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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Bema(Bgo) and Arizona Star -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (10335)	4/30/2002 11:19:58 PM
From: Bat Man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10482

I Couldn't care less about the lumber, if I had anything to do with it , all exports of lumber to the U.S. would just cease , then you'd have no complaints, new markets would be found in Asia. The U. S could find it (wood) elsewhere case closed. You were calling Nflders bums, when just the opposite is true, 25% unemployment and you would have them export their unfinished natural resources that is my point. You said Nfld didn't have enough resources to support the population. That's bull. As for water, The Nfld government was about to begin exports, the feds would have nothing to do with it, even though it is a provincial resource. The province ended up with a feasibility study, and found it would be unprofitable no doubt with the help of the feds they are the same color. Elizabeth aren't you in California? You've sucked up all the water from the western states maybe there's not enough resources there to support the population, and you should stop being a drag on the other states, and change your (not in my backyard attitude) when it comes to energy One other point about the wood , you guys are the ones complaining , like you don't like less expensive houses or something. Anyway Elizabeth I'm done with these issues , unlesss you really tempt me again, because you reallly don't know what you're getting into. Now you went and done it again, I read your second post, that's the first time I've been called a Liberal. Why don't you and your buddy Gray Davis pack up and leave for a place that can support you, with water and all, maybe some energy that wasn't shipped over the mountains. With the hot air you spew you can probably run one of those wind generators all by yourself. Goodbye! P.S. I have nothing against the U.S. or the people, but you have a problem

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (10335)	4/30/2002 11:37:39 PM
From: bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10482

Elizabeth, Don't bait Elmer. It won't lead to a useful discussion on political risk. If possible, I'd like to have that discussion because it is one I've not seen elsewhere. The strange thing about political risk is that often there is little of it in dealing with totalitarian states. With them there is a one-time risk that occurs when then person in power is deposed, dies, etc. The Shah of Iran, for instance or Amin or....you get the idea. With that kind of power, they can make a deal and enforce it. When they die or are deposed, the risk is that having made a deal, the company will now be identified with the past dictator and will be the enemy. There is more political risk when a system crumbles--Jugoslavia, the USSR--and control from the centre is lost. With no effective central govt. you get versions of Afghanastan, better or worse. The other risk is a political situation where there is so much corruption that no deal is safe--if BreX hadn't been a scam, it would still have been stolen. There is a group that lists countries by corruption and issue a list once a year. What about political risk? Are there countries where the threadsters wouldn't invest? Are there countries where you'd invest but only with your finger on the trigger? If Kinross said they were going to mine gold in China would you jump out? In Indonesia? North Korea? Iraq? Iran?