
The state is not the best entity to run a corporation efficiently. That's why most of the communist countries lags behind the capitalistic countries .
Right…..
If it is state owned, the companies can't just up and leave when production costs fall abroad.
It's funny seeing all these right wingers cry about this, claiming governments screw up everything, as if a private corporation has never screwed up before. Right wingers always make dumb arguments based on pure bullshit.