something has to be given back

[Ray Zee]

it is clear to me that the govt and big business over the centuries have taken away some of everyone wealth. that wealth being the large trees of our forests. the huge minerals that are now depleted. oil reserves. open land, etc. these things belonged to all. at least that which was on public land. so doesnt somewhere the govt has an obligation to make things right. as the taking away of these tangible assets leaves everyone slightly less rich.
or is that just capitalism and each had their chance at the pie.

[luv_the_game]

I would never disagree with you on a poker related topic, but I think that you are missing something here.

If you live in a building, drive a car, etc. you have taken your piece of these pies. You use the things that these big businesses provide. How would houses be built if someone wasn't cutting down trees? There wouldn't even be playing cards for that matter. These busineses that you say need to give something back already do. Jobs, taxes, and products that are needed or wanted by enough people to make them money. Not to mention that most big businesses use a portion of their profits in charitable endeavors that benefit all of us directly or indirectly.

I'm not at all saying that there should be no regulation, on the business that you you refer too. Far from it. I just think it is somewhat disingenuous to look at these businesses as all take without looking at the people who utilize there product. That includes everyone. They use our natural resources to provide the products we want/need.

[warlockjd]

If you are refering to the raping of Wyoming (or Montana?) for minerals as detailed in 'Bushwacked", I agree 100%. If the water's not drinkable, for all the ranchers' animals, it needs to be fixed by the polluters. Will never happen with current administration.

[Zeno]

An example:

Counties receive a certain dispersement of money from the logging of public lands in the respective counties of Oregon (I am sure this is also true in many states). Part of this is from National Forest land and also the defunct O&C lands (in Oregon) or BLM lands etc. This money goes into the general fund and is wasted on fraudulent and stupid ideas pushed on the population by mountebanks and conniving politicians.

The same thing is true with oil and mineral revenues and lease payments for drilling on pubic lands etc. When I worked in Alaska in the 1970's I did not have to paid any income tax because of the windfall of oil revenue (actually you did pay - you just got it all back at the end of the year when you filed).

Public timber helps everyone with overall cheaper housing and wood products.

I love trees. I always have as I grew up playing in the wet and soggy forests of Western Oregon. I also like a roof over my head.

-Zeno

[ACPlayer]

Govt has gone from being by and for the people to being by and for the corporation. This is true for the environment, individual legal rights (to sue for example), gun control (to allow corporations to sell weapons with highly suspect gaming benefits), media (to wipe out the small broadcaster), etc, etc.

America is no longer run by the communities we live in, it is run by the corporations.

[Mucking Idiot]

There are those around the world and even in the US who use the bare minimun of resources and these are usually the same people who benefit the least from our industrial machine.
We rape and reap, make no doubt about it.

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]
it is clear to me that the govt and big business over the centuries have taken away some of everyone wealth.

[/ QUOTE ]

If businesses were destroying wealth instead of adding value in the mind of the consumer, they would go broke.


[ QUOTE ]
the huge minerals that are now depleted. oil reserves. open land, etc. these things belonged to all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but why are those that would do nothing with them more rightful than those who would turn our resouces into finished goods? A capitalist system runs on the fact that consumers will do what is in their best interest. The average consumer would rather have cheap stuff than stuff that was produced in a environmentally conscious way.

[ QUOTE ]
so doesnt somewhere the govt has an obligation to make things right. as the taking away of these tangible assets leaves everyone slightly less rich.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that the use of natural resources always leaves everyone less rich. I believe that most of the time they are converted into more valuable goods.

That said, I think it should be the government's responsibility to restrain society from the worst excesses, but the decisions and burdens will always fall to the consumer. This can be done through regulation of production methods or adding taxes on things that are the worst resource drainers. The big problem with these methods are that any tax that falls back to the consumer will be regressive in nature as poorer people spend a higher percentage of their income on things like gasoline. The government should be much more protective of our public land, unfortunately more people will base their vote on their economic position than environmental policy. I think the masses generally like talking about protecting the environment better, but most will not be willing to make sacrifices.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is clear to me that the govt and big business over the centuries have taken away some of everyone wealth.

