• 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 ?

WilliamSeger said:
So you're okay with some forms of wealth redistribution, such as forcing the home buyers to support the lumberjacks' jobs?
Click to expand...

Given that logger is supposed to be in the logging business, I can see how that would make sense and it's entirely consistent with the conservatives' attitude to subsidy and government interference in the market - they're against it unless it benefits them directly.
 
WilliamSeger said:
So you're okay with some forms of wealth redistribution, such as forcing the home buyers to support the lumberjacks' jobs?
Click to expand...
Have you heard GOP voter's retoric on entitlements? They're perfectly fine with them as long as they're going to the white right people.
 
The Don said:
Given that logger is supposed to be in the logging business, I can see how that would make sense and it's entirely consistent with the conservatives' attitude to subsidy and government interference in the market - they're against it unless it benefits them directly.
Click to expand...

Actually trade agreements are supposed to work for both countries creating fairness and a level playing field is the charge of government. Fascinating that I have to explain these things.
 
logger said:
Actually trade agreements are supposed to work for both countries creating fairness and a level playing field is the charge of government. Fascinating that I have to explain these things.
Click to expand...

The field in the case of lumber is already level. The lower stumpage costs in Canada (a result of more supply and less demand) are offset by higher labour costs.

What the tariff will do (and what you're advocating is):

  • Tilting the playing field in the favour of U.S. producers and their inefficient business models
  • Raise the price of lumber in the U.S.
  • Raise the price of houses in the U.S.
  • Reduce demand for houses in the U.S.
  • Reduce employment in the construction sector

The upshot is that U.S. consumers will be subsidising inefficient U.S. lumber operations and any gain in lumber employment will be more than offset by losses in construction employment.

With "winning" like this, who needs to lose ?
 
I love how the hard right totally misses the very real fact that vibrant capitalist economies depend as much on wealth destruction as on its creation - the old or inefficient giving way to the newer or more efficient. The much lambasted income redistribution they so detest is a feature, not a bug, most especially in the case of estate taxes. Merit is not genetic.
 
logger said:
Actually trade agreements are supposed to work for both countries creating fairness and a level playing field is the charge of government. Fascinating that I have to explain these things.
Click to expand...

No, this is the opposite of what trade deals are supposed to accomplish. The point of free trade deals is to exploit differences in relative efficiencies that goods can be created. Not only is a level playing field not needed it defeats the purpose.
 
tyr_13 said:
Whatever helps your rationalize why you're not as good a logger as the Canadians so you can sleep at night. Call them being better and having a functional government that provided education and healthcare to it's citizens a 'subsidy' even.
Click to expand...

I don't know about education, since it's also free in the U.S. But I've wondered for years why politicians don't recognize that our job-based health insurance system means that American employers must absorb that cost. Canadian jobs can pay less, because there's no need to include health insurance. I know businesses get a break, but still ... divorcing health insurance from the workplace is bound to simplify things and allow for somewhat lower wages.
 
Removed a whole swath of off-topic and personalized posts. Knock it off, already.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
lomiller said:
No, this is the opposite of what trade deals are supposed to accomplish. The point of free trade deals is to exploit differences in relative efficiencies that goods can be created. Not only is a level playing field not needed it defeats the purpose.
Click to expand...
Is this from a non US perspective?
 
logger said:
Is this from a non US perspective?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are trying to ask. The point of free trade is that both sides benefit from the differences between their markets. Trying to create and “even playing field” defeats the purpose for both sides.
 
lomiller said:
I have no idea what you are trying to ask. The point of free trade is that both sides benefit from the differences between their markets. Trying to create and “even playing field” defeats the purpose for both sides.
Click to expand...

Really, that seems to be the major arguments? Seems quite simple to buy things you don't have and sell things others don't have. Why all the issues then?
 
logger said:
Really, that seems to be the major arguments? Seems quite simple to buy things you don't have and sell things others don't have. Why all the issues then?
Click to expand...

There isn’t much the US exports that couldn’t be produced elsewhere...
 
logger said:
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?
Click to expand...

None is owned by 'canada'. Natural resources are the jurisdiction of individual provinces. Different provinces have different stumpage fees and ancillary costs for logging companies.

To my knowledge, there is practically no private massmarket logging acreage. The amortization for realizing investment is too long. (centuries)



logger said:
The framing costs of a house are a small part of the cost. A small increase in lumber will not raise the price significantly.
Click to expand...

According to [National Association of Home Builders], framing is 18% of the cost of a structure's construction. A 25% tariff on lumber would presumably increase the lumber cost by 25%, for an overall increase of just under 5%.

And this is what it comes down to in general. Any individual cost is minor. Labour costs are a trivial portion of the retail price of a Big Mac (last estimate I saw was something like an eighth of a percent). Yet, Republicans seem to say that it's a moral imperative to keep the minimum wage down because even that small cost is allegedly an immoral burden to consumers.
 
logger said:
Well then wouldn't that tell you that the US needs to fight to keep its job base, since every other country can do it cheaper?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by 'it'. There are lots of things that the USA can do cheaper than other countries.

The premise with trade agreements is to let the USA export their most efficient products and services, and import the ones that other countries can create cheaper.

It has been the most important Republican trade model for two or three generations.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
I love how the hard right totally misses the very real fact that vibrant capitalist economies depend as much on wealth destruction as on its creation - the old or inefficient giving way to the newer or more efficient. The much lambasted income redistribution they so detest is a feature, not a bug, most especially in the case of estate taxes. Merit is not genetic.
Click to expand...

The other thing is that the jobs in any sector can be restored tomorrow by reversing the technological developments that have expanded automation.

I wasn't a career logger or anything like that, but I did work in a sawmill for a few summers.

Visiting the old mill, it's producing something like four times the output now, with about 25% of the staff it saw in the 1980s.

The workers of course blame the USA for their 'unfair trade practices' as a source of job decline, just as the American workers blame Canada, but the reality is that the employers have been shaving down their labour footprint through capital investments.

With the implosion of 'respect' for unions, the attention is directed to 'blame foreigners' instead of the actual root cause.
 
logger said:
It makes sense. Canada would have to own the vast majority if they can so easily set the price
Click to expand...

This part is the simple part - if the land is not owned by a real person, a corporation, set aside for a First Nation, or a part of an incorporated municipality or Federal reserve, it's Crown Land and administered by the Province. It can be sold, or rented, or for a fee the resources can be extracted from it.
 
logger said:
Well then wouldn't that tell you that the US needs to fight to keep its job base
Click to expand...

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”.
 
Border Reiver said:
This part is the simple part - if the land is not owned by a real person, a corporation, set aside for a First Nation, or a part of an incorporated municipality or Federal reserve, it's Crown Land and administered by the Province. It can be sold, or rented, or for a fee the resources can be extracted from it.
Click to expand...

Or just auction off the logging rights to the highest bidder so other uses of the land are not restricted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom