r/CanadaPolitics • u/BertramPotts Decolonize Decarcerate Decarbonize • 12h ago
Carney warns Burnham over Thames Water nationalisation
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/10/11/carney-warns-burnham-over-thames-water-expropriation/•
u/awildstoryteller Alberta 12h ago
At what point did we stop accepting shareholders have risk?
The reason the UK is considering taking back control of these companies is they have been run both unethically and uneconomically. Many have and are breaking both their regulatory requirements and the agreements by which they were originally privatized. Most have taken on huge amounts of debt primarily to pay shareholders.
Unlike cases like Enron, none of these companies have really hidden what they are doing, which has been to extract the maximum value out of the infrastructure that was purchased for a song, knowing that eventually the music would stop once their lack of investment in maintenance became critical.
Shareholders deserve to take a bath if they chose to invest knowing this.
•
u/kafircake 7h ago edited 7h ago
At what point did we stop accepting shareholders have risk?
You can't hand a locked in customer base to a monopoly and argue that the discipline of the free market will hold the monopoly's drive to profit in check.
Incoherent.
They will delay investment cut maintenance, load up on debt and sweat the assets for all they are worth.
Privatization of such systems is efficient at turning revenue(and debt!) into dividends.
Not efficient at any socially useful outcome.
•
•
u/neontetra1548 Ontario 12h ago
It is the sacred right of shareholders, landlords, and capital to be rentiers and extract money from the fundamental needs of our societies like water - Adam Smith or whatever
•
u/awildstoryteller Alberta 11h ago
Adam Smith warned against monopolies like this.
•
u/neontetra1548 Ontario 11h ago edited 11h ago
Yeah that’s the joke I’m making. This is pure landlord rentierism of a fundamental asset and exactly what Adam Smith would be against and see as unhealthy capitalism.
Adam Smith specifically warned against this but it seems our current capitalists and political leaders either don’t know about that or don’t care
But I’m sure Carney has read Adam Smith so I’d really love a journalist/interviewer to press him on this subject of landlordism and rentier capitalism. But Carney never gives interviews to a challenging opponent and basically everyone in our media is deferential to him, neoliberal consensus brained themselves, or just uneducated on these things and don’t know about/understand Adam Smith’s analysis either.
•
u/Cyouni 6h ago
I mean, do you want to know what Carney has said about Adam Smith?
Smith published two magisterial works, The Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759 and An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations in 1776. The latter is the most purchased, the most often cited and, arguably, the least read book in economics.
Indeed, Smith’s writings warn of the mistakes in equating money with capital and divorcing economic capital from its social partner – errors that can arise from reading only a few, admittedly brilliant, pages of The Wealth of Nations. This caricature of Smith as ‘the father of laissez faire’ grossly devalues this most considered and catholic of the worldly philosophers; the phrase ‘invisible hand’ appears only once in that book and but three times in Smith’s collected works.
•
u/Certainly-Not-A-Bot Ontario 9h ago
This is pure landlord rentierism of a fundamental asset and exactly what Adam Smith would be against and see as unhealthy capitalism.
I actually disagree on this. What's owned is not the water itself - it's the infrastructure that allows the water to be efficiently transported and made safe for drinking. Adam Smith complained about rent seeking, but building infrastructure and profiting from it wouldn't qualify.
FWIW, I agree that this specific type of infrastructure should be publicly owned, but it's not like the private investors didn't provide any value to the water system, the way a rent seeker would. The analogy I like to use is that building a canal and charging a toll to use it is not rent seeking, but blocking an already navigable waterway and charging a toll to allow use of it is rent seeking.
•
u/awildstoryteller Alberta 8h ago
The issue here is that the infrastructure was sold off with promises to upgrade and maintain it, and that was not done.
The public built this infrastructure, and then it was sold for others to profit off of.
•
u/Majromax TL;DR | Official 9h ago
At what point did we stop accepting shareholders have risk?
Shareholders accept risk of bankruptcy all the time, and from this article that appears to be exactly what is happening. Thames Water is in financial trouble, so its debtors (RBC and others) are willing to exchange their loans for ownership of the company. Like every other bankruptcy, doing this would largely wipe out the existing shareholders.
