Hurwitz, Pacific Lumber is cutting Headwaters

Joseph Zorzin redoak at
Sun Mar 8 06:29:00 EST 1998

CamillaH wrote:
> On 3/4/98, Don Staples said:
> <snip>
> >Environmentalists want for free that which Hurwitz bought, not stole, in
> >the take over he bought stock.  Why do not the environmentalists set
> >forth to perform the same operation on Hurwitz.  Buy him out.
> <snip>
> From My Perspective, stealing is when you take something of someone else's in
> an underhanded, covert sort of way.   People steal other people's
> boy/girlfriends; thieves steal anything they can get their hands on, and
> business/profit-minded people make a "steal" when they are able to acquire
> something at far less than its value.  By anyone's terms, Charles Hurwitz made
> a steal when he paid between 1/5th and 1/3rd of Pacific Lumber's market value.
> If the owners of Pacific Lumber wanted to sell their company and Mr. Hurwitz
> made this deal, it would be a whole different story.  But PL's owners didn't.
> They believed that they had put into their bylaws measures that would protect
> them from takeover.  When Charles Hurwitz came roaring in with the strength of
> Michael Milliken, Ivan Boesky and several other friends behind him, Pacific
> Lumber fell.  The board of directors couldn't afford the threat of personal
> liability to stockholders if they lost money.  They couldn't even get Hurwitz
> to more than minimally come up in his price.
> What would you call it if someone forced you to sell them something you
> treasured?
> Camilla

I support you on this one, Camilla. Being the "renegade forester" I more
often than not support the "enemy", the environmentalist perspective.

And it's called "unfriendly takeover"- also a belief system of people
like Hitler and Napoleon, built into our capitalist system. It's a
common occurrence in America. Working companies, making a profit, get
taken over, the company gets busted up, thousands of decent people lose
their livelihoods, and a handful of people with the decency of Hitler
become fabulously wealthy. That's one reason the number of billionaires
is rapidly going up in America while fewer and fewer people have job
security or medical insurance.

In an article by one of my favorite political writers, Donella Meadows,
she says "Between 1983 and 1989 the assets of the richest 500 families
in America rose from $2.5 trillion to $5 trillion. If they had paid just
one third of that gain in taxes, they still would have gotten richer and
there would have been NO government deficit- a deficit that is now being
resolved by cutting benefits to the poor and middle class."

Hey, Donella hasn't even mentioned what's happened in the '90's when the
stock market has tripled, to whose advantage?


More information about the Ag-forst mailing list