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.
Politics : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: IngotWeTrust who wrote (20046)1/9/2004 8:04:37 AM
From: sea_urchin  Respond to of 81987
 
Tutor > So, the $10Mil for $10K, while it may have been preferential , of that I have no doubt, was not illegal under our mining laws I'm sure would be proven had Rense or any of you pontificating USA bashing men's club puffers took the time to check, instead of grabbing some half revealed fact and running it into the ground.

Methinks the lady speaks with forked tongue.

While she runs down the rense source here, she nevertheless posts the whole piece verbatim elsewhere.

Message 19667345

And I think the reply is also of interest.

siliconinvestor.com

>>>The sad part is there is no doubt a lot of truth in your post about Barrick.<<<

So, does she actually have a point or is she merely intent on making mischief and insulting everyone?



To: IngotWeTrust who wrote (20046)1/9/2004 9:29:01 AM
From: mcg404  Read Replies (8) | Respond to of 81987
 
Is most of the general populace really disturbed when they learn of the mining law? I know nothing more than what you've described in your post, but it's not clear to me why most people would be disturbed by this in the context of the bush deal - or other situations. I'll stick my neck out and speculate that the origin of the mining law probably had more to do with providing some protection for small scale operators than simply a mechanism to transfer public resources into the hands of a few politically connected few. So we have well intentioned laws from one era abused by the big corporations of another - like agricultural price supports, initially implemented with the idea of providing some stability to the feast or famine problems of food production for small farmers - subsequently used to great advantage by agri-business. I don't fault businesses for seeking ways to maximize their profits by looking at the existing laws, determining how they can be used to their greatest advantage, and they proceeding accordingly. But i would fault the logic of supporting an unfair situation (that has become disconnected with the original situation) simply because 'it's the law'. Do we simply love the law (for its own sake) or do we look to the quality of justice it provides?

Of course one person's 'unfair situation' is another person's 'competitive advantage'. But in the endless cycle of loophole opening and closing (that keeps the legal profession alive) do we not want the law to (attempt to) provide some type of equitable balance between competing individual interests? And a balance between private interests and public interests? And where it clearly does not, should we say this no longer serves the interests of our society - and we change it. Not cling to it merely because it, at one point in time, served a useful purpose.

I seem to recall from some posts you made years ago (my apologies if i'm confusing you with someone else) that you do some small scale gold production and might in a general sense be considered a 'small business'. If this is correct, then i would think you would be disturbed that the mining law is being abused as described in the Barrick example.

Sticking my neck out further, i'll engage in the speculation (and by no means suggest it reflects your thinking) that it appears that many small businesses take the view that it's a battle of 'business versus the government' and seem to too strongly view the government as only an enemy to be battled at ever turn. When in fact, their true 'enemy' is big business - since big business frequently creates the problems for which government regulation is created...but then the regulatory burden falls most heavily on the small businesses. And small businesses don't have the clout to get all the other political preferential treatment, tax breaks, etc. that the big businesses enjoy. But the big businesses trick them (in a sense) into being their allies in the 'business versus government' war by appealing to the 'i want to (and should) be free to do my own thing' ideology that appeals to the inner child in all of us. Should the battle lines be re-drawn: not business versus government and business versus labor but rather big versus small?

<pontificating USA bashing men's club puffers > Exposing good old fashion political corruption is USA bashing? (although to be fair, i'm sure you meant to insult much more that is said here than just the discussion about this single issue) But isn't it just as dangerous to be a knee-jerk apologists as an unrestrained basher? Love of country should not require us to love those in power, especially if those in power are not merely 'bashing' the country but destroying it.