Nationalization is a different risk. Governments can simply expropriate the property, wiping out both shareholders and debtors without compensation. That's what RBC is concerned about and what Canadian government officials have apparently issued warnings over.
From the perspective of a private investor, expropriation is effectively identical to theft: the investment is gone with no recourse. Now, since we're a modern and civilized country that does not practice gunboat diplomacy, that's also where it would end – with ticked off bankers.
However, note the content of the alleged warnings: a nation known to expropriate is a bad target for investment. The UK can't effectively pick and choose, nationalizing some infrastructure like this while still looking to the private sector for the rest.
•
u/awildstoryteller Alberta 9h ago
Shareholders accept risk of bankruptcy all the time, and from this article that appears to be exactly what is happening. Thames Water is in financial trouble, so its debtors (RBC and others) are willing to exchange their loans for ownership of the company. Like every other bankruptcy, doing this would largely wipe out the existing shareholders.
And creditors also accept risk.
Nationalization is a different risk. Governments can simply expropriate the property, wiping out both shareholders and debtors without compensation. That's what RBC is concerned about and what Canadian government officials have apparently issued warnings over.
The property itself is of such a sensitive nature that again, anyone with sense would have been able to predict this was coming.
Creditor risk comes in many forms.
However, note the content of the alleged warnings: a nation known to expropriate is a bad target for investment.
We aren't talking about expropriation of a bank, or a fish and chips shop, or a manufacturer. We are talking about expropriation of a utility monopoly.
•
u/Intelligent_Read_697 NDP 7h ago edited 7h ago
Nationalization as a risk is just a different type but still expected when you consider it’s a utility and an essential service good. Almost any form of resource extraction industry carries that risk in terms of national security
•
u/Lol-I-Wear-Hats Yimbyism or Barbarism 11h ago
“Investment is risky” is not a carte Blanche reason to not do the minimum of “don’t steal my citizen’s assets in your country it would be bad for you as well as us”
•
u/awildstoryteller Alberta 11h ago
Yeah, that would be a really good arguement if one didn't read past the first sentence of what I wrote.
•
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 8h ago
Noone said they don't accept risk.
Carney is simply pointing out that if the UK seizes without neutrally assessed compensation, investors in the future will price in the risk of the government seizing their investment out of hand.
That will make investment more scarce and less favourable, as many investors invest to make profit, and not a donation to an already rich nation.
The UK's days of being able to command cash from distant lands is behind them. They must now persuade people to invest in them (and buy their Gilt to fund their public service, which is already at 6% yield before "lets show everyone we are willing to seize foreign investment because we want to have more money, and that makes it right" gets priced in).
Edit: it may also be worth noting that UK banks and pension funds have likewise made investments abroad, also accepting risk when doing so. What goes around...
•
u/awildstoryteller Alberta 8h ago
Carney is simply pointing out that if the UK seizes without neutrally assessed compensation, investors in the future will price in the risk of the government seizing their investment out of hand.
I would argue that if investors who are intent on extracting maximum value out of public assets sold to them for a song aren't going to show up the next time these assets try to get sold off for a song, that's a good thing for everyone.
•
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 7h ago
The current owners are not the original investors. The UK did court investors to come in and save the system, though, as Britons wished to have low taxes and high social spending, and so did not wish to spend their own money.
That was their choice to make, and is their mess to clean up.
"Because politics hard" is not a reason foreign investors look favourably upon.
After all, perhaps all that Gilt HM Treasury is issuing was also unfairly "sold for a song", and should not be honoured. They have to save the NHS, after all. And maybe that investment in manufacturing was unfair. Look at how much lower wages are than [politically popular amount]. Clearly its in the interests of justic to take those.
Burnham is not the first politician to conjure reasons to confiscate investments. Investors tend to be unimpressed with performance.
But whatever, the G7 country with already the highest borrowing costs and exposure to higher borrowing costs can do what it wishes.
And investors will conaider what that means for their assumed risk.
And to think, I had France at the top of my default and bankruptcy leaderboard.
•
u/awildstoryteller Alberta 7h ago
The current owners are not the original investors.
Irrelevant.
