• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

US/Canada Trade War ?

lomiller said:
Or just auction off the logging rights to the highest bidder so other uses of the land are not restricted.
Click to expand...

This is the process, yes. Leases are often very long. My brother has recreational property on Ainsworth leased Crown land in the Cariboo. The area was clear cut in the 1980s and has been reforested twice (the first generation inventory was mostly destroyed by pine beetle). The new generation is coming along nicely. It's a 50 year lease, after which it will revert to the Crown for re-negotiation, I think in 2030.

In addition to leasing the land, which is charged annually, there is a 'stumpage' fee, which is collected if and when the wood is harvested. It's this 'per cubic meter harvested' fee that is allegedly too low, and allegedly therefore 'dumping'. This has been brought up several times in the trade dispute process, and has been rejected as unjustified by the review panels every time.
 
lomiller said:
What it tells us is that if everyone else does what you are suggesting the US do, everyone would forbid imposing US products and expel US companies. You’d need to be a little slow on the uptake to think having US companies and products forbidden from participating in international markets is “protecting US job base”.
Click to expand...

Just what do you think I'm suggesting? This is SOP when a country thinks there's an unfair trade practice. It can be specific like this one.
 
logger said:
Just what do you think I'm suggesting? This is SOP when a country thinks there's an unfair trade practice. It can be specific like this one.
Click to expand...

SOP is actually to pursue the trade agreement's dispute process.

This was performed, and the dispute board rejected the US' complaint as not valid.

You are free to read the rulings over the years. The American judges also agreed that there was no evidence of dumping.
 
blutoski said:
SOP is actually to pursue the trade agreement's dispute process.

This was performed, and the dispute board rejected the US' complaint as not valid.

You are free to read the rulings over the years. The American judges also agreed that there was no evidence of dumping.
Click to expand...

So what we're left with is saving an inidustry and jobs. We've had enough history with this trade agreement to watch our jobs leave, so it needs to be reworked. I suppose you're of the opinion we should let those jobs go in favor of more high tech high paying jobs, which is reasonable, except for the ones losing their jobs.
 
logger said:
So what we're left with is saving an inidustry and jobs. We've had enough history with this trade agreement to watch our jobs leave, so it needs to be reworked. I suppose you're of the opinion we should let those jobs go in favor of more high tech high paying jobs, which is reasonable, except for the ones losing their jobs.
Click to expand...

Here you are, talking about the left again. ;)
 
logger said:
So what we're left with is saving an inidustry and jobs. We've had enough history with this trade agreement to watch our jobs leave, so it needs to be reworked.
Click to expand...

The question is: what does 'reworked' look like? Would any reworking just exchange logging jobs for other jobs elsewhere in the USA? What do you tell those people?


logger said:
I suppose you're of the opinion we should let those jobs go in favor of more high tech high paying jobs, which is reasonable, except for the ones losing their jobs.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the model the Republicans have been advocating for almost my entire 50 years on this planet: free trade means some jobs disappear, but more are created, so it's better for the nation.

Where the Republicans fall down is that their proposal for those who lose their jobs is "you're on your own, shoulda picked a better career," which I've always felt was a bit heartless.

In contrast, the Democrats consistently propose investment in education for the displaced, which I always thought was aligned with the American spirit of moving ahead, moving forward, producing better, safer, careers for the next generation.
 
Score one point for the USA in the Peanut Butter Battle.

I would cheer, but my tongue is stuck to the roof of my mouth.
 
blutoski said:
The question is: what does 'reworked' look like? Would any reworking just exchange logging jobs for other jobs elsewhere in the USA? What do you tell those people?
Click to expand...

Looks like a 24% tariff


Yes, that's the model the Republicans have been advocating for almost my entire 50 years on this planet: free trade means some jobs disappear, but more are created, so it's better for the nation.

Where the Republicans fall down is that their proposal for those who lose their jobs is "you're on your own, shoulda picked a better career," which I've always felt was a bit heartless.
Click to expand...
Its more about the industry than individual jobs. its too broad to worry about individual jobs.
In contrast, the Democrats consistently propose investment in education for the displaced, which I always thought was aligned with the American spirit of moving ahead, moving forward, producing better, safer, careers for the next generation.
Click to expand...

