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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (14321)	2/2/2002 4:33:51 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Interesting ... haven't followed mx.to for years, it was a hot stock in the early nineties, i held a little at a couple of points ... i remember one broker with a major smile over it, he had it personally and had all his clients into it, just happened to reset most of the stops immediately before it peaked out, made his reputation right there ... despite the less than stellar performance of xxx.v on which he was also hot 'n heavy -g- MBTE i know little about ... problem is leakage from old gas tanks, aren't the gas stations supposed to have replaced all those old tanks? ... i guess one problem is that gasoline is so cheap in the US, not a tax vehicle as in all other places, so there is minimal economic incentive to avoid wastage ... but this whole thing of companies being able to use trade agreements to override environmental law is in principle wrong, no doubt about that ... the question should be determined on the merits of whether or not the benefits of MBTE outweigh its risks, period ... it's a scientific matter and the law should reflect that fact ...... here's another situation, California company extorts cash from México for being barred from destroying a people's neighbourhood and the habitat of rare cactus - 'In a similar case decided earlier this month, an international arbitration tribunal ordered Mexico to pay $16.6 million to a California company, Metalclad, after the Mexican state and municipal governments refused to permit the company to operate a hazardous waste facility near local residences. Metalclad built the hazwaste facility after getting permits from the Mexican federal government. But the governments of the state and city of Aguascalientes refused to permit the facility to open or operate, leaving the property standing vacant for years. Metalclad wanted its money back. The NAFTA arbitrators considered the city's refusal to allow the plant to operate - based on opposition to the project by local residents and concerns that the facility would cause environmental harm - a violation of NAFTA's requirement of "fair and equitable treatment." The tribunal also found that the state government had violated NAFTA by declaring the area around the waste facility site an ecological zone in which potentially polluting activities are prohibited to protect rare cactus. The measure meant the facility could not operate there. In a U.S. court, the Metalclad challenge would have failed. Under U.S. law, the state government’s action would likely not be considered a taking of the investor's property requiring compensation under the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The NAFTA arbitrators, however, required payment to the company, regardless of whether or not the measure was necessary to protect the environment. Environmentalists are citing the Methanex and Metalclad cases as examples of some of the worst environmental and democratic shortcomings of NAFTA. ' ens.lycos.com Really i wonder just how 'canehjun' is Methanex anyway, haven't they had that meoh.naz listing for ten years or so - ca.finance.yahoo.com ... lots of outfits like this have US nationals as the majority of shareholders, really the nationality comes only from domicile and head office location, could as easily be some island in the Caribe ... i say screw the nationalities, let common sense and good science rule - and 'good science' means independent thorough careful study, not some polemic penned either by the Iowa maize lobby or by an MTBE-antecedent producer like Methanex .... if i was the judge on this case i would rule that the legislators should smarten the F up and insert a little common sense into parameters for trade agreements ... eh