That was their choice to make, and is their mess to clean up.
And that appears to be what they are doing.
"Because politics hard" is not a reason foreign investors look favourably upon.
I think if the worry is "We will lose investors who wish to loot publicly funded assets" then the UK really is coming out ahead if they do this.
•
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 7h ago
I'm sure they'll be confident politicians will never find a reason why any other investments are "unfair".
And those evil Canadian municipal employees whose pension fund invested must of course be punished. Especially after investors dumped billions in additional funding to trying to save the company. Those silly municipal employees. How very dare they.
•
u/awildstoryteller Alberta 2h ago
Should bad and unetgical investments be protected because of who the investors are? Is that your argument you are going with?
•
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 2h ago
I'm going with it was an ethical investment.
A sale being unwise does not make it illegitimate, and the investors are not some shadowy monsters, they're former garbagemen, city clerks, street sweepers, and snowplough drivers.
If Burnham wants to go for their pensions after they contributed to a bail out of the company based on promises from the UK that they now regret, yeah, I hope Carney takes it up with him.
This is no different than with Trump and the Gordie Howe bridge. Now the cash has been spent, they want a "better, farier deal", and will use government power to seize it.
•
u/awildstoryteller Alberta 1h ago
A sale being unwise does not make it illegitimate, and the investors are not some shadowy monsters, they're former garbagemen, city clerks, street sweepers, and snowplough drivers.
So, yes, in fact you are arguing that investments should be protected because of who invested
I disagree.
If Burnham wants to go for their pensions after they contributed to a bail out of the company based on promises from the UK that they now regret, yeah, I hope Carney takes it up with him.
If those pensions have invested in those companies then they failed both as effective overseers of said investment, and of course the people they were investing on behalf of.
Comparing this to Trump is absurd and embarrassing for you.
•
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 1h ago
Carney's point stands: If the security of investment in a country ceases to be governed by rule of law and international norms and becomes governed by the rule of politics, other investors will quite reasonably wonder if their investments might likewise be deemed politically wrong one day.
That has consequences for investment in a country.
The line of argument of "but governments should find and seize politically wrong as a matter of principle" will not help their case.
Makes me very grateful the NDP is not in charge in Canada, given the stance of New Democrats on seizing investments while we are looking for more.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/Intelligent_Read_697 NDP 11h ago
What happened in the UK under their conservatives should give anyone pause regarding what is happening or about to happen to us with these sort of (neoliberal) privatization especially of utilities. But we wont.....
•
u/mcurbanplan Skeptical of Carney | Québec 12h ago
Love it when people are suddenly reminded that Carney is an international banker who cares about capital first and foremost. It's needed, given how much of a distraction Trump has been.
Carney is not going to create lasting social programs or regulate industries in canada, he's going to privatize whatever he legally can, and often using the excuse of it being necessary to detach from the US or whatever. This will have lasting consequences that won't be good for Canadians.
•
u/Former-Physics-1831 Unreconstructed NeoLib 12h ago
People voted for him to strip red tape, spur investment, and lower nonessential spending
That was the platform
Why do I still see people running around like they were tricked?
•
u/Intelligent_Read_697 NDP 11h ago
Lol because the same people are fine with all of that until it hits them directly in a negative way.
•
u/Former-Physics-1831 Unreconstructed NeoLib 11h ago
Nobody has gotten hit yet, that's why his approval is approaching Assad numbers.
This is mostly about people on the left yelling "aha! I told you!" to no one in particular everytime Carney does something
•
u/Intelligent_Read_697 NDP 11h ago
Sure the same spiel that the Brits heard too in the lead up to Brexit and Americans with Trump.....the past 30 years of neoliberalism is what led us here but we are going to repeat it again and Carney will somehow make it work this time /s
•
u/mcurbanplan Skeptical of Carney | Québec 12h ago
He spoke in vague generalities (smart, strategically thinking). Also, removing red tape ≠ privatizing everything.
But as I said, he will justify it as standing up to Trump or whatnot, and a lot of people who normally wouldn't tolerate it, would.
