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

To: mcg404 who wrote (20050)	1/9/2004 1:27:07 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81987

John > 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? You ask very difficult questions, in fact, questions which make one ask oneself what the whole purpose of the game is? And, indeed, what is the purpose of life, society, civilization etc? As society is set-up at present, in my opinion, it is about which 'elite' is the most 'elite' of them all. Who, in fact, is the winner of the 'beauty contest'. And to win that contest one also has to be the richest, the most powerful and also live the longest. Mirror, mirror on the wall who is the most beautiful of us all?! I found a game which seems to demonstrate much what you were describing in your excellent description of the problems confronting regulation in life, business and, indeed, in society. cajungames.com >>>Food Chain is a strategy-board game based on the delicate balance of nature, where cartoon creatures must eat one another in order to survive. You control the fate of the creatures in this turn-based game of predator and prey by deciding who will eat and who will be eaten. Easy to learn, but difficult to master.<<< Talking about the survival of the "little people", I wonder if you have read this piece by Spengler? atimes.com

To: mcg404 who wrote (20050)	1/9/2004 5:33:36 PM
From: IngotWeTrust	Respond to of 81987

I'm happy to deal with the questions regarding big and small mining from my perspective as a miner,...I've got something stuck on my clipboard which I wish to post elsewhere, back in a few.

To: mcg404 who wrote (20050)	1/9/2004 5:51:10 PM
From: IngotWeTrust	Respond to of 81987

To effectively treat this metastisized growth re: 1872 mining law discussion, I wish to perform an -ectomy, i.e., succintly answer in a series of posts. Allow me? <font color=slateblue> Is most of the general populace really disturbed when they learn of the mining law? </font> The most complete answer is yes, a big deal is made of it, particularly by treehuggers as environmental whackos are called in more mild epithets, create political capital when "revealing" this part of US Statutory law and privilege. <font color=slateblue>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. </font> Answered. please hit "next..."

To: mcg404 who wrote (20050)	1/9/2004 6:08:55 PM
From: IngotWeTrust	Respond to of 81987

mcg continues...<font color=slateblue>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.</font> Interesting spec, but not quite on the mark. The 1872 Mining Law is a "portion" of specific legislation which had more to do with legislative fervor that sprang up from the overgrazing of rangeland by cattlemen in wild and wooly range wars fought between those that fenced and those that didn't, as well as those that raise sheep and those that only wanted cattle to graze unimpeded back in that "era." Overgrazing occurred, deforestation occurred, and trespass upon miner's claims and property occurred. It was all incorporated into one legislative jaugernaut omnibus "fix." Fascinating, 1872 mining law origin, yes? Said legislative history is part and parcel of the well researched/documented/and photographic illustrated portion of the now famous Oregon Trail which "oped the west" and has been preserved, including historical ruts in both trail remnants and worn limestone rock ruts in many passes. Much of this historical mining linkage with agriculture and timber industry is preserved in quite a fascinating display in the humongous Oregon Trail Museum outside Baker City OR next...

To: mcg404 who wrote (20050)	1/9/2004 6:17:54 PM
From: IngotWeTrust	Respond to of 81987

mcg's errant spec continues unabated<font color=slateblue> 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. </font> Not even close. I was a "farmer's wife" (wheat/soybeans/cattle/alfalfa) for 13 years before the career change into precious metals recycling and ultimately lode and placer mine owner. Don't get me started on the absolutely righteous necessities for subsidies, one of a plethora of economic tools utilized by governments in every modernized nation I know of to preserve, enhance and assist various "food production" sectors in particular. I don't believe "subsidies" is even a "western concept...so your "reach" doesn't have any place in this discussion with the exception of how it linked in your mind.

To: mcg404 who wrote (20050)	1/9/2004 6:36:19 PM
From: IngotWeTrust	Respond to of 81987

mcg continues after rant...<font color=slateblue>I seem to recall from some posts you made years ago 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.</font> I am NOT of the opinion that Barrick "abused" the mining law. WhereEVER did you get that mistaken notion? I am grateful for large mining in this nation, and in this state in particular. Most miners with whom I associate are very grateful for their good mining jobs, especially if they are fortunate to work for one of the large mining companies (which translates into benefits...) I belong to one of the largest and most active professional mining organizations on the left coast. God Bless "big." If it wasn't for "big," then SWC wouldn't have been permitted to be bought out by Norlisk for cash and Palladium, so that you and others in this world can keep driving inefficient hydrocarbon propelled conveyances, both dual and multi-axles. next... Sorry, but I'm not a gold miner who is "particularly gored" by big mining business as you have assumed. I'm damn grateful because they are primarily are the only ones who beat back Clinton's stupid assault on mining and had the deep pockets to keep the enviro whackos at bay in their "wilderness corridor" land grabs, et al, especially out here in the Western USA. next... 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

To: mcg404 who wrote (20050)	1/9/2004 6:49:58 PM
From: IngotWeTrust	Respond to of 81987

mcg continues with pontificating rant <font color=slateblue>...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' </font> they do? According to whom? <font color=slateblue>...and seem to too strongly view the government as only an enemy to be battled at ever turn. </font> they do? According to whom? <font color=slateblue>When in fact, their true 'enemy' is big business - since big business frequently creates the problems for which government regulation is created...</font> Tis not, and "according to whom?<font color=slateblue> ...but then the regulatory burden falls most heavily on the small businesses.</font> Man, who writes your material? A Leno reject? <font color=slateblue> And small businesses don't have the clout to get all the other political preferential treatment, tax breaks, etc. that the big businesses enjoy. </font> FYI, small business get a different set of "breaks, rules, and cronyism" which work in their favor. Are you suggesting "big breaks are better" than serial small breaks in the mining sector? Doesn't work that way in the real world out here in the West. <font color=slateblue>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. </font> No big mining biz trickin' me. Nor any other miner I have heard rant locally or regionally. We are damned grateful in this county in particular to have one of this nations 9 largest limestone mines in the nation lighting up the night sky and pouring over a million dollars in tax revenues into the local county coffers. I repeat, we in the "smaller end" of the mining business (which I'm defining as < $50 million assayed reserves category-- we are DAMNED grateful for the big business, yes, including multi-national goldminers in our nation who have kept the political doors open, the lights on, the jobs intact during the Clinton/Gore goofy administration. Bushie Jr., is doing his dead-level best to re-insert sanity into this sector, and gets my vote for another 4 years to continue what he started. PS...I never take my "inner child" to the mines. next...

To: mcg404 who wrote (20050)	1/9/2004 7:00:05 PM
From: IngotWeTrust	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81987

mcg rhetorical musings aloud continue...<font color=slateblue>Should the battle lines be re-drawn: not business versus government and business versus labor but rather big versus small?</font> Draw your battle lines in your own mind whereever you want. Me and other miners? We'll sit out your battle. I'm not aware of any miner who doesn't want to get bigger, find more gold, prove up more reserves, claim more land, and then patent it--all eminating from low economic barrier entry fee of $100 for $20 acres plus filing fees and annual proof of labor or payment of assessment fees with required forms and filings. You haven't touched on our mining issues at all. It isn't big vs little, it isn't gov't vs business, it isn't price of gold. It is another matter entirely, and purely based in wolf-ish greed dressed in environmental sheepskins. Contorted fabrications and extrapolations you've posited from your horizontal "high-ground" has nothing to do with the $10M rhetorical valued land for a mere $10,000 Barrick deal mining issue upon which I'm focused like a laser beam. Babbit did worse with his Utal Coal deal to China under Clinton. You going to give "democrat -ectomy" equal time? Somehow I doubt it... next? Nope, I'm bored.