🚀 go-pugleaf

   
  Once again Phil Ronzone spends all his effort defending 
  government subsidies using his ignorance of a subject as 
  proof it does not exist.  We suspect that because of this
  kind of "reasoning" he must live in a very small universe. 
  His words strongly support this opinion.
   
   Yep, Phil Ronzone wrote on 30 Jul 95  12:47:03 
    about:   Re: more Welfare Cowboys? (eco):

R>  jlodman@alumni.caltech.edu writes: 
 j> , Phil Ronzone  wrote:
  
  r>>  I've said that
  r>> there is NO subsidy for grazing lands because there is NO
  r>> market for grazing lands. With no market, you have no
  r>> marketplace price. No marketplace price, no concept of
  r>> whether or not a price is "below market". Without that FACT,
  r>> you can't say there is a subsidy.
  
   Well, Phil, you can squeal that that all you want but
   contrary to Limbaaah myth, articulating an opinion has
   NO effect on reality.   Below, jlodman@alumni gives a 
   perfect example of several functioning markets:
  r>> 
 j> The only maroon, Phil, is you. There is, in virtually all
 j> cases, an established market for privately held grazing land
 j> in the area. I know many ranches are leased in total to other
 j> operators. 
 
   I guess Phil must be from back East or is just an utter
   Flatlander.  He apparently thinks ranchers raise cattle
   from their own pregnant cows, fattens them up, and sells
   directly to the slaughterhouse or supermarket?   He seems
   unaware of how the cattle market operates, and that the
   grazing-land market is part of the mix.  Our family has
   leased grazing land to cattlemen, and I have several friends
   who do the same thing, and know several who have federal
   subsidies to graze on Public Lands.  
   
   When Phil squeals; "there is NO market for grazing lands", 
   he may as well be squealing: "there is NO market for heroin".

 j> A rough lower bound on the market price for
 j> government held grazing land can be established. Where the
 j> government is leasing land for below these market rates,
 j> there is not only a subsidy, there is a distortion induced in
 j> the private rental market. In other words, the private
 j> landowners are getting stiffed by the below market rates of
 j> the government.
 
   It is true that the taxpayer subsidized grazing market 
   depresses the free market, both in grazing land fees and
   cattle prices.
 
 j> It's really hilarious to watch a supposed free-market
 j> proponent such as yourself defending government subsidies.

R> Eh? Biy, you are quite disable conceptually! I've defended no such
R> thing. 

   That is EXACTLY what you are doing Phil.  Your opinion on
   the matter has no effect on reality.

R> There is NO market for grazing land. 

   You dittohead ignoramus!  If there was no market, it would 
   be free.   I suggest you complete your education.

R> There is NO market for grazing land. Pray tell, for example,
R> show me an MLS equivalent for grazing lands (MLS == real estate
R> multiple listing system). Or perhaps, a section is a local newspaper
R> listing grazing lands for rent as per apartments for rent.

   You are back to that old argument again?  (Your circular list
   of objections, just like we predicted?)  You may as well
   be squealing that since you can't buy heroin at Thrifty Mart,
   there is no market for it.  We have both described the market,
   the actual marketplace is is the Old-Boys Network which is
   complex and fully developed.  No, I am not going to describe
   it to you.  (You would only argue that your own ignorance of
   the subject PROVES it doesn't exist.)  But there is nothing 
   mysterious or cabal about it.
 
  r>> As I said, the non-development of Yosemite is a multi-billion
  r>> dollar subsidy to park users.
  r>> 
 j> The owners of Yosemite can put the park up for sale any time
 j> they choose Phil. There is no subsidy whatsoever. The owners
 j> apparently feel the park is more valuable to them as is than
 j> sold off in pieces. I, as one of the owners, agree with the
 j> majority of the owners on this point.

   I am not sure if Yosemite breaks even or not.  That would
   be the determining factor on whether its use is subsidized.
   Like public roads without tolls they are a common good and
   most common goods are subsidized.  The question here is; -- Is
   the subsidy to 2% of our cattlemen a Public Good worth the 
   cost when environmental degradation (subsidies) and restrictions 
   on other segments of the population are factored in?

R> Ah, no, there are no owners. An onwer can sell, transfer, occupy,
R> rent, lease (etc.) real estate he or she owns. Please show me such
R> owners for Yosemite.
 
   Here I am!  I do exactly what I want on that land.  One of the
   things I want is you not to do any of the above.  So I can
   understand your chagrin.  I fully own Yosemite and YOU don't.  
   Aint that cool?  Why do you suppose that is?  Some might say it
   is a state of mind, and it is your own mind that fences you out.
   Certainly the fences are not real, like they would be if it were
   privatized.
   Do not expect us to have pity on you because of YOUR choice
   of state-of-mind.

 j>  Any owner of Yosemite can use the park. The same is not
 j> true of government grazing lands, which some ranchers even
 j> have the gall to fence off from hunters as if they owned it.

R> Really? Gee, do YOU own YOUR house if you CAN'T sell, lease, reant,
R> transfer, or OCCUPY it? Try living 365 days a year on YOUR part of
R> Yosemite ... 

  I own all of the park, what is this "YOUR part?"  I live there 
  exactly as many days of the year as I want.  My brother was married
  in his chapel there last year and the four star wedding reception 
  and meal at the Awahnee was killer, with gold flecks in the champagne.  

R> If that's your idea of ownership, I'd hate to see what you think
R> freedom is ... 

  Seemingly Phil's idea of freedom is utterly tied to the dollar
  and his ability to fence others out.   How sad for him. 
  --Doug Bashford


... --------  From Dead Central California  ----------