•
u/Former-Physics-1831 Unreconstructed NeoLib 12h ago
He spoke very specifically about the need to build more shit, reduce reviews of major projects, and increase productivity
And if there's a universe where he's "privatizing everything" it ain't this one
•
u/mcurbanplan Skeptical of Carney | Québec 12h ago
As opposed to all other politicians who run on building nothing and creating a bureaucracy.
Actions, both past and present, along with official statements, speak louder than campaign promises.
But even if he had been fully transparent and thorough, it doesn't make it good policy.
•
u/Former-Physics-1831 Unreconstructed NeoLib 12h ago
Whether other politicians run on the same thing is immaterial to what Carney ran on, and whether it is at all logical to vote for him and then act shocked when he does the thing he ran on
•
u/mcurbanplan Skeptical of Carney | Québec 11h ago
My point is that people shouldn't be shocked based on his background.
But he did speak in vague terms and doesn't have a mandate to act like this.
•
u/Former-Physics-1831 Unreconstructed NeoLib 11h ago
And I'm saying you shouldn't expect people to be upset when the guy they voted for to liberalize the economy does just that
•
u/TopazJazzrazz NDP-CCF 11h ago
He ran on socialised housing, specifically stating that he'd create a program/service that would act as a developer. He ran on strengthening the CBC/Radio Canada, he has cut funding to them. I'm not saying he was running on a Social-Democratic policy, but he certainly was not running on this mass defunding of a bunch of stuff, threatening workers rights, and more that he is currently doing domestically. Even the pipeline was nowhere in his platform until he got a majority.
•
u/Former-Physics-1831 Unreconstructed NeoLib 11h ago
He ran on cutting civil service spending, he ran on reduced reviews for projects. Yes, he ran on pipelines - he repeatedly talked about wanting to build every kind of energy infrastructure, everywhere we could.
Like give me a break with this
→ More replies (0)•
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 6h ago
Imagine if instead of water, it was a vital bridge, and the government used its power to get a fairer deal for its people by demanding the investor in that bridge hand over a big chunk of income and equity interest, because it had that power and should use it for its' peoples' interests.
Would you support that, too?
•
u/ether_reddit British Columbia 7h ago
All Carney is doing here is using his expertise in economics to warn the UK of the consequences of expropriating a utility without compensation to the owners. Anyone with his experience would do the same, but coming from him the message might actually get through.
What is the problem with this?
•
7h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 6h ago
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
•
u/MrFenrirulfr 8h ago
Lasting social programs are a luxery of a strong economy. You need to generate wealth before you can redistribute it, and for a decade we focused more on redistribution over generation.
Now the nation as a whole is worse off for it. Its time to return to generation and given his support in the polls it seems like Canadians are on board with it.
•
u/mcurbanplan Skeptical of Carney | Québec 8h ago
Using economic downturns as an excuse to push through objectively bad policy is the oldest trick in the book.
•
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 12h ago edited 12h ago
It is a little bit hard to take a publication seriously when they write nonsense like this:
Ottawa was lobbying primarily on behalf of the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), the country’s national bank champion. It is not known whether the Canadian officials were acting on the instructions of RBC senior figures or independently.
For the record, Canada has five big banks. RBC is the biggest, but not by much. TD Canada Trust is very close behind them. Any two combined of the next three have more assets than RBC.
I also love how they slip the insinuation of the Government of Canada "acting on the instructions of RBC senior figures..." without any foundation or explanation. Just Asking Questions, you know. Very National Post of them. They're not even Canadian, and they're making menacing shadow puppets out of the spooky, nefarious, and always present and never defined Laurentian Elite. How culturally sensitive of them.
And yes, if you seize foreign investor assets without compensation, foreign investors will be less likely to invest. I don't know why that would be such a difficult concept.
And think of it this way - if you're looking to end "neoliberalism", the complete end of foreign investment in your country is a good thing that you are trying to bring about!
Also, other countries seizing your investors' and government property is great, because its another blow to neoliberalism!
And global trade on a monetary exchange basis is incompatible with an end to capitalism, anyway! So we can all just wind up just trading with America again, because when it comes to seizing foreign assets, for some reasons they tend not to be American assets.
•
u/MineralAcids Independent 11h ago
It's the Torygraph. They're like Postmedia for the british wealthy class, or those who'd like to think of themselves as that.
