Lets try and put some Protectionism back (Clinton opened the door but Republicans opened the floodgates) and watch how fast your tune changes.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
If that's the case, the Obama is hiding the life vests and life rafts as he is no better than any one of them. FREE trade != FAIR trade, which is a big part of the problem.....it's only free on one side.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Damn, our government just can't stop giving money away. They set up a import tariff but manage to give that money to the other country? My gawd, they're incompetent.
--------------
Hey OP,
What's the big problem with the tariff? Why was it implemented?
Is it hardwood, softwood or both?
Were we trying to protect domestic US producers? (I didn't think we had many).
Are other countries who export to us also charged the (same) tariff?
I'm wondering if this is actually harmful to Canadian producers, or is really only harmful to US consumers? I mean, our government is making you guys sell to us at profits higher than you otherwise would (vis-a-vis our 'tariffs' you keep).
Fern
Clinton didn't just open the door. He took off the hinges when he signed GATT but don't let that stop you from making excuses.
Edit: I take it the OP agrees with this --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_hiEvTNV5k&feature=related
Last edited:
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
The tariff was implemented because the US claimed that Canadian forestry companies were getting unfair subsidies from the government for logging on public land. This claim has been challenged many times in NAFTA and WTO courts and has never been proven. My understanding is that Canadian producers do get some subsidies that US producers don't, but the reverse is also true so in the end it typically evens out.
The tariff is a big deal to the Canadian producers because it made Canadian softwood more expensive to US consumers (house builders etc) artificially. Before the tariff, a house builder in the US could buy $1000 worth of timber from a US producer, or could get the same timber from a Canadian producer for say, $950. After the tariff, the Canadian producer would still charge $950, but there'd be a $100 tariff on top of that, making the US builder have to pay $1050 for the Canadian wood. In order to get the price of the Canadian wood down to the same level as the US producer, the Canadian producer would have to lower his price charged to $900, below the price he can happily operate at. As a result, demand for Canadian softwood dried up in the US, many mills closed, tens of thousands lost their jobs (in a province of 4 million people...), and in some cases entire towns were wiped out.
I don't know if any other countries are charged the tariff, but I doubt it is even an issue. You probably can't get a shipload of douglas fir from Russia to the US that would be competitive with local timber when you factor in the shipping cost.
It most certainly is detrimental to Canadian producers. While Canada now collects the tax, the agreement specifies that the funds can't go to "subsidize" the timber industry. Imagine what would happen to the McDonalds near you if the government added a 100% tax on McDonalds food but did not implement the same tax on the Burger King across the street.
It's a bit of a moot point though as the tariff is illegal under NAFTA.
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
You'd be so fucked if you did that. We could sell to China and Europe at world prices and charge the US whatever we wanted. BC could shut off California's power overnight. Guess what country you import most of your oil from? The US benefits from free trade more than you realize.
lol this. A couple weeks ago there was a thread about donald trump running for president and how he would tax the hell out of products made in China. I won't say all, but I will say a lot of Americans on this forum thought that was the stupidest idea ever because it would drive up the cost of goods. Those same people then complain that America should try to manufacture and export more goods. Well wtf, which one do you want? Do you want cheap shit from China with no import tax or do you want import taxes to make US companies able to compete against them? You can't have it both ways.
Lumber is the same thing. You either get cheap lumber from Canada and it kills American jobs or you put import taxes on Canadian products and it drives up the cost of lumber. Which do you want? Do you want lower prices or do you want more jobs? Most first world nations pick jobs. The US often picks lower prices, so the result is 99% of everything coming from China while 99% of Americans work in the service industry.
(not actual statistics)
wuliheron
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2011
- 3,536
- 0
- 0
I want it all and I want it now and I want it CHEAP! Then I want a raise and lower taxes.
What's so hard to understand about that? Politicians make promises like that all the time. So what if they drive the economy into the toilet trying to give me all those things.
I WANT IT!!!!
What's so hard to understand about that? Politicians make promises like that all the time. So what if they drive the economy into the toilet trying to give me all those things.
I WANT IT!!!!
I think America should look after it's own interests. NAFTA has led to more issues than it ever solved. Sometimes the government needs the ability to regulate international trade to maintain a self sufficient, stable state.
wuliheron
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2011
- 3,536
- 0
- 0
Self-sufficiency is a hippie pipe dream.
