SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: long-gone who wrote (75107)8/16/2001 1:07:08 PM
From: Rarebird  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 116922
 
Anyone who would like to profit in the Gold Market, on the long and short side, would be wise IMO to ignore a Loser like you.

I don't care what you think.

The Gold Market will ultimately bottom IMO after you get totally wiped out and give up. $700 POG. HAHAHA!

I'm quite pleased with today's action in the gold market thus far as I called for the XAU to bust through the 57 level a couple of days ago.

Poor little long-gone, hates the world and life.



To: long-gone who wrote (75107)8/16/2001 6:05:04 PM
From: E. Charters  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116922
 
BC does auction treelands. You bid on plots against other firms when they become available. The suggested amounts of stumpage are the minimums. This is how it works. NOBODY actually PAYS the MINIMUMS. I have done this.

THE US TRADE COMMISSION IS LYING TO EVERYBODY. As usual. The US is suggesting that Canada go away from a free market, and raise the minimums. This is the typical US socialist model coming from a socialist economic principal of free, not protected trade. It was the Keynesian economists who suggested that free trade was the best idea, not John Stuart Mill or Adam Smith. During the time of Mill and Smith, the US depended on internal tariffs to protect its industries, its currency, and PAY ALL GOV'T costs. The Jefferson gov't in 1801 operated with no internal tax except excise, and made a surplus! Because of low debt and the customs of the people it did not need tax and social welfare.

It is hardly inherently conservative to suppose that internal industries that support labour in a country and are developed to suit a country's economy should be killed off in favour of buying from another country. This assumes that the money can be just printed to buy it! What if all the trade is less efficient in the home country? How do you trade then? At a loss? How ridiculous! If one country has smaller markets, all its trade will be less efficient. It MUST lower its currency exchange in order to export, and thus BECOME an exporting nation! And it has little choice but to export raw materials that do not suffer from inherent manufacturing scale and domestic development scale problems.

In other words, in order to develop an industry you have to sell domestically. To develop by hoping for overseas trade requires a lot of support as in Japan after WWII. Raw materials are easier to see.

The whole softwood tariff and perceived cost problem can be summed up in one phrase. Exchange rates. The lower Canadian dollar is causing the prices to be cheaper. Can it be anything else? Has softwood from Canada always been cheaper? We would want the higher price would we not? Would we be able to undercut wood? Wouldn't this effect have been seen in the past? Haven't we been selling softwood lumber worldwide for centuries? Why hasn't anyone complained before? Because they needed the timber and it ISN'T high cost. It's cheap! as with most resources it cost nature a hell of a lot more to grow it than we charge for it in any country.

Why complain about one of the supposed main BENEFITS of free trade i.e CHEAP materials from OVERSEAS to MAKE things from CHEAP, and PROFIT! (as in homes and other stuff made out of timber). So, what is it really all about? IT'S ALL ABOUT FREE TRADE NOT BEING FREE, BUT DICTATED TRADE, DICTATED BY THE USA.

It is entirely possible that a FREE, non-excessively-taxing nation, (we wish), could price its services lower, its forest fees lower, allow the companies to compete for timber - and - with a low exchange rate, cheap hydro, fabulous rainforest, a good road and rail system and proximity to markets - SELL TIMBER CHEAP OVERSEAS.

This, I believe, is what is called a free, non subsidized market.

What the US wants in Canada to offset its "natural timber harvesting advantage" is HIGHER GOVERNMENT FEES and TAXES in Canada! And believe me, if history is any guide, they want it entirely for their imperialist benefit. I guess they want it to TAKE OVER defunct Canadian producers when the high tariffs and foreign, protected production have killed them off!

I have said in the past that Canada in fact does not have a natural timber harvesting advantage. This is true. But it does have a weak dollar. This, the States cannot get around.

EC<:-}