•
u/rageagainstthedragon Social Democrat 12h ago edited 12h ago
Socializing losses for private investors = Okay ✅
Socializing important industries and utilities to safeguard them from private sector exploitation = Not okay 🚫
•
u/Former-Physics-1831 Unreconstructed NeoLib 12h ago
Yeah, doing things that protect Canadians from suffering losses are generally approved of, and doing things that potentially harm Canadian investments are generally not
Which part of that is controversial?
•
12h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
11h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
•
12h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
12h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
12h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
11h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
•
11h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
•
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 9h ago
Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
•
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 9h ago
Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
•
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 11h ago
They are free to seize whatever they wish.
If they do so without independently assessed compensation, its stealing.
That's fine as far as it goes. But investors do tend to be reticent to invest in countries that "liberate" their investments. And that is fair to say.
The left has an odd relationship to foreign investments. These are evil, of course, and must be seized. Otherwise foreign capitalists will own productive assets in your country.
But then when those foreign investments go away, either by refusal of investors to invest, or sanctions (which is just liberating part of an economy from evil foreign capitalist interference), that is also bad.
So here we have Carney defending a Canadian capitalist investment in the UK (how dare he! Foreign investment is evil neoliberalism!) by warning that seizing it may lead to no more Canadian capital invesrment in the UK (how dare he! Cutting off foreign investment is evil neoliberalism!)
The UK needs to pick a lane. So does the left. Do they want investments, or are they going full Venezuela or straight up Juche?
•
u/Aud4c1ty Independent 12h ago
I mean, this is obvious to everyone - if the UK government is going to take ownership of a company, they need to compensate the shareholders of said company at fair market value.
If they attempt to avoid it, then the courts almost certainly will force them to do so. Therefore, they should avoid the political black eye.
•
u/awildstoryteller Alberta 10h ago
Market value of some of these companies is below zero because they have extracted profits, heavily indebted themselves to do so, and are now on the verge of collapse when they were charged with a very important task.
Anyone who invested in these companies knowing this was foolish if they thought the music would never stop. And to be frank, anyone who lended them money was too.
No one deserves to be compensated when they make a bad investment.
•
u/Aud4c1ty Independent 10h ago
Sure, but that's the job of the investor - establish the current state and future prospects of the company before investing. And since investors control the board of directors which keeps tabs on management, there is a line of control for their investment.
If you have a functioning/profitable company and a government just decides to steal it (like Venezuela did with oil companies), then that means your economy loses funding and eventually fails because investors are usually pretty smart.
•
u/awildstoryteller Alberta 9h ago
Sure, but that's the job of the investor - establish the current state and future prospects of the company before investing.
Yes. It is.
If anyone who did so and is still invested in these companies is at all surprised this is a possibility now, they deserve to lose money.
•
u/PolitelyHostile 10h ago
Yea it isnt even a statement that privitization is better for the end users, just that Canadian investors should receive market value for the assets they own. Which is kind of true, they opened it up to investment, Canadian investors didnt force them to do so.
But its also a great example of why things should rarely ever be sold to private investors. You can't just undo the transaction.
In principle idk if im opposed to the government nationalizing it and paying below fair value. Sure the value increased due to the investor capital, but the value also increases usually from just the price gouging the end users.
Like the 407 probably didnt get any big major upgrades, the investors increased the value by gouging drivers to the extreme.
•
u/MineralAcids Independent 12h ago
For context:
This is the Telegraph, also known as Torygraph. This article is largely a hit piece on Burnham. It's spinning half a quote into fear-mongering that Burnham is about to turn Britain into a communist economic wasteland.
•
u/Sir__Will Prince Edward Island 6h ago
What the UK did with control of their water was absolutely idiotic and they've been paying for it for decades. And it's only going to get worse. The sooner they finally bite the bullet and reverse it, the better. The fact that Carney is butting in and warning him against it is absolutely disgusting. Oh, he's a banker alright. At the end of the day, money is what he cares about most. Before people, environment, the good of the nation. Those only matter through the lens of dollar signs to him.
