US/Canada Trade War ?

[Belz...]

Not for long?

How so? Countries like China and Bangladesh and India still have considerably lower wages.

 

[logger]

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....

True, no one cares if the Libs have to pay more for lemons, but there has to be a reason why they did this. Do you have a link?

 

[The Don]

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.

Of course you can compete. You can lower the other cost elements.

In the case of processed lumber, U.S. producers could have lower processing costs, lower labour costs (I understand that that's actually the case), lower distribution costs or the producers could take a lower margin.

And that's only if you're competing on price. If you expand the scope for competition then U.S. producers could compete by being more flexible, more innovative, having higher quality products...the list is a long one.

 

[logger]

How so? Countries like China and Bangladesh and India still have considerably lower wages.

Tariff?
Or the US may decide to leave it alone. They've been known to pick winners and losers. Obama did it many times.

 

[logger]

Of course you can compete. You can lower the other cost elements.

In the case of processed lumber, U.S. producers could have processing costs, lower labour costs (I understand that that's actually the case), lower distribution costs or the producers could take a lower margin.

And that's only if you're competing on price. If you expand the scope for competition then U.S. producers could compete by being more flexible, more innovative, having higher quality products...the list is a long one.

That's true, but now they don't have to. Bet they'll actually raise prices and allow Canada timber to be still cheaper. That's what I'd do.

 

[Belz...]

Tariff?

That's not "starting" more expensive, though, is it? It's an artificial bump to the price that may just come back to bite you in the ass.

Or the US may decide to leave it alone.

In which case they'll just be left behind.

 

[The Don]

That's true,

Then that means that your original assertion was wrong.

but now they don't have to.

Unfortunately that's now a double-whammy for the US.

US consumers will have to pay more for lumber the results of which may include higher house prices and the loss of thousands of construction jobs.

The US lumber industry isn't competitive on a global scale and so the opportunities for US lumber companies to export are removed - limiting growth.

 

[logger]

Then that means that your original assertion was wrong.

How's that? Canada's stump prices are still much cheaper. There's always room for cost cutting.

Unfortunately that's now a double-whammy for the US.

US consumers will have to pay more for lumber the results of which may include higher house prices and the loss of thousands of construction jobs.

The US lumber industry isn't competitive on a global scale and so the opportunities for US lumber companies to export are removed - limiting growth.

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.

 

[lomiller]

Actually you can have both, Trump just showed how.

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. This makes it literally impossible to protect your own markets, preserver all domestic jobs and still export products.

It's not about efficiency, the timber in Canada starts off cheaper, that is what has to be overcome.

Using tariffs to prevent US consumers from taking advantage of cheaper products is just a new tax, and a very inefficient one at that.

 

[The Don]

How's that? Canada's stump prices are still much cheaper.

Well your original assertion was

If you start off with cheaper raw products, there's no way one can compete.

My response, which you conceded was true, was that there are may ways to compete. If you're competing on cost then there are other cost elements you can reduce and/or take a lower margin. There are also many ways to compete on non-cost grounds.

Not really, we still have better quality.

Is that true ?

If so then why is the US lumber industry complaining unless cost is the only factor - in which case higher quality is irrelevant.

Besides the uptick in prices is tiny. If prices get too high and it affects the industry, they'll go down.

If the difference in cost is tiny, why can't the US industry compete

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Yep, it's only protectionism if the others are doing it...

 

[Tony Stark]

Capitalism is perfect and the government shouldn't interfere in free markets. Unless it benefits me.

 

[logger]

Well your original assertion was



My response, which you conceded was true, was that there are may ways to compete. If you're competing on cost then there are other cost elements you can reduce and/or take a lower margin. There are also many ways to compete on non-cost grounds.

Talking strictly about stumpage prices. Many are just green mills, their highest cost are stumpage and labor.

Is that true ?

If so then why is the US lumber industry complaining unless cost is the only factor - in which case higher quality is irrelevant.

When discussing 2x4's it probably is irrelevant.

If the difference in cost is tiny, why can't the US industry compete

Tiny in the overall cost to build a home.

 

[logger]

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. This makes it literally impossible to protect your own markets, preserver all domestic jobs and still export products.

This is only one issue, we may get away with it.

Using tariffs to prevent US consumers from taking advantage of cheaper products is just a new tax, and a very inefficient one at that.

Only to big government socialists.

 

[logger]

Capitalism is perfect and the government shouldn't interfere in free markets. Unless it benefits me.

When has the bgovernment not interfered heavily in markets?

 

[The Don]

Talking strictly about stumpage prices. Many are just green mills, their highest cost are stumpage and labor.

.....and yet Canadian labour costs (which is apparently a much greater proportion of the overall cost than stumpage) are higher - go figure

When discussing 2x4's it probably is irrelevant.

Then why did you bring it up ?

Tiny in the overall cost to build a home.

And yet those who are experts determined that thousands of construction jobs could be lost as a result - so not a trivial impact after all.

Of course this completely ignores the fact that the Canadian stumpage fees have been repeatedly investigated and found not to be a subsidy.

 

[Tony Stark]

When has the bgovernment not interfered heavily in markets?

So are you OK with the government interfering with the market in general or just when it benefits you?

 

[logger]

So are you OK with the government interfering with the market in general or just when it benefits you?

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.

 

[The Don]

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.

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.

 

[logger]

.....and yet Canadian labour costs (which is apparently a much greater proportion of the overall cost than stumpage) are higher - go figure

Since they set the price on their own land, that's not very surprising.

And yet those who are experts determined that thousands of construction jobs could be lost as a result - so not a trivial impact after all.

They determined thousands? If the price went down the same amount, would thousands be added? Seems some bias has crept into your sources?

Of course this completely ignores the fact that the Canadian stumpage fees have been repeatedly investigated and found not to be a subsidy.

Yes, naturally.
Could you link to those sources?