Global Free Logging Agreement
rtaylor at ns.net
Thu Nov 4 14:06:37 EST 1999
> Perhaps you mistake me for Mr. Davies, who called them "corporate suck
I believe Mr. Davies comments are part of this thread.
> I recognize the fact that corporations are in business to make money
> for their stock holders, that is their duty. I also recognize the
> fact that many, if not most, belief that they cannot
> compete in the global free market. Well, some cannot, and will not.
> But, I have faith in the ability of Americans to innovate, create,
> and survive anything that competition can throw at us.
> Just as the automobile industry had to change in order to
> survive, so will the large timber corporations. And just as
> the automobile industry fought it tooth and nail, so goes
> our "special interest".
> Remember also, the WTO has provisions for "dumping" goods
> at below cost. With this protection, what do our companies
> have to fear?
It would be surprising if the goals of public managers of timber lands were
the same country-to-country. Certainly a comparison of the Crown lands of
Canada with the national forests of the U.S. leads one to suspect different
goals. The Canadian system leads to stable yields in spite of market
fluctuations in large part because of fluctuating subsidies from provincial
governments. You can defend this system from the standpoint of social
stability, balance of payments, even sound management, but you cannot
expect a market-sensitive company in the U.S. to compete against it.
Here the Forest Service is a company's enemy not its ally. Excepting a few
political maneuvers, I have never heard of the Forest Service reducing the
cost of a timber sale just because the purchaser is going to lose money on
The point is not that one system is superior to the other. The point is
that they cannot compete head-to-head across national borders without some
sort of government filter. Otherwise the government-subsidized system will
More information about the Ag-forst