US/Canada Trade War ?

[Spindrift]

Yeah I saw that, but generally home square footage is a much better indicator so I'm not really sure why they do it that way. Either way a few thousand added can be easily absorbed and a much needed pay raise for logger(s)

Profit for a small group at the expense of the little guy. So this is one of the things Trump is doing for the little guy.

 

[logger]

Profit for a small group at the expense of the little guy. So this is one of the things Trump is doing for the little guy.

Yes, working people getting a pay raise is good?

 

[logger]

Average against what metric ? Better than either Bush, better than Trump so far (though he gets a pass from me because it'll be a year until the effects of his policies filter through)

Bush had a huge drop because of the meltdown. I know you knew that and just forgot to mention it.

The question is, if there is increased demand for US steel (and there's still no guarantee that Trump will make good on his promises - Keystone is a good indicator of that), will it result in more steel jobs ?

You think the steel mills magically run themselves? How about the many more jobs that support the industry of steel? Have you really thought this through, doesn't seem so.

On current evidence, the answer would have to be no, the increased demand will be met through increased automation.

And you think this because you're incredibly ignorant of how business works?

Simple stuff here!

 

[rustypouch]

Yes, working people getting a pay raise is good?

Why do you think that the workers would get a raise?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Why do you think that the workers would get a raise?

there's a first time for everything.

 

[The Don]

Bush had a huge drop because of the meltdown. I know you knew that and just forgot to mention it.

Nope, those manufacturing jobs were lost regularly and consistently throughout his Presidency.

You think the steel mills magically run themselves? How about the many more jobs that support the industry of steel? Have you really thought this through, doesn't seem so.

No, I don't think steel mills magically run themselves but the industry has a strong track record of higher productivity - it having increased 25 fold over the last 30 years.

In 6 years time, if that trend continues, the US will be able to produce twice as much steel with the same number of workers. Increased demand will easily be accommodated without having to increase the number of workers.

Now if you're going to talk about jobs in support industries then you'll also need to consider the number of jobs lost among those who are involved with the import of steel.

And you think this because you're incredibly ignorant of how business works?

Simple stuff here!

No, I think this because I'm reasonably knowledgeable about how business works - that being the way I've made a living for the past 30 years. The trend in the steel industry is ever increasing productivity with more steel being produced by fewer workers so an increase in demand for US steel won't necessarily result in an increased number of steelworking jobs.

OTOH, a switch from cheap imported steel to more expensive US-produced steel will result in a significant increase in the cost of steel to those who use it. Those additional costs will be felt in terms of smaller margins for steel users and/or increased costs for the public at large. In an elastic market higher costs will result in lower demand and so the end result will be lost jobs in those industries that use steel (rather like increases in lumber costs will result in construction industry layoffs) - unfortunately there'll be no increase in steel jobs to compensate and once again Trump's gift to the little guy is a place on the unemployment line.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Nope, those manufacturing jobs were lost regularly and consistently throughout his Presidency.

No, I don't think steel mills magically run themselves but the industry has a strong track record of higher productivity - it having increased 25 fold over the last 30 years.

In 6 years time, if that trend continues, the US will be able to produce twice as much steel with the same number of workers. Increased demand will easily be accommodated without having to increase the number of workers.

Now if you're going to talk about jobs in support industries then you'll also need to consider the number of jobs lost among those who are involved with the import of steel.

No, I think this because I'm reasonably knowledgeable about how business works - that being the way I've made a living for the past 30 years. The trend in the steel industry is ever increasing productivity with more steel being produced by fewer workers so an increase in demand for US steel won't necessarily result in an increased number of steelworking jobs.

OTOH, a switch from cheap imported steel to more expensive US-produced steel will result in a significant increase in the cost of steel to those who use it. Those additional costs will be felt in terms of smaller margins for steel users and/or increased costs for the public at large. In an elastic market higher costs will result in lower demand and so the end result will be lost jobs in those industries that use steel (rather like increases in lumber costs will result in construction industry layoffs) - unfortunately there'll be no increase in steel jobs to compensate and once again Trump's gift to the little guy is a place on the unemployment line.

Nice write up. I believe the horse has been led to the water; what happens next is beyond the remit of anyone but the horse.

 

[WilliamSeger]

A feel good story.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/business/economy/steel-nucor-trump-policy.html?_r=0

Stock prices going up in speculative anticipation of a better economic future just means cash "invested" in the Wall Street Casino instead of creating jobs and increasing paychecks. It won't feel so good if the speculation is unwarranted.

 

[Spindrift]

Yes, working people getting a pay raise is good?

What workers? It's just more profits for the owners.

 

[The Don]

And people will suffer if prices go down.

True, but fewer people suffer

One of those reasons is low wages in other countries. Canadas wages can be higher since the government dumps their softwood.

.......except, as multiple WTO rulings has shown, they don't

Stumpage prices being lower allows business to charge more.

Whether that's true or not it demonstrates that your "slave wages" comment does not apply here.

Well, that settles it then.

I was just clarifying that the point regarding the rise in house prices and subsequent losses of jobs in the construction industry was not an uninformed personal opinion, it was the informed opinion of an expert industry body.

By all means disagree with it but you're not arguing with me.

Might be easier to figure out the ones you would be against.

 

[lomiller]

1 million manufacturing jobs were created during Obama's Presidency, an 8% increase. Under George W Bush, there were 6 million fewer a 33% drop - Obama was doing pretty well actually.

Also worth noting is that public sector employment dropped by ~ half a million under Obama vs an increase of ~2 million under Bush.

 

[dudalb]

Stock prices going up in speculative anticipation of a better economic future just means cash "invested" in the Wall Street Casino instead of creating jobs and increasing paychecks. It won't feel so good if the speculation is unwarranted.

The Stock Market is what powers most of the economy..it is where buisnesses Get the money to invest in new jobs.
Calling it a Casino shows a ignorance of economics that is only a little better then the crap we get from Logger.
I despise Trump with a passion, but I can do so without buying into the "Anti Capitalist/Making a Profit is Evil" nonsense.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The Stock Market is what powers most of the economy..it is where buisnesses Get the money to invest in new jobs.
Calling it a Casino shows a ignorance of economics that is only a little better then the crap we get from Logger.
I despise Trump with a passion, but I can do so without buying into the "Anti Capitalist/Making a Profit is Evil" nonsense.

yet companies only really benefit from rising share prices if they decide to issue new shares or sell their stock.
Besides that, it's a tool for takeovers, which also don't really help either company since it's not the new company that is going to end up with the takeover money.
And derivatives on companies really do no good to the actual economy.

 

[WilliamSeger]

The Stock Market is what powers most of the economy..it is where buisnesses Get the money to invest in new jobs.
Calling it a Casino shows a ignorance of economics that is only a little better then the crap we get from Logger.
I despise Trump with a passion, but I can do so without buying into the "Anti Capitalist/Making a Profit is Evil" nonsense.

As the Great Zaganza said, stock market investments only go into creating jobs or raising wages when new stocks are sold. What powers creating new jobs and raising wages is the profit generated from existing jobs, which depends of being able to sell the products or services produced, or credit, which depends on confidence that new jobs will generate a profit. When the Republicans pass their tax-cut-for-the-wealthy "reform" lots of new cash will flood into the Wall Street Casino, chasing existing equity that isn't increasing at nearly the same rate, creating a new stock market bubble and doing little for the demand side of the equation. I'm not saying that "making a profit is evil" -- I'm saying it's necessary for capitalism to work, and most of what happens on Wall Street has little to do with that.

 

[rustypouch]

It came from Trump U! How could it not be worth the money!



Not strictly Socialist. Communism heavily employed a planned economies and Fascist states typically employed directed economies, which may even be a little closer to what he wants.

As the Great Zaganza said, stock market investments only go into creating jobs or raising wages when new stocks are sold. What powers creating new jobs and raising wages is the profit generated from existing jobs, which depends of being able to sell the products or services produced, or credit, which depends on confidence that new jobs will generate a profit. When the Republicans pass their tax-cut-for-the-wealthy "reform" lots of new cash will flood into the Wall Street Casino, chasing existing equity that isn't increasing at nearly the same rate, creating a new stock market bubble and doing little for the demand side of the equation. I'm not saying that "making a profit is evil" -- I'm saying it's necessary for capitalism to work, and most of what happens on Wall Street has little to do with that.

Yep. If anything, new jobs and rising wages are at odds with stock value.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Yep. If anything, new jobs and rising wages are at odds with stock value.

Yep.... it's almost like clockwork. Watch the next time some biggie announces worldwide layoffs of 5000 workers. Virtually in sync with that announcement the market pages will report "Great Big Amalgamated Stocks Surge 13% on news of reorganization. Shares at 11 year high." The overall market gets bear-ish on high unemployment, but piecemeal unemployment sends out a "Buy" signal.

 

[newyorkguy]

Part of the current U.S./Canada trade dispute is based on the U.S. charge that Canada can deliver lumber to the U.S. at lower prices than domestic suppliers because Canada subsidizes their lumber producers. Not surprisingly, Canada disputes that.

At the heart of the trade quarrel is that the majority of Canadian lumber comes from Crown lands, managed by provincial governments. In the U.S. timber is harvested from private lands meaning the stumpage price is generally higher. “What they are saying in the U.S. is the Canadian government is essentially giving this land away cheaper than it should be and that is an illegal subsidy,” BMO economist Alex Koustas told Global News. “However, it’s been established through a number of panels and resolution panels that is not the case.” Link

Trump gives the public the impression that he, Trump, is finally doing something to resolve this after years of no action. That is patently false. This issue has been in negotiations -- and there have been a series of agreements -- going back thirty-five years. When you look at the history of the dispute, a lot of what Trump has said appears to be false.

The other part is that Canada does not permit U.S. milk to be sold in their country. Canada does protect its domestic dairy industry but this is another dispute that has been going on for many years, back as far as the Clinton administration and probably farther. Canada uses steep tariffs to keep imported milk out.

Under Canada’s supply management regime for milk, steep tariffs protect Canada’s dairy farmers from imports of most dairy products...Jaime Castaneva, a senior vice-president at the U.S. Dairy Export Council in Washington, D.C., [said] “It’s the same old story with respect to Canada,” Castaneva said. “Twenty years ago the U.S. and New Zealand took Canada to the WTO.” Link

 

[logger]

Part of the current U.S./Canada trade dispute is based on the U.S. charge that Canada can deliver lumber to the U.S. at lower prices than domestic suppliers because Canada subsidizes their lumber producers. Not surprisingly, Canada disputes that.


Trump gives the public the impression that he, Trump, is finally doing something to resolve this after years of no action. That is patently false. This issue has been in negotiations -- and there have been a series of agreements -- going back thirty-five years. When you look at the history of the dispute, a lot of what Trump has said appears to be false.

The other part is that Canada does not permit U.S. milk to be sold in their country. Canada does protect its domestic dairy industry but this is another dispute that has been going on for many years, back as far as the Clinton administration and probably farther. Canada uses steep tariffs to keep imported milk out.

So now you're agreeing with me that Trump is doing this to get a better deal?

 

[The Don]

So now you're agreeing with me that Trump is doing this to get a better deal?

Application of the rule of so ?

He's doing it to grandstand. It looks like one country will get a better deal, but it's likely to be Canada.

 

[logger]

Application of the rule of so ?

He's doing it to grandstand. It looks like one country will get a better deal, but it's likely to be Canada.

This another rinse and repeat, how is it grandstanding?

And how does it look like Canada is getting a better deal?