🚀 go-pugleaf

 In article <philDCE7pD.8ED@netcom.com>, Phil Ronzone <phil@netcom.com> wrote:
>What a maroon (B. Bunny)! I've said no such thing about fair pricing for
>grazing lands. Idiot (or dolt). I've said that there is NO subsidy for
>grazing lands because there is NO market for grazing lands. With no market,
>you have no marketplace price. No marketplace price, no concept of
>whether or not a price is "below market". Without that FACT, you can't
>say there is a subsidy.

The only maroon, Phil, is you. There is, in virtually all cases, an
established market for privately held grazing land in the area. I
know many ranches are leased in total to other operators. A rough
lower bound on the market price for government held grazing land 
can be established. Where the government is leasing land for
below these market rates, there is not only a subsidy, there is
a distortion induced in the private rental market. In other words,
the private landowners are getting stiffed by the below market rates
of the government.

It's really hilarious to watch a supposed free-market proponent such
as yourself defending government subsidies.

>As I said, the non-development of Yosemite is a multi-billion dollar subsidy to
>park users.

The owners of Yosemite can put the park up for sale any time they choose
Phil. There is no subsidy whatsoever. The owners apparently feel the
park is more valuable to them as is than sold off in pieces. I, as one
of the owners, agree with the majority of the owners on this point.

>Well, then, we have to call the Yosemite park users "welfare park users" to
>be consistent, won't we?

No. Any owner of Yosemite can use the park. The same is not true of
government grazing lands, which some ranchers even have the gall to
fence off from hunters as if they owned it.

Clue in.