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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stribe30 who wrote (134441)	3/12/2001 3:01:40 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1575981

Stribe the articles you posted make a good case for the Canadian side of this dispute. Personally I normally will agree more with free trade. I am however an opponent of subsidies and I haven't looked in to the US lumber companies arguments yet. It seems to me that the main thing the American companies call a subsidy is low fees for cutting timber on public land. I think the US also has low fees for this. The difference is that Canada makes more land available, but America would still have something of a subsidy if you call these low fees a subsidy. The other things mentioned where rail subsidies and log export restrictions. If the rail subsidies apply only to Canadian companies then there might be something to this charge, but if American companies exports can move through Canada cheaply because of these subsidies then I would think its purely an internal Canadian issue rather then subverting free trade. As for the log export restrictions if American companies see this as a problem they should lobby directly against it rather then for further restrictions on trade. Tim