• 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 ?

The Don said:
Evidence ?

I've seen plenty of claims to this effect and yet the vast majority of jobs that were "lost" were lost to automation and the US economy as a whole has benefited immensely.

NAFTA is not responsible for the "loss" of manufacturing jobs to China or service jobs to India. NAFTA has provided new markets for US goods and allowed US consumers and industries to benefit from sourcing from Canada and Mexico.
Click to expand...

So why did all those jobs go to China and Mexico?
 
logger said:
How is the government going to present a level playing field without being involved? Who has ever advocated them not being involved? Its a matter of degree. I'd like them to do what they can to keep our industries. NAFTA has done tremendous damage to that.
Click to expand...

So it is the government's job to ensure that there is a level playing field?

Are you a socialist?
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
Evidence ?

I've seen plenty of claims to this effect and yet the vast majority of jobs that were "lost" were lost to automation and the US economy as a whole has benefited immensely.

NAFTA is not responsible for the "loss" of manufacturing jobs to China or service jobs to India. NAFTA has provided new markets for US goods and allowed US consumers and industries to benefit from sourcing from Canada and Mexico.
Click to expand...

Huffpo no less
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html
 
logger said:
Since they set the price on their own land, that's not very surprising.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense, lower stumpage costs lead to higher labour costs ?

logger said:
They determined thousands? If the price went down the same amount, would thousands be added? Seems some bias has crept into your sources?
Click to expand...

They were asked what the impact of this change would be so no, they didn't look at price falls. Then again, affordability has a very big impact on demand for housing.

logger said:
Yes, naturally.
Could you link to those sources?
Click to expand...

The NAFTA 2006 ruling is a good starting point
 
logger said:
You're confusing smaller government with no government. Essentially you're thinking as Tony does. ;)
Click to expand...

You want a government that levels the playing field, by e.g. support startups and prevents monopolies. You want regulations to prevent companies from dumping their waste on small communities. You want to stop banks from gambling with their savers money.
You are Bernie Sanders.
 
logger said:
Looks like a 24% tariff
Click to expand...

It's not reworking, though, it's in violation of the trade agreement; it's the opposite of a trade agreement, it's protectionism, which is the admission that the country does not want to trade in this industry for the foreseeable future.



logger said:
Its more about the industry than individual jobs. its too broad to worry about individual jobs.
Click to expand...

That's problematic, because the industry can succeed without creating any net jobs, which is the likely outcome of a tariff, in my experience. It increases corporate profits, though, so the owner class benefits. (Which would be ME! - I have Interfor shares, so this Canadian makes money if the Washington lumber retailers get to goose up their pricing by 24% - American kids pay extra for new houses, more money for the Interfor shareowners, mortgage lending banks, &c)

Just to give some background, my job is to outsource call centers. I create call centers overseas. If there was a new law saying those call centers had to go, they would. There would be no jobs created here, though. We'd automate.

So, this is where education comes in. There's plenty of jobs onshore for the asking. We need technologically adept people. Why are their jobs not worth supporting, in your opinion?



logger said:
The democrats consistently propose craddle to the grave.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
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.
Click to expand...

It doesn't look like it. Tariffs increase the price of goods Americans will buy, so they will be forced to buy less ongoing. Any jobs that may have been increased by eliminating overseas competitors will be neutralized by the layoffs from the products now being out of reach of millions of Americans.

For example, if Apple brought its iPhone assembly onshore and didn't automate (they would obviously just build a robot factory, but let's assume they went insane and decided to replace workers man for man instead), iPhones would be about $9,000 each. Their US sales would crater, and they'd just have to lay off 90% of those hypothetical workers a year later.

In the meantime, a family buying a couple of $9,000 iPhones will crowd out some other purchase, like a car. So: layoffs in Detroit, too.

Protectionism leads to fewer jobs overall, for everybody. Trade is Win Win. Protectionism is Lose Lose.
 
logger said:
If you start off with cheaper raw products, there's no way one can compete.
Click to expand...

I think that's mostly true for many extraction industries (there are exceptions, such as when more expensive raw materials can still be extracted cheaper locally).

The reason this is considered a plus in favour of free trade, is that it's Americans buying the end product. The raw material is input for somebody else's product, and ultimately a retail price in the store. Consumers want low prices, they vote with their dollars.


logger said:
We get that in labor with other countries like China.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a good example. China does have relatively cheap physical labour. Believe it or not, their labour prices have inflated a lot in the last decade, China is actually starting to outsource now.

Incidentally, this is a major reason Trump's withdrawl from TPP is going to be a crisis for the USA. The USA is abandoning its negotiating power in Asia and handing dominance to China.
 
logger said:
How's that? Canada's stump prices are still much cheaper. There's always room for cost cutting.


Not really, we still have better quality. Besides the uptick in prices is tiny. If prices get too high and it affects the industry, they'll go down.
Click to expand...

It's the consumers I'm worried about. The estimate from that link I posted earlier was just under 5%. On a $190k construction, this adds $9500 to somebody's purchase price. Double that if you include the interest over the loan amortization.

So, that's $19,000 disposable spending that is sucked out of the household. Probably a car's worth. This is the lose-lose part from tariffs. An uptick in the lumber industry translates into a pink slip in Michigan. The wealth doesn't magically appear out of nowhere. If you're increasing an import's cost by 24% that money is coming from another industry's revenues.

This is the interconnectedness that was behind Free Trade - Americans agreeing to negotiate together, as Americans, for more jobs overall, instead of against each other, as Loggers vs Auto manufacturers, screw the other guy, I get mine.
 
Last edited:
The benefits of free trade is one of the few things that there is near unanimous agreement with among economists.
 
Tony Stark said:
The benefits of free trade is one of the few things that there is near unanimous agreement with among economists.
Click to expand...

There are a few holdouts, but I think it's less about trade in principle than it's the partisan dispute in the USA and Canada about how to deal with the displaced, and balancing diplomacy with looking the other way during violations.

Progressives have consistently proposed a social infrastructure designed for a dynamic economy: decoupling retirement savings, unemployment insurance, and health plans from employers, for example. Subsidized education.

Conservatives have rejected these for various overt and covert reasons. Ostensibly, rejection to a nanny state in principle, even if they acknowledge people are materially worse off. But the underlying problem is their cooption by specific elements in the shareowner class that profit from the disruption.
 
logger said:
lomiller said:
No, you can’t. Even if you found trade “partners” that would open their markets while you protected yours you still couldn’t because at the end of the day capital flows must sum to zero.
Click to expand...

This is only one issue, we may get away with it. ;)
Click to expand...

How, develop your over version of mathematics where 1 minus 1 = 3?
 
lomiller said:
How, develop your over version of mathematics where 1 minus 1 = 3?
Click to expand...

The BC premier is already commencing a process to bar US coal import.

So, at this point the question is: how many US coal jobs are worth losing to save a few US logging jobs (if any)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom