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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Fascist Oligarchs Attack Cute Cuddly Canadians -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Snowshoe who wrote (129)	9/5/2001 12:44:16 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1293

Hi Snowshoe, Thanks for the link to the Sierra Club subsidy study. Here in the USA, subsidization of the timber industry has traditionally been achieved by the USDA's Forest Service in a number of different ways. While we may have the illusion of market based stumpage here, the fact of the matter is that for several decades now, all new logging roads created to extract the resource were bought and paid for by the Forest Service, and not by the timber extraction industry. An indirect subsidy, since the cost of the infrastructure is borne by the taxpayer, rather than by the timber companies and ultimately the consumer of lumber. This is just one of many schemes that have evolved over the years to provide corporate welfare. A category of government spending that significantly dwarfs the amounts of money spent by the Department of Health and Human Services directly on welfare payments to individuals. Though I'm often not in complete agreement with the political agenda of the Sierra Club, I do feel that they get things right in their analysis more often than not. The "Cutting Subsidies, or Subsidized Cutting?" document seems to be more honest analysis than polemical disputation. I like what I've read so far. Best, Ray :)