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: IngotWeTrust who wrote (20063)	1/10/2004 9:29:45 AM
From: mcg404	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81996

G_T, < If my "style" makes you uncomfortable…> Not really. You are more than a little entertaining and that’s at least part of the reason I’m here. (and it can get boring yakking back and forth with Searle about how bad a president George is) Maybe you’re a little opinionated but that’s not a problem because at least you sound knowledgeable about the things you have opinions on. My feigned wounded male pride was only a small attempt at humor in response to receiving seven responses filled with stick to the facts, no emotion, logical stuff such as <treehuggers as environmental whackos , mcg's errant spec continues unabated , Don't get me started on the absolutely righteous necessities for subsidies, mcg continues after rant..., Clinton's stupid assault on mining… the deep pockets to keep the enviro whackos at bay , Man, who writes your material? A Leno reject?, Clinton/Gore goofy administration, purely based in wolf-ish greed dressed in environmental sheepskins>. I can only imagine what you have to say about an issue about which you do get emotional! (g) <-- That g means just kidding, not to be take TOO seriously. OK? <<Is most of the general populace really disturbed when they learn of the mining law?>> <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.> Ok, so you really mean environmentalists…not the general populace. I’ll agree with that. But if you remove it from the context of mining and treehuggers, you have what is arguably an archaic law that is ripe for the abuse of political favoritism. Sure it’s the existing law, but is it unreasonable for fair minded people to question if that existing law should be modified so all members of the society somehow share in the benefits derived from the resource that in a very real sense belongs to all members of the society? (notwithstand the fact that those doing the extraction should derive some fair profit for doing their work.) <<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…>> <Interesting spec, but not quite on the mark….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…Overgrazing occurred, deforestation occurred, and trespass upon miner's claims and property occurred. It was all incorporated into one legislative jaugernaut omnibus "fix."> What you describe sounds (to me) very much like an attempt to provide protection for mining interests in the context of multiple competing uses. And it sounds reasonable…in the context in which it occurred. But we fast forward a hundred plus years and those circumstances no longer exist (at least in the form they did in 1872). Maybe a real need continues to exist for the law…or maybe its an unreasonable giveaway of public resources. I'm open to an argument it’s still needed, but a position of ‘too damn bad, this giveaway is guaranteed by the 1872 law and that is how is shall always be’ is pretty weak (imo). < Don't get me started on the absolutely righteous necessities for subsidies…> Actually, I’d like to get you started. Care to give an explanation why they’re absolutely necessary? All I have time for now. John

To: IngotWeTrust who wrote (20063)	1/11/2004 9:39:56 AM
From: mcg404	Respond to of 81996

g_t, <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. > I don’t understand how or why it being a ‘western concept’ is relevant to anything but subsidies are connected (in my mind, if no one elses) from the perspective that they are steps the government took, at one point in time, to see that businesses engaged in an activity that we all benefit from (ie, food production) are able to survive bad times so they can continue operation and produce food for us in the future. The alternative is to let ‘market forces’ make and break food producers and have a business cycle of surpluses and shortages in the food marketplace. No doubt the most efficient system possible since the market is always smarter than the ponderous hand of government. But since the teeming masses get a little unruly when their stomachs are growling, the government has decided to trade the efficiency of the market for the stability of a regulated system. This gives us a stable food supply, but in the process, it introduces inefficiency into the system. One of those inefficiencies is abuse of the subsidies by those clever enough to examine, evaluate and then ‘work’ the system. Not in the interest of furthering the government’s goal of food production stability, but their private goal of profits. And beyond only the efforts of the clever people gaming the system, we arguably have permanent changes in food production, preservation, distribution, etc. that reduce or in some cases eliminate the impact of production variability – which by itself could eliminate or reduce the ‘need’ for the government to do anything to ensure stability. And that’s why I see agricultural subsidies as another possible example of a legitimate, well-intentioned ‘law’ that has (in some cases) outlived its original purpose – like the mining law. Maybe, maybe not. But certainly a reasonable topic for debate among competing interests in our society. << 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. >> <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…> My apology that you interpreted MY characterization of the Barrick situation as reflecting your opinion. It was not my intent. And I have no problem with your support of ‘large mining’. Seems reasonable to me that people support positions even if they do not directly benefit from that support, but might benefit indirectly in a number of ways. And it seems that you feel that you do. But given all that, this is why I thought you might have been disturbed: The mining law (at least as I still understand it) was established to protect small interests - $100 labor/year? Was that the 1872 value? (Seems that would qualify as small even in 1872…) In any case, it’s small in 2004. So let’s say you still need that protection in 2004. (You certainly seem to still WANT it, I’m not sure how much need is still present.) So you need the protection and it’s absolutely necessary to keep small operations viable. Along comes a situation where the law is used as cover (at least as described in the Rense article) as blatant political payola. People look at the situation, conclude this law is being abused and eliminate it. The protection for small mines gets eliminated – not because a need no longer exists…but because it is being abused by the politically connected. I would think that you would be disturbed. <Clinton's stupid assault on mining…"wilderness corridor" land grabs> Do you have an explanation or a link that would help me see this? <<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... >> <Tis not, and "according to whom? > According to no one. Just some thoughts. But nothing you have said in response (ie, you support of large mining and comments about ‘land grabs’) suggests it is not consistent with your thinking. <<...but then the regulatory burden falls most heavily on the small businesses. >> <Man, who writes your material? A Leno reject? > That’s a low blow! (g) But from where I sit – that’s an accurate statement. I don’t know much about mining but I do know something about regulation and I see examples of such a regulatory imbalance constantly. But admittedly, my knowledge of regulation is just a small slice of the much bigger world – and the slice you are familiar with may be very different… <You haven't touched on our mining issues at all.> And it wasn’t really my intent. I was only using the Barrick situation as a way of examining larger issues. < You going to give "democrat -ectomy" equal time? Somehow I doubt it... > Maybe I’m misinterpreting your question, but you are mistaken if you think I support the democratic party and would provide rebuttals consistent with their positions. (I’m going to continuing ‘wasting’ my vote on protest candidates like ralph nader, although someone like ron paul would be much more to my liking.) To the extent that I support environmental positions (and I do many), I believe they rightfully belong and must be supported by the original conservationists…the republican party. Stewardship of the world’s resources is only going to come, if it comes at all (which I doubt, human history tells a different story), from those that ‘own’ them (and I mean this in the narrow sense of private property rights) and take steps to protect them from the teeming masses. But the republicans, sadly, have lost their way, blinded by the false ‘wealth’ of the money economy and so they abuse the means of production (ie, the land) in extractive ways and thereby destroy their true wealth. But its so easy and seductive to love those big numbers on your bank statements… John