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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doug Soon who wrote (12110)	11/30/2001 1:21:51 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I completely agree Doug.. It is a very complex issue. And I think the softwood issue is more complext that others are willing to admit up there in Canada. There seems to be a lot of concern about the loss of Canadian jobs in the timber industry, but I don't see the Canadians show much sympathy for all the job losses in the US due to Canadian timber subsidies: And I know that stumpage fees in the US are relatively high, since some of my relatives used to engage in cutting firewood commerically, and the cost of purchasing the timber from the government struck me as significant. And the fair lumber coalition claims the following numbers: fairlumbercoalition.org fairlumbercoalition.org Now the question is how the US should respond. Should we lower our own stumpage fees to match those of Canada? That surely would enrage US environmentalists and tax payer groups. Or should we direct some of those tariff streams directly to the US lumber industry, thus facilitating a lowering of the tariff rates (why should the penalty fees go to the government, when it's the US logging industry that's suffering the losses). It's politics and eventually they will sort it out. Hawk