•
u/neontetra1548 Ontario 12h ago edited 12h ago
Oof. Not only is our government of neoliberal true-believers against nationalization here in Canada but now we're threatening the UK with capital flight if the UK takes legitimate and sovereign actions for their country?
And of course nationalization will come with compensation in the UK. Burnham is not Mao or the Soviets.
I wish Carney would pick up some of Burnham's analysis against the failures of neoliberalism to help us move in that direction as well but instead from this article sounds like the opposite and we're threatening the UK to not do what they need to do in their sovereign country? Not good.
Prime Minister banker of the cross-party Liberal/Conservative neoliberal consensus can only get us so far. Neoliberalism and financialization of everything is a huge problem he will never be able to address nor will either the LPC or the CPC until they reckon with the failure of neoliberalism and financialization of society and our economies. But he's international capital's guy it seems. It seems we are very far from grappling with the harms of neoliberalism in Canada. If anything we're driving more into that unsustainable inequality machine under Carney.
•
u/WoodenCourage New Democratic Party of Canada 10h ago
> Neoliberalism and financialization of everything is a huge problem he will never be able to address nor will either the LPC or the CPC until they reckon with the failure of neoliberalism and financialization of society and our economies.
There is no reckoning with anything. Those failures are completely intentional. The results were predicted and by design.
> If anything we're driving more into that unsustainable inequality machine under Carney.
Yes, this is the whole point. The historically high levels of economic inequality isn’t an unfortunate result: it is the goal. That’s how the wealthy get more wealth and power. Carney isn’t stupid. He knows exactly what his policies have done and will cause.
He’s using the distraction of Trump to sell off the country to the highest bidder. And the bidder is mostly the Americans. Someone interested in protecting our sovereignty wouldn’t be pushing for building data centres for American tech companies, which are subject to the CLOUD Act. Someone interested in diversifying our O&G sector wouldn’t consider funding and building a major pipeline for an American company a “national interest” project. Someone interested in trying to protect the Canadian economy from the US wouldn’t be hosting an investment summit which include many major Trump-align American companies and is mostly attended by American companies. But someone interested in only serving capital and only caring about benefiting the wealthiest among us absolutely would.
•
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 12h ago
Broadly, if a country invites foreigners to invest, and then steals of those foreigners' investments, further foreigners will be wary of investing in that country, yes. I don't know about you, but I seldom lend money to people who steal my money, even if its in name of ending my tyrannical neoliberal policy of having my own money.
Also, its worth a warning that if the UK does that to Canadian assets, then it would be odd for the UK to complain if Canada seized British assets in Canada.
This is how trade relationships break down.
•
u/neontetra1548 Ontario 12h ago edited 12h ago
Nationalization with compensation and following legal processes isn't stealing. It's fully legitimate.
•
u/TGrumms 12h ago
Yes, but the premise of this article is that Carney said investors need to be appropriately compensated else it will lead to capital flight. It’s simply a reminder that we are a stakeholder, and compensation is needed so investors are confident in continued investment.
It’s not a threat, and if compensation is a given as you stated then this is a nothing burger of an article.
•
u/Former-Physics-1831 Unreconstructed NeoLib 12h ago
Whether it's legally stealing, forcing an unwilling party to sell to you - even with a healthy markup - is not a friendly action.
I would fully expect our PM to look out for Canadian interests overseas
•
u/PineBNorth85 Rhinoceros 12h ago
Our government does that to our own people regularly to get stuff built. There are laws on the books for all of those scenarios in most countries.
•
u/Former-Physics-1831 Unreconstructed NeoLib 12h ago
Sure, but eminent domain is hugely controversial and is used sparingly because it does generate so much ill will
Nobody has said this is illegal.
•
u/StickmansamV British Columbia 9h ago
And it is invariable a hot button issue whenever expropriation is used
•
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 12h ago
Carney is not contesting that.
All he said was that there needs to be a fair compensation process.
Normally, that means at least binding arbitration by a neutral third party, not just a government paying what it feels like.
Burham is... iffy about that. Which could be a big problem all around.
•
u/Former-Physics-1831 Unreconstructed NeoLib 12h ago
He's not threatening anything. He's pointing out the natural consequences to hostile action towards investors.
