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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dvdw© who wrote (42427)	11/8/2008 6:18:17 AM
From: dybdahl	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219937

That's a stupid article. Ownership is not a law of nature - it is defined by the laws of a country. I can own a piece of land, but I cannot use that ownership to dig a big hole in the ground, without permission from the state. That may be possible in the country where Thomas Bowden comes from, but it's not universal. Thomas's opinion makes sense from an economical point of view, but this is not about economic calculations. You cannot dig up ressources without removing it from future generations, so you could also ask: Is it ok to remove anything from underground, that future generations may want to use, and cannot get in other ways? In my country, a large part of the population think that we should significantly reduce the exploitation on natural resources. Pumping less oil and gas etc. In the future, you can do many more wonderful things with oil than just burning it. Will this mean recession etc.? Yes. What is most important? Economy isn't. People were happy 100 years ago, and they didn't use many engines. Did they have long lives? No. Does it matter? Seriously, everybody is going to die, and I don't see a reason why I should 100 years instead of 60. It won't make me happier. Many share this belief.

To: dvdw© who wrote (42427)	11/8/2008 3:55:36 PM
From: RJA_	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219937

>>Nationalization Is Theft Only different by degree from the Canadian Conservative party expropriation of the value of income trusts -- overnight -- by dramatically changing the method of taxation without negotiation or discussion and directly in contravention of previously made campaign promises. Never the less, an argument can be made that the resources of a country are in fact, owned by the country, even if private individuals or companies dig them up. All depends on your point of view actually... whether you are standing in the moccasins of the private property owner who believes his asset has been stolen (after much investment to dig it up), or the income trust shareholder who's value has been cut instantly by 20% or more overnight, or the Canadian Social Security recipient who now believes he has perhaps a stronger asset to lean on. All different points of view in the rough and tumble world of politics, ownership, and development. We see it play out on the Colorado Front Range in the interaction of mineral rights vs surface rights, and developers/land owners trying to "harvest their value" vs citizens of municipalities and counties trying to maintain their quality of life. A battle and debate that I do not see ending any time soon.