The democrats consistently propose craddle to the grave.
 
logger said:
Looks like a 24% tariff



Its more about the industry than individual jobs. its too broad to worry about individual jobs.

The democrats consistently propose craddle to the grave.
Click to expand...

Thank you. It might have been unintentional but at least you're honest. Forestry and Timber in the US encompass so few jobs that it is most definitely NOT about the workers. It's about protecting the profits of some already profitable companies, and using your industry as a bargaining chip to get concessions in other areas.

I think this was a carefully picked fight. (Not by Trump - he's too stupid to understand the nuances.) It has nothing to do with NAFTA but gives the appearance of doing so because it involves two of the signatories.
 
logger said:
So what we're left with is saving an inidustry and jobs. We've had enough history with this trade agreement to watch our jobs leave, so it needs to be reworked. I suppose you're of the opinion we should let those jobs go in favor of more high tech high paying jobs, which is reasonable, except for the ones losing their jobs.
Click to expand...



Why save an inefficient industry? You've had nearly twenty-five years between the original Canada-US Free Trade deal and NAFTA to sort out the kinks in your industries and make them competitive - any failing industries are the fault of those business owners failing to adapt to the market conditions.

As for adapting to the new job market, that is an unfortunate side effect of a free market system . Yes, it does suck to have guessed wrong as to what career to have chosen, pigeon-holed into a dead end career by a limited education and the prohibitive costs of relocation, but those are the breaks.

You sound like a leftist - the state protecting people from the harshness of market forces, when really, if those out of workers had the American spirit they would just start over, either start their own business or go work elsewhere.
 
logger said:
So what we're left with is saving an inidustry and jobs.
Click to expand...

Free trade – lose lower paying jobs in less efficient industries and gain higher paying jobs in more efficient industries
Protectionism – lose high paying jobs in efficient industries but preserver lower paying jobs in less efficient industries.

You get to pick one and only one.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Thank you. It might have been unintentional but at least you're honest. Forestry and Timber in the US encompass so few jobs that it is most definitely NOT about the workers. It's about protecting the profits of some already profitable companies, and using your industry as a bargaining chip to get concessions in other areas.

I think this was a carefully picked fight. (Not by Trump - he's too stupid to understand the nuances.) It has nothing to do with NAFTA but gives the appearance of doing so because it involves two of the signatories.
Click to expand...

No, its about protecting our remaining industries. We've lost much of our manufacturing base, hopefully the rework (if he does it) will bring them back.
 
Border Reiver said:
Why save an inefficient industry? You've had nearly twenty-five years between the original Canada-US Free Trade deal and NAFTA to sort out the kinks in your industries and make them competitive - any failing industries are the fault of those business owners failing to adapt to the market conditions.

As for adapting to the new job market, that is an unfortunate side effect of a free market system . Yes, it does suck to have guessed wrong as to what career to have chosen, pigeon-holed into a dead end career by a limited education and the prohibitive costs of relocation, but those are the breaks.

You sound like a leftist - the state protecting people from the harshness of market forces, when really, if those out of workers had the American spirit they would just start over, either start their own business or go work elsewhere.
Click to expand...
If you start off with cheaper raw products, there's no way one can compete. We get that in labor with other countries like China.
 
lomiller said:
Free trade – lose lower paying jobs in less efficient industries and gain higher paying jobs in more efficient industries
Protectionism – lose high paying jobs in efficient industries but preserver lower paying jobs in less efficient industries.

You get to pick one and only one.
Click to expand...

Actually you can have both, Trump just showed how. It's not about efficiency, the timber in Canada starts off cheaper, that is what has to be overcome.
 
Interesting that it is all about saving the foresting industry, yet the administration just approved the import of lemons from Argentina, which has been prohibited for many years. OK to save the foresting industry, but don't care about the lemon industry?

Oh right, that's in California, and we don't care about those liberals....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom