Sunday, October 24, 2010

UK To Sell Govt.-Owned Forests to Cut the Deficit

TELEGRAPH -- "Caroline Spelman, the U.K. Environment Secretary, is expected to announce plans within days to dispose of about half of the 748,000 hectares of woodland overseen by the Forestry Commission by 2020 (MP: That's an area slightly larger than the state of Rhode Island).

The controversial decision will pave the way for a huge expansion in the number of Center Parcs-style holiday villages, golf courses, adventure sites and commercial logging operations throughout Britain as land is sold to private companies."

7 Comments:

At 10/25/2010 8:12 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

Makes about as much sense as Virginia selling their liquor stores. Let's get a one time slug of money in exchange for an infinite series of payments. Where is the time value of money analysis?

 
At 10/25/2010 10:04 AM, Blogger Buddy R Pacifico said...

Now that the UK gov't will be selling forests it opens new possibilities. Will the Sherwood Forest Faire relocate from Texas and back to its roots?

 
At 10/26/2010 3:59 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Makes about as much sense as Virginia selling their liquor stores. Let's get a one time slug of money in exchange for an infinite series of payments. Where is the time value of money analysis?

Virginia's residents saved money when the stores were privatized. They got greater choices and lower prices. And taxpayers did not have to fund badly run stores, above market wages, and high benefits to public employees.

That said, the UK is not going far enough. It should have followed the example of New Zealand, which fired more than 95% of its forestry employees and sold off the forests to private companies that did a much better job managing the resource.

 
At 10/26/2010 10:14 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Virginia residents saved money....

Moron. It has not happened yet and probably wont because it is a money loser for the state.

Sure in AZ you can buy liquor at Walmart, and it is a little cheaper, ill grant you.

But that does not mean the residents save money.

Whatever the revenue loss would be in Virginia would have to be made up in other taxes.

Question is only how to distribute state costs among drinkers and non drinkers.

 
At 10/26/2010 10:22 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

The private companies in NZ get substantial subsidies in the form of payments for environmental services. If it was sgtrictly cash in cash out, they would have clear cut the country for quickest return on their bid and moved on to another business.

If the government runs the forest"continuing concern" is not so much an issue.

 
At 10/26/2010 10:57 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Moron. It has not happened yet and probably wont because it is a money loser for the state.

Read what I wrote. Virginia residents will save money because they will pay less and will not have to support bloated public pensions and above market wages.

Sure in AZ you can buy liquor at Walmart, and it is a little cheaper, ill grant you.

But that does not mean the residents save money.


Actually, it does. If you spend a few hundred bucks a year less and do not have to use taxes to pay for accrued liabilities you save money. Competition is good for consumers. Government granted monopolies are not.

Whatever the revenue loss would be in Virginia would have to be made up in other taxes.

What revenue loss? You have to subtract all of the accrued costs from the revenues and you have to account for the prices that residents pay for the goods. Add it all up and it makes no sense to have government monopolies.

Question is only how to distribute state costs among drinkers and non drinkers.

Drinkers should pay costs when they purchase their liquor and beer from Wal Mart, their corner store, or wherever they purchase alcohol. Because of the competition they will pay less than they do already and will be far better off. So will non-drinkers because they do not have to subsidize an inefficient monopoly.

 
At 10/26/2010 10:59 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

The private companies in NZ get substantial subsidies in the form of payments for environmental services. If it was sgtrictly cash in cash out, they would have clear cut the country for quickest return on their bid and moved on to another business.

If the government runs the forest"continuing concern" is not so much an issue.


The NZ taxpayers came way ahead because they no longer had to pay to subsidize activities that had no incentive to be economic. The UK, US, and most countries should do the same thing and sell off everything that they can.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home