[/ QUOTE ]

If businesses were destroying wealth instead of adding value in the mind of the consumer, they would go broke.


[ QUOTE ]
the huge minerals that are now depleted. oil reserves. open land, etc. these things belonged to all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but why are those that would do nothing with them more rightful than those who would turn our resouces into finished goods? A capitalist system runs on the fact that consumers will do what is in their best interest. The average consumer would rather have cheap stuff than stuff that was produced in a environmentally conscious way.

[ QUOTE ]
so doesnt somewhere the govt has an obligation to make things right. as the taking away of these tangible assets leaves everyone slightly less rich.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that the use of natural resources always leaves everyone less rich. I believe that most of the time they are converted into more valuable goods.

That said, I think it should be the government's responsibility to restrain society from the worst excesses, but the decisions and burdens will always fall to the consumer. This can be done through regulation of production methods or adding taxes on things that are the worst resource drainers. The big problem with these methods are that any tax that falls back to the consumer will be regressive in nature as poorer people spend a higher percentage of their income on things like gasoline. The government should be much more protective of our public land, unfortunately more people will base their vote on their economic position than environmental policy. I think the masses generally like talking about protecting the environment better, but most will not be willing to make sacrifices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't agree more. When things are consumed in large quantities, it is quite conspicuous. This happens with corporations and government ... you cannot help but notice.

However, all the "little" things individuals consume (by choice) always seem forgotton in the grand scheme. The fact of the matter is that mass production is inherently more efficient than each individual grabbing his share. Furthermore it is more fair as the benefits are available on a wider scale.

With that being said, it is important to recognize the benefits of protecting things in their natural state. Unfortunately, those who want such protection seems to be in the minority (even more of a minority if actions speak louder than words). Such a minority often borders on the vigilant (i.e. tree spikers) and a lot of resources are wasted on fighting a losing war.

The best tact is to cooperate and use all available resources more wisely. The first thing that must go is the opinion that there is an absolute right to preservation. In the world we live in, that is just not a possibility. Therefore, tough choices must be made. These choices would be better for all if the conservationists could work with their "enemies" rather than against.

That being said, I WISH WE COULD PRESERVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, but then again, I wish we had 150 million less people in the U.S. to make this possible. The real problem is overpopulation, and to accommodate everyone, we have to make tough choices.

Ray, I live in Los Angeles and it is the most depressing place I know. Just 30 years ago, a lot of the San Gabriel Valley had ranches and orchards, and "small town" feeling. Now, there are houses crammed in every nook and the suburbs continue to sprawl.

With the rate of population growth and immigration influx, I can only imagine what Montana will be like in 20 more years.

[Ray Zee]

but part of this is that the resources are on public land. so when they take and produce from them all people have theopportunity to purchase these goods but arent they in fact subsidising the companies with their own wealth.
wouldnt it be the same if someone cut down your house and made toys with the wood. then would you say they made products we all benefit from.
so wouldnt taking the forest from the people and giving it to the companies robbing the people. they get to buy back from the companies that which was theirs to start with.

[Ray Zee]

but enven though the counties get some money back from the logging say, the overall result is that in most cases the govt. does lose money in a timber sale. so in effect they are literally giving away our land for free to the companies. sure some get jobs and we get a little cheaper lumber but is it worth it. wouldnt charging the real price for it and making houses a little more expensive better in the long run.
i know you like your roof even if it leaks with a little drivel of rain.

[Ray Zee]

oski, they are already destroying montana. the planning boards are giving free rein to developers to change all zoning and build what they want.
the problem the consevationists find is that by compromising the part they get to save is again assalted in a few years and they again have to compromise some more until its all gone anyway.
in the end we all lose as the population takes over.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
is that just capitalism and each had their chance at the pie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily IMO. First of all as others have pointed out we don't have a purely capitalistic system, we have a mixed economy. One implication is that government regulates business activity to some degree. Certainly if an industry pollutes the environment and the costs of that business's pollution are not bourne by that business but rather by society then we expect government to step in and provide relief in the form of stricter environmental standards and/or higher taxes on the polluter. Likewise if government is not getting a fair share in return for resources that it owns and subsequently distributes, then IMO it's tantamount to a government subsidy. An honest dialogue should ensue where there is a debate regarding why that subsidy is desirable. From my experience, government subisdies aren't desirable often. Special interests are all powerful IMO and again IMO such honest debates are limited. Speaking of Montana, I see ads from developers all the time for property there. I would imagine things are changing quite a bit in certain areas there. The pace is still slow in the land of enchantment and I've seen some very nice land for sale north of Santa Fe for relatively cheap prices FWIW.

[Mucking Idiot]

[ QUOTE ]
charging the real price for it

[/ QUOTE ]

How ya gonna get a kickback if you do that?

[luv_the_game]

First of all I agree with you that the use of putlic rescources should be well regulated, and I'm not arguing that this process has always been handled correctly.

The problem is that charging more for the base resource only increases the cost of the finished good. Corporations cannot stay in business if they do not pass their costs on to you and me. How is increasing the cost of wood, paper, etc. going to hurt corporations? It's not. It will only hurt your pocketbook when you purchase the finished goods.

I'm all for sensible regulations on the use of natural resources. In my opinion the net effect of a sensible logging industry is not a decrease in trees. My state has a fairly strong logging industry and the number of trees and volume of wood in the forests goes up every year. This is as it should be. Trees are the ultimate natural resource. 100% renewable. Virtually inexhaustable with proper management.

If you are going to use public resources in this country someone is going to profit. Thats just the way our system works. But they profit because they add value and sell at a price that consumers can afford.

If you don't allow corporations to buy the rights to these resources, what is your proposal for a better plan?

1. You could just not use public resources. This may have some merit for some things, but it doesn't make sense to me for forests. We have already doubled the amount of reserved national forest land from 26 to 52 million acres between 1953 and 1997. (Most recent figures I could find with a quick search.) I think that this number should increase, but why should it be all 147 million acres of national forests? By keeping corporations from profiting of any of these trees, you also prevent the public from benefiting from their use.

2. You could, I suppose, have a national government run lumber company. I won't even discuss this. If this does not seem like a truly bad idea to you on the very face of it, I will certainly not convice you. We will just have to agree to disagree.

3. I guess you could let me go into my half acre of national forest and cut down the trees for the wood for my house, paper etc. I know this is ridiculous, but I use it to illustrate that someone has to extract and process the raw materials. In our (regulated) capitalist system people and corporations make money by doing this.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]

in the end we all lose as the population takes over.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the core problem. Enough said.

[Zeno]

Many timber sales actually go out for sealed bid and the government gets a reasonable price for the timber. I do agree however that overall 'a fair market value' is probably not achieved. But the government is selling a raw product and profit must be achieved by someone down the line in order for a finished product to get to market and provide for all the throbbing masses. If no profits were achievable then there would be no incentive for a company to bid on the timber (or any raw material X) in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
so in effect they are literally giving away our land for free to the companies.

[/ QUOTE ]

With respect to timber companies this is not true as the government is selling a raw resource from the land and not the land itself. In the case of mineral companies they did get land and resources in the past at wholesale prices.

Industrial society requires a tremendous amount of raw materials to function and those materials are taken from the earth in vast quantities. At best we must try and be reasonable about management of these raw materials. The debate is what is reasonable given the pressures to supply people with their material needs and wants.

Other posters have also addressed this and attendant issues rather well in this thread.


[ QUOTE ]
i know you like your roof even if it leaks with a little drivel of rain.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Webster:


Drivel - to utter in an infantile or imbecilic way.

Dribble - to fall or flow in drops or in a thin intermittent stream.


At some point you will use these words correctly or in the best sense, I suppose. You have had a 50/50 chance and each time, so far, you have managed to miss the mark. I recommend that you take a correspondent’s course in English usage from John Cole. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-Zeno

[Mucking Idiot]

[ QUOTE ]
At best we must try and be reasonable about management of these raw materials. The debate is what is reasonable given the pressures to supply people with their material needs and wants

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting we grow hemp for paper and paper products?