Republicans have it half right in the belief that wealth creates wealth, but just as importantly wealth is used to steal wealth. There is just no way the US could sustain its current lifestyle much less growth rate without stealing vast amounts of wealth from others. The third world steals from each other, we steal from whoever we can, and the wealthy steal from everybody. The government's job is to ensure the theft continues and to find new and creative ways to steal more.
We are modern Rome stealing and importing vast amounts of wealth from all around the world in order to maintain our lifestyle and enrich the wealthy. At one time half of Rome consisted of slaves and 1/3 of its citizens were on the dole. The wealthy few had stolen just about everything they could from their citizens as well as the rest of the world and today 400 Americans own about the same amount as half the population. We are victims of our own success and no amount of haggling over trade agreements will change the situation.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
There's a logical fallacy in the reasoning here. See if you can figure out what it is.
OK, I'll help you. The fallacy is that in the example of the lumber you provided, the commentators are only looking at front-end costs and completely ignoring invisible back-end costs.
Perhaps lumber costs more money, but how do you account for the amount of money saved by having fewer unemployed and underemployed Americans as a result?
Is it better to spend more money for American lumber and less money on social welfare (by having fewer unemployed and underemployed Americans) or is it better to have cheaper lumber and more unemployed and underemployed Americans?
Also, when we purchase lumber from Canada it contributes to our nation's trade deficit and national debt. Why isn't that cost factored into the equation?
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
The U.S. barely engages in nationalism and protectionism at all. If it did we wouldn't have an H-1B and L-1 visa program and we wouldn't have sent millions of formerly middle class jobs over to China, India, and Mexico, including many college-education-requiring jobs. Also, we wouldn't have imported tens of millions of impoverished immigrants.
Germany, Japan, and China engage in trade protectionism. The U.S. is a wide open market in comparison.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
Maybe his knowledge of economic theory will allow him to come here and explain to us how dramatically increasing the supply of labor available to the U.S. market while the demand for labor remains relatively static will not necessarily result in a lower price point (wages, standard of living, purchasing power) for the price of labor. Perhaps he could explain why it would result in a higher price point.
So far no economist, pundit, or politician has been able to provide a convincing answer. If they could then they would shout it from the rooftops.
What's pathetic is that work-a-day folks are able to intuitively understand this basic concept but so many college-educated people cannot understand simple supply-and-demand concepts.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
...and when you do find one it is liable to be a low-wage job that does not make any real use of your college education. See:
From Wall Street to Wal-Mart: Why College Graduates Are Not Getting Good Jobs
Perhaps then you will start to acquire some real-world experience with economics. Actually, you already are if you're currently unemployed.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Which is why the USA needs to revert back into intense isolationism. At best the world will begin to miss us; at worst the world will begin to forget how much it hates us.
Make it here or do without it.
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
Completely separate things. First, softwood lumber had been under NAFTA for a while. It's not like the free trade caused the US to lose jobs. In fact, it is more likely that it was the exchange rate which contributed to it more than anything.
Your definition of a back end cost is... odd. This has nothing to do with the price of housing really. You're talking about "saving" money in a completely different way.
You could ask the same question to the tens of thousands of people in BC who lost their jobs... The agreement was negotiated in good faith. We were able to produce something more cheaply than you could and expanded an industry about it. You buy our lumber, we buy your cars and computers. It's worked well for a long time, but some lobby group got all pissy and decided to break NAFTA over some wood.
Also, cheaper raw materials from Canada is good for US manufacturing. Cheaper oil, cheaper ores... That allows US companies to be competitive both domestically and globally. Imagine what would happen to the US auto industry if GM's input costs for all its materials were 40% higher than the Japanese and Germans.
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
No one was complaining back in the Clinton days... Don't blame the current situation on free trade because that is not what caused it.
Phokus
Lifer
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,994
- 779
- 126
It's kind of hard to pass judgement unless we get a clearer picture of who gets what subsidies.
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
...or we could just look at how the argument has gone in the NAFTA and WTO courts...
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
The so called FREE TRADE isn't free....nor is anything near FAIR (i.e. equal or close to equal as it should be).
Poor people in wealthy countries lining the pockets of rich people in poor countries (not to mention temporarily lining the pockets of the rich in their own countries).
Poor people in wealthy countries lining the pockets of rich people in poor countries (not to mention temporarily lining the pockets of the rich in their own countries).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter