US/Canada Trade War ?

[Shalamar]

Liberals. The cause of all the worlds ills. Should we place them all in concentration camps? Perhaps lumberjacks can run the furnaces...

 

[Molinaro]

Because other countries can always do it cheaper. They don't seem to have so many liberals. Plus many have dictators (same as a liberal) which makes products even cheaper with slave labor. Is paying someone a decent wage one of those inefficiencies you're talking about?

And I don't hate free markets when other countries are competing fairly.

Do you consider those comments 'on topic' in a discussion about Canada? Because to me they look exactly like the opposite of what things are like here, and yet it's your defense for your position.

 

[The Don]

Because other countries can always do it cheaper. They don't seem to have so many liberals.

Well in this case Canada is doing it cheaper and they're simply riddled with Liberals.

 

[lomiller]

Because other countries can always do it cheaper.

That’s the whole point of free markets, if someone else can do it more efficiently everyone benefits.

They don't seem to have so many liberals.

Canada has fewer liberals than the US?

Plus many have dictators.

Canada has a dictator?

makes products even cheaper with slave labor.

Canada has slave Labour?

Is paying someone a decent wage one of those inefficiencies you're talking about?

I thought you opposed minimum wages?

 

[dudalb]

Buggy whips are still being made.

Largely for people who are also into chains and ball gags....

 

[Stacko]

Both anarchists and fascists are leftists according to logger.

lol

Leftist/liberal are just pejoratives thrown around by Trumpkins completely detached from their actually definitions. They're catch-alls for anyone that disagrees with them. A conservative writer could write a piece on Trump’s resistance to free market principles and before you know it the Trump Train rolls into the comment-section depot to brand them a liberal/leftist.

 

[blutoski]

Because other countries can always do it cheaper. They don't seem to have so many liberals. Plus many have dictators (same as a liberal) which makes products even cheaper with slave labor. Is paying someone a decent wage one of those inefficiencies you're talking about?

And I don't hate free markets when other countries are competing fairly.

The problem with this example, is that the product in question is an extracted resource. The Republican argument for free trade is that some countries have less expensive resource extraction than others, so removing trade barriers makes the lower cost available across borders. In this case, Canada's abundant tree inventory can be available to Americans, reducing their housing costs.

Canadian wood would be even cheaper if Canadian labour was cheaper than American labour. But our labour is more expensive. Nevertheless, despite the higher processing costs in Canada, the low cost of the raw materials is still very competitive versus US supply.

Another example is fossil fuels. Canada has huge supplies with low extraction costs. Labour doesn't even factor into it, it's just cheaper here. The question for Americans is whether the job protection is worth the increased price at the pump, increased housing costs. Depending on how far Trump goes, Americans could be looking at increased 'everything' costs, and it's hard to predict if this will actually stimulate enough job growth to increase wages and offset the increased cost of living.

 

[blutoski]

Well in this case Canada is doing it cheaper and they're simply riddled with Liberals.

The ruling party is literally called the Liberals.

 

[NoahFence]

The ruling party is literally called the Liberals.

These people run the country now.

 

[blutoski]

These people run the country now.

By definition, yes, as the ruling party.

There's an attitude that the Liberals are the 'natural ruling party' of Canada.

 

[quadraginta]

The ruling party is literally called the Liberals.

Not that a name means much.

In Japan the ruling, entrenched, right-wing, conservative party is the Liberal Democrats.

The Liberal Democratic Party of Party of Russia (formerly the Liberal Democratic Party of the Soviet Union) is a party formed as a joint project between the old Politburo Communists and the KGB after multi-party elections became possible there.

 

[Stacko]

Not that a name means much.

In Japan the ruling, entrenched, right-wing, conservative party is the Liberal Democrats.

The Liberal Democratic Party of Party of Russia (formerly the Liberal Democratic Party of the Soviet Union) is a party formed as a joint project between the old Politburo Communists and the KGB after multi-party elections became possible there.

It's a weird Americanism that liberal=left. If a party is associated with classical liberalism, it have positions that run most of the spectrum of modern mainstream political beliefs.

 

[quadraginta]

It's a weird Americanism that liberal=left. If a party is associated with classical liberalism, it have positions that run most of the spectrum of modern mainstream political beliefs.

I know some members of the message board that would disagree with that.

(I'm not among them. I do think the examples I mentioned would not fit most descriptions of classical liberalism, though. American or otherwise.)

All I was pointing out was that you can't tell much by a name. Especially in politics.

 

[logger]

The problem with this example, is that the product in question is an extracted resource. The Republican argument for free trade is that some countries have less expensive resource extraction than others, so removing trade barriers makes the lower cost available across borders. In this case, Canada's abundant tree inventory can be available to Americans, reducing their housing costs.

Canadian wood would be even cheaper if Canadian labour was cheaper than American labour. But our labour is more expensive. Nevertheless, despite the higher processing costs in Canada, the low cost of the raw materials is still very competitive versus US supply.

Another example is fossil fuels. Canada has huge supplies with low extraction costs. Labour doesn't even factor into it, it's just cheaper here. The question for Americans is whether the job protection is worth the increased price at the pump, increased housing costs. Depending on how far Trump goes, Americans could be looking at increased 'everything' costs, and it's hard to predict if this will actually stimulate enough job growth to increase wages and offset the increased cost of living.

If Canada sets the price low on federally owned land, what does that do to the price on privately owned land? Or is the vast majority owned by Canada?

The framing costs of a house are a small part of the cost. A small increase in lumber will not raise the price significantly.

 

[Molinaro]

If Canada sets the price low on federally owned land, what does that do to the price on privately owned land? Or is the vast majority owned by Canada?

According to this Natural Resources Canada website 90% of forests are publicly owned, 4% privately owned and 6% owned by the Federal Government and Aboriginals.

That 90% bit is the Crown Land that the previously discussed stumpage fees pertains to.

 

[logger]

According to this Natural Resources Canada website 90% of forests are publicly owned, 4% privately owned and 6% owned by the Federal Government and Aboriginals.

That 90% bit is the Crown Land that the previously discussed stumpage fees pertains to.

It makes sense. Canada would have to own the vast majority if they can so easily set the price

 

[Foolmewunz]

You mean Mexico could have sold dolphin tuna to the Thais and Koreans and not have had to meet these restrictions that US customers want?

One wonders why they didn't just do that?

I shudder to think that you represent the "informed conservative voter" of 2017.

It has nothing to do with dolphins. That was a ruse. When push came to shove and the Mexican fisheries were required to document their practices it turns out that they are exactly the same as those used in the major tuna fisheries all over the world, and which meet US and EU standards.

This was, like the Canadian timber tariff, an attempt by those with the largest market shares to keep smaller competition out of their monopoly. The timber dispute at least has the cosmetics of being a patriotic flag-waving fight because there are American producers of softwood (although at least four out of the top twenty are now also foreign owned). There are ZERO American tuna canneries and ZERO American companies in the canned tuna market.

Your LOLLIBRUL Myopia requires that you see things in Trumpian zero-sum terms so Mexico Wins Dispute must mean "America Loses OMG Won't Someone Think of the Tuna Companies". It was corporations versus corporations and the big guys lost to the little guys. The ruse was sussed out. It has nothing to do with saving dolphins. It has to do with saving market share.

You may toddle off now. Your boy in the Orange House needs you. Could you lend a hand building the wall? Wait'll his hundred day rally on Saturday. When the crowd starts chanting "Build That Wall" he'll go back to Washington with renewed courage and start again.

Making America Great Again, One Failure At A Time.

 

[logger]

I shudder to think that you represent the "informed conservative voter" of 2017.

I shudder to think you'll be serving coffee again.

It has nothing to do with dolphins. That was a ruse. When push came to shove and the Mexican fisheries were required to document their practices it turns out that they are exactly the same as those used in the major tuna fisheries all over the world, and which meet US and EU standards.

They were forced to do this because of their past?

This was, like the Canadian timber tariff, an attempt by those with the largest market shares to keep smaller competition out of their monopoly. The timber dispute at least has the cosmetics of being a patriotic flag-waving fight because there are American producers of softwood (although at least four out of the top twenty are now also foreign owned). There are ZERO American tuna canneries and ZERO American companies in the canned tuna market.

Which apparently the Obama administration kept this ruse going?

Please though don't toddle off, we'd love to hear more of your "business expertise" an area you obviously excel in.

 

[The Don]

The framing costs of a house are a small part of the cost. A small increase in lumber will not raise the price significantly.

True, it seems the estimated increase is $1300, a small proportion of the overall cost but enough to put off thousands of buyers.

 

[WilliamSeger]

If Canada sets the price low on federally owned land, what does that do to the price on privately owned land? Or is the vast majority owned by Canada?

The framing costs of a house are a small part of the cost. A small increase in lumber will not raise the price significantly.

So you're okay with some forms of wealth redistribution, such as forcing the home buyers to support the lumberjacks' jobs?