The UK can do what it wants, but if it harms Canadians or Canadian assets, the Canadian government is going to speak up about it
•
u/neontetra1548 Ontario 12h ago edited 12h ago
Nationalization of water being a "hostile action towards investors" is exactly why we should never let capital own and extract money from these vital things in the first place. It's water. It's a river. This is rentier capitalism and landlordism which Adam Smith warned against. It seems like capitalists have just thrown out Adam Smith's warnings against this and think rentierism is a good thing now.
All you're demonstrating here is how internalizationed capital is not aligned with the interests of a country and allowing it to gain ownership control and influence over a country's sovereign essential assets is a threat to a country's sovereignty and economy and people.
Sure I agree that it's international capital acting rationally and maybe it is the "natural consequence". Capital acting rationally against the interests of the people and the country is yeah kind of the whole problem. You finalicialize everything and then the fundamentals of society are serving the rational interests of the capital owners not the people and the country. Leading to... the situation we're in now in our economies and societies.
All the more reason why we should never let this kind of control happen in the first place and it needs to stop with as gentle a landing as possible. We are now being held hostage by the self-interested forces it creates. It should have never been allowed to gain control like this over fundamental essential assets in the first place if it will then exert this kind of pressure to maintain it's control over the fundamentals of a society like water.
It's going to be a gentle landing from rentierism if we guide it that way or it's going to be a hard landing when the unsustainable inequality machine collapses (economically or politically).
•
u/Former-Physics-1831 Unreconstructed NeoLib 12h ago
Yeah yeah yeah, you wish people hadn't invested in these assets. But the problem for you is that people did invest in these assets, and that comes with certain reasonable expectations, and any action that undermines their returns is going to reduce people's willingness to invest elsewhere, and if Canadians are a major part of that group, the Canadian government is going to have something to say about it
•
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 9h ago
" is exactly why we should never let capital own and extract money from these vital things in the first place. It's water. It's a river. This is rentier capitalism and landlordism which Adam Smith warned against.
I completely agree. It's absolute madness to hand natural monopolies to private ownership. There's no conceivable competition-efficiency-improvement incentive mechanism that can be at play here,.
The problem is, wise or not, Britain not only privatized these utilities, they specifically invited foreign investors in so that they could try to save them without committing public funds. They wanted to keep taxes low and public service payments on the increase, and this is what they came up with.
The thing is, this is entirely their mess, and their responsibility to clean up. Simply seizing the investments of companies who they asked to invest, and whose investments they specifically approved by regulator action, will send a message. That message will be: if you invest in the UK, the government may seize that investment if it deems it politically useful.
That will have direct and reciprocal consequences.
I have complicated thoughts about Thatcher. She was, at core, what she accused many of her opponents of being: someone who saw economics not as a pragmatic science, but an entirely moral exercise. This lead her to making some huge mistakes when it came to utilities and natural monopolies.
That mess needs to be cleaned up. But seizing foreign investments without fair assessment will do more harm than good, and like Brexit, is just another way for the electorate to try to dodge the hard work of actually fixing their country.
•
u/PineBNorth85 Rhinoceros 12h ago
It shouldnt. Private investors should be on their own.
•
u/Former-Physics-1831 Unreconstructed NeoLib 12h ago
I think it's pretty reasonable for the Canadian government to speak up about potential damage to Canadian investors.
They aren't back stopping their principle, just waving a red flag
•
u/MineralAcids Independent 11h ago
Against self-inflicted harm? Yes. Against governments suddenly changing the rules on them? Not entirely.
•
u/Lol-I-Wear-Hats Yimbyism or Barbarism 11h ago
“We are threatening the UK with capital flight”
If I say “if you kick the door your toe will hurt” I am not threatening your toe I am explaining the mechanics of smashing your toe into a door
•
u/neontetra1548 Ontario 11h ago
OK sure. The problem is the rational decision making incentives of international capital owning fundamental assets like this leads to loss of sovereignty of a country able to make decisions over its essential assets. Yes. Material analysis. I agree!
So can we agree we should never allow companies and in particular international capital to own essential assets like this in the first place since the inevitable result is then they will be incentivized in their rational self interest to extract maximum value and not operate in the interests of the society but rather their investment? We should never set up the automatic toe kicking machine on our essential assets in the first place. Agreed?
