Global Free Logging Agreement
kegebein at planttel.net
Thu Nov 4 20:08:41 EST 1999
Bob Taylor wrote:
> > Perhaps you mistake me for Mr. Davies, who called them "corporate suck
> > heads".
> I believe Mr. Davies comments are part of this thread.
I believe that responding to my post implies that you are
talking to me.
> > 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
> always win.
> Bob Taylor
Again, the WTO has anti-dumping provisions.
While we are pointing fingers, our Federal government
subsidizes landowners with CPR and other programs.
And, why are taxpayers forced to subsidize the USFS?
How many private landowners would spend thousands
of dollars more on road building than their timber
is worth, just to cut the timber?
In case you missed it, I'm all for selling off
all our USFS timberlands.
Then we could point fingers at other countries
with clean hands.
More information about the Ag-forst