Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: isopatch who wrote (88415)	3/8/2001 11:57:48 AM
From: kingfisher	Respond to of 95453

Lumber lobby fingers power switch Forestry industry sees electricity, gas exports as trade weapons James Baxter The Ottawa Citizen Block Canadian lumber from entering the U.S. and Canada could dim the lights on a continental energy policy, former Ontario premier Bob Rae warned in a speech yesterday in Washington. "The premise of (the Canada-U.S free trade agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement) is that it is not really open to any of us to retreat into protectionism," Mr. Rae said during a lunchtime speech to the Canadian-American Business Council. "Once that starts to happen, others will do the same. President (George W.) Bush is now making the case for a truly continental approach to energy. California's difficulties with deregulation made British Columbia's surplus in energy a critical lifeline for the West Coast economy." Mr. Rae then inserted into his speech a line used by U.S. Ambassador Gordon Giffin in a speech more than two years ago threatening Canada over its planned protection for the magazine industry. "Open trade is a two-way street," Mr. Rae said. Mr. Rae, now a Toronto trade lawyer representing Canada's Free Trade Lumber Council, said a climate of acrimony and distrust has been spawned by the "tired bromides" of U.S. lumber companies lobbying Washington for protections against Canadian wood products that threatens one of the world's best trading relationships. Mr. Rae's threats were echoed by Arkansas-born executive Tom Stephens, a former chief executive of MacMillan Bloedel, who, at a forestry conference in Vancouver, reminded U.S. policymakers that without Canadian energy, "they had better learn to speak Arabic and read by candlelight." Mr. Rae said U.S. lumber companies are relying on old, "demonstrably false myths" to garner support for sweeping protectionist legislation. "We hear the old line that the provinces subsidize the industry, that log export restraints are unfair, that the federal government and the provinces don't have environmental laws as strong as the Americans' and that this amounts to a subsidy as well. We are told that Canadian railways subsidize logs, and that the Canadian dollar itself is a problem," Mr. Rae said. "The only problem with these arguments is that they are not true. They are demonstrably false, and no amount of political pressure will make them true." But Rusty Wood, president of the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, issued a statement yesterday saying disgruntled Canadian mill operators have been leaking "dirty little secrets" and that Canada should be prepared for a long battle over the $11-billion sector once the existing five-year deal on softwood lumber expires at the end of this month. Mr. Rae said there have already been three "wars" over lumber between Canada and the U.S. He said Canada believes it must go to the mat this time rather than capitulate in the interest of expediency. "From a Canadian perspective, I hope our American friends will understand when we say that these are battles we have to fight ... and on appeal and review we always seem to win, and yet find that the political pressures are such, and the imbalance in our relationship so great, that some kind of restraints always end up being imposed," Mr. Rae said. "The American economy needs Canadian wood, just as surely as it needs Canadian oil and gas and electricity and much else that we produce in our increasingly integrated world."

To: isopatch who wrote (88415)	3/8/2001 1:03:31 PM
From: paul feldman	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 95453

From DOWNSOUTH on the Gorilla and King thread: Being a bear right now is as dangerous as being a bull in last year’s bubble. money.net "The premise of the bear case is that capital spending in Telecom continues to decline, which forces smaller Telecom companies out of business AND takes down many suppliers down with them. The theory is based on a prediction that the Fed was too late to save these companies and the end results spin us into a depression-like scenario that takes-down ALL stocks. The argument makes sense if you consider the situation that Japan is in right now. It certainly seems possible that we were not able to learn from their mistakes. The problem with that line of thinking is that WE ARE NOT JAPAN! Our corporate culture is much different. We tend to crunch debt, turn it into equity and move on. Japan has yet to re-liquefy their debt. Perhaps we learned through the savings and loan crisis in the late 80’s. We got through that mess. It took some time and it wasn’t pretty but we got through it. To listen to someone like Bill Fleckenstein on CNBC last Friday and hear how he isn’t buying ANY stocks (he is shorting many companies) and is only buying 2-year treasuries, tells me that he hasn’t learned much either. Admitting to have missed all of the last bull market, he is proud to say he has not been torn-apart in this downturn. Sounds good right now. I don’t know. I would have rather lost 30 percent and still be up 50 percent over the last five years than be compounding safely at five or six percent. Avoiding all stocks is like saying that companies like Alcoa AA and McDonald’s MCD are headed for bankruptcy. Avoiding all stocks demonstrates a clear lack of fundamental economic concepts. When the Fed changes monetary policy and begins to ease, it always helps the bottom line- even for poorly-run companies. Being a bear right now is as dangerous as being a bull in last year’s bubble. It is as stupid as being bullish on "only Tech" right now. It is ignorant to ignore the bull market in the NYSE, where money is being made in "boring" stocks. Being a bear means that you have no belief in corporate America and that we got where we are today merely by accident. I think that is extreme. Being a "full-time" bear is in my mind- un-American. While there are always companies that do not survive a severe economic slowdown, there are many companies that actually become better because of it. While it makes sense at different times to be either bullish or bearish, it is never a good idea to become a full-time bull or bear. There is no one camp that always gets it right. The way to make money long-term is to maintain an optimistic spirit and be flexible enough to change with market conditions. In other words, I’d rather wear the costumes than actually be the animal! Joseph C. Newtz is an Independent Financial Consultant. At any given time, he or his clients maybe long certain positions mentioned in this column. Newtz's writings provide insights into the dynamics of money management and are not a solicitation for transactions. While he cannot provide investment advice or recommendations, he invites you to comment on his column at bullrun@stargate.net. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------