•
12h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 9h ago
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
•
10h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 10h ago
Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
•
u/TopazJazzrazz NDP-CCF 11h ago
I thought Mulrouney and Chrètien did enough damage to Canada. It appears so far that Carney is vying to replace that through massive privatisation. Andy Burnham, by comparison is already faced at the end of Neo-Liberal thought and trying to rebuild government infrastructure. We should learn from him instead of pursuing this, if the UK and US are anything to go off of, fruitless effort.
•
u/Lol-I-Wear-Hats Yimbyism or Barbarism 11h ago
What does this have to do with the article, where the prime minister is accused of the terrible act of protesting the suggestion that Canadians investments in a foreign country might be stolen
•
u/TopazJazzrazz NDP-CCF 10h ago
The Prime Minister's comments are redundant. Burnham already said that in the event of nationalisation investers will be compensated.
•
u/Former-Physics-1831 Unreconstructed NeoLib 10h ago
Where is this supposed "massive privatization" and what does it have to do with the PM correctly earning that eminent domain needs to come with fair compensation?
•
u/TopazJazzrazz NDP-CCF 10h ago
4 airports in a year, more to follow most likely. Even if it's other crown corporations. He's not going to stop.
•
u/Former-Physics-1831 Unreconstructed NeoLib 10h ago
He's proposed partially privatizing 4 airports after 2 years in office
This is not much for a slippery slope
•
u/TopazJazzrazz NDP-CCF 10h ago
He didn't do much until after the election. So I won't judge anything of his pre-election. Regardless, if you ask him he says he just got here. So I'll take his word over it over yours.
•
u/Former-Physics-1831 Unreconstructed NeoLib 10h ago
This isn't even attempting to reply to my comment
•
u/TopazJazzrazz NDP-CCF 10h ago
Honestly, what's there to respond to? Andy Burnham said any investers would be respected, defeating Carney's response entirely. And you said that there hasn't been mass privatisation, Carney has only privatised four airports in two years, because Carney was a caretaker governmennt prior to winning. Despite the fact that my claim is that Carney is going to engage in mass privatisation, and put us in a situation like where Britain will be prior to Burnham's nationalisation plans.
•
u/Former-Physics-1831 Unreconstructed NeoLib 9h ago
Carney won 18 months ago, what you can respond to is my point that there has been absolutely nothing to indicate any mass push for privatization
•
u/TopazJazzrazz NDP-CCF 9h ago
Chrètien didn't indicate privatisation, he opposed it vehemently in fact. Mulroney didn't indicate privatisation until after he was elected. Hell, even Harper didn't publically run on half the privatisations he ended up doing.
What I can recognise is ideological similarities between Carney and former Prime Ministers.
•
u/Former-Physics-1831 Unreconstructed NeoLib 9h ago
So when you said he was "vying to replace them through mass privatization" what you meant was "despite having no indication this is the plan, I want to assert it's the plan"?
→ More replies (0)•
•
u/Godzilla52 centre-right neoliberal 8h ago edited 8h ago
I'm kind of in the middle on this. I think The UK has been making mistakes it regards to it's steel and full rail re-nationalization (public rail companies themselves are fine, but as the EU and Japan have shown, liberalized rail sectors outperformed closed/uncompetitive rails sectors, so if British rail was going to be renationalized or a new public rail company form, it should have been accompanied by following the example of EU rail liberalization packages and opening the sector un to increased competition.) but water is one of the areas where the private companies have objectively underperformed and more public ownership would more than likely be a good thing. Though I think that Carney and other critics are also right that the government's unclear statements on renationalization, the potential lack of compensation and leaving investors up in the air is a bad look and that a lot of the government's previous efforts does signal that a lot of the new UK government's recent policies have been trying to harvest from the UK economy rather than grow it's stagnating productivity and investment since 2007.
There are public ownership models that the UK could pursue to mitigate those worries though without scaring away or alienating investors and I think at least in terms of water, it's one of the areas that would benefit from some form of public ownership.
•
u/AutoModerator 12h ago
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.