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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (14642)	4/4/2012 5:18:02 PM
From: d[-_-]b	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

at ridiculously below cost timber sales Once again proving government has no head for business at all.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (14642)	4/4/2012 5:39:47 PM
From: Bearcatbob	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Interesting comment. So where I lived I watched a timber company log on NF lands - at ridiculously below cost timber sales. The timber company set up a subsidiary company to then build the roads to access their below cost timber purchases. They also built bridges to access their timber. Needless to say, they got filthy disgusting rich off the government. So they made money on the timber and more to access the timber. Are they entitled to that wealth and income? They certainly claimed it and go filthy rich. Well, let's see. The timber company made a profit and unless they were one of the Obama type payoff organizations or other cronies of government - they paid taxes. In addition to paying taxes they - sacrilege here - employed people and paid wages. Those people bought stuff and also paid taxes. The whole thing sounds like a great benefit to society. Now - if access was granted to the timber fraudulently - then we need to prosecute the fraudsters. Now, compare that to a man who builds houses and puts in his 50 or 60 hours a week year after year. Does that qualify as creating wealth? Of course. Labor, raw materials and capital were converted into something that had greater value than the component parts. People were employed, taxes were paid and everyone gained. Bob

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (14642)	4/4/2012 7:07:49 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 85487

If the government regularly does a poor jobs of managing the resources, perhaps it should just sell a lot of them off to the highest bidder. That doesn't mean you can't have national parks, national monuments, military bases, etc. but something is a bit out of whack when the feds own almost 85% of Nevada, almost 70% of Alaska, the majority of Utah, Oregon, and Idaho, almost half of Arizona, and over 40 percent of California, Wyoming, and New Mexico. bigthink.com Its one thing if the areas is needed for military purposes, or its so environmentally sensitive that we want to keep all development away from it (although that can be done by states or the private sector as well). But areas primarily used for resource extraction should probably be privatized. The proceeds (and the taxes on later profits from these lands) could be used to help straighten out our fiscal mess. Also as Bearcatbob points out the logging does represent creating wealth. It produces useful items for which there is a market even without subsidies. If you consider the price that the land was leased at to be a subsidy. 1 - There would still be a market without the subsidy. 2 - The feds are not going more in to debt in order to provide this subsidy, the logging reduces the deficit, through the direct payments, even if they are too low, and through taxes on the profits, and taxes on the profits of people down the line who sell or use the wood and wood products. 3 - If its mismanaged by the feds that's an argument for getting the feds out of it, not that the activity doesn't create wealth. In cases like Solyndram you had the government providing cash, which it won't get back, and then the private sector company went bankrupt anyway. A lot different then just (maybe) not charging full market prices for the initial raw materials that go to a profitable company, to meet a real market demand, that would exist without subsidies (defined broadly, not just subsidies, but loans, tax favoritism etc.).

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (14642)	4/4/2012 7:18:25 PM
From: Little Joe	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

"Now, compare that to a man who builds houses and puts in his 50 or 60 hours a week year after year. Does that qualify as creating wealth? " Of course it does. The discusssion was about government creating wealth, as opposed to printing money. Anybody who does productive work creates wealth. lj