[MMMMMM]

May I suggest "drizzle"?

[Mucking Idiot]

[ QUOTE ]
Drivel - to utter in an infantile or imbecilic way.

Dribble - to fall or flow in drops or in a thin intermittent stream.

[/ QUOTE ]

While what our eyes behold may well be the text of life, one's meditations on the text and the disclosures of those meditations are no less a part of the structure of reality.
-Wallace Stevens

[Joseph Busti]

[ QUOTE ]
it is clear to me that the govt and big business over the centuries have taken away some of everyone wealth. that wealth being the large trees of our forests. the huge minerals that are now depleted. oil reserves. open land, etc. these things belonged to all. at least that which was on public land. so doesnt somewhere the govt has an obligation to make things right. as the taking away of these tangible assets leaves everyone slightly less rich.
or is that just capitalism and each had their chance at the pie.


[/ QUOTE ]
Ahhhh yes, I love tree hugging hippies!!!!!!!!! Without them, we would have nobody to laugh at.

[Mucking Idiot]

[ QUOTE ]
Ahhhh yes, I love tree hugging hippies!!!!!!!!! Without them, we would have nobody to laugh at.


[/ QUOTE ]
You seem like the type that stretches for a laugh. Is it a fake laugh or an evil one?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
May I suggest "drizzle"?

[/ QUOTE ]

May I suggest that you suggest that to Ray? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

My inclusion of the word dribble, with definition, in this thread stems from another thread in the NV&G Forum (about one week ago) were I corrected Mr. Zee on his use of dribble - suggesting that drivel would be more appropriate to define the content of a previous post (the previous post being one of mine, of course). Since Mr. Zee could not even use the proper word to insult me with, I graciously made an improvement for him.

Thus, we have his use of drivel in this thread, instead of dribble, which would of been more appropriate, and so we reach the convoluted nature of my response to you and this rather silly explanation of matters trivial. So we have an inside joke with a number of layers.

For the purpose of sorting it all out, just assume that I am correct and that Ray is wrong. That would be the prudent approach. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
While what our eyes behold may well be the text of life, one's meditations on the text and the disclosures of those meditations are no less a part of the structure of reality.
-Wallace Stevens

[/ QUOTE ]


Now that's DRIVEL.

/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-Zeno

[playerfl]

the problem is I don't think they actually can give it back.

[Mucking Idiot]

While what our eyes behold may well be the text of life, one's meditations on the text and the disclosures of those meditations are no less a part of the structure of reality.
-Wallace Stevens

[Ray Zee]

yes i did substitute dribble for drivel a while back and it took awhile for me to find a spot to get even you fool. so in effect it turns out not to be so tribial.

[Rooster71]

This is an interesting topic, but also a very complicated one. There will always be a need to harvest timber, but there are equally viable products that don't require timber. For example, wheat straw is a very cheap (sometimes free) byproduct of wheat. Wheat straw can be used to make various products such as roof decking and paper. When used as roof decking, it even has a greater insulation factor than standard plywood.

Why is wheat straw not utilized more in the production of these products? I don't know exactly, but I assume it has alot to do with the fact that so many factories are set up to process timber and not wheat straw.

Also, a great many members of the public say that want more environmentally conscious products, but balk when the price tag for such items is slightly higher.

[Mucking Idiot]

I [ QUOTE ]
would of

[/ QUOTE ] agreed with you.

[HDPM]

No, the planning boards steal from the developers. There should be extreme limits on what a planning and zoning board can do. You own the land, you own core of the earth to the end of the universe IMO, and can build to suit. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Ray Zee]

i built my decks from-- trex-- a product from plastic jugs and sawdust. much nicer deck than wood. twice as expensive but no contest. as wood gets more expensive an scarce we will see some great things.

[Ray Zee]

i just cant decide whether to put a motorcross track or a pig farm next to your house. its my right.