ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Canada economy , nafta , US-Canada relations

Reply
Old 26th April 2017, 12:50 PM   #81
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,564
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post


That’s not quite what the dispute is over. US producers think Canadian stumpage fees should be forced to be the same as what they have to pay in the US. Canada has more forest and less population so supply is higher, demand is lower which in a free market means stumpage fees need to be lower in Canada otherwise they would remain unsold.

Basically this is US producers trying skew the market and drive up prices to homebuyers by keeping this land unutilized and reducing the amount of lumber on the market.
That certainly is one way of looking at it. Seems a tariff is a perfect way of leveling the playing field. That is if we want to keep our sawmills. We could go the way of steel, remember how we let China have our steel mills. Seems Trump isn't interested in making a few sawmill owners in other countries rich.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 12:52 PM   #82
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,100
Originally Posted by logger View Post
That certainly is one way of looking at it. Seems a tariff is a perfect way of leveling the playing field. That is if we want to keep our sawmills. We could go the way of steel, remember how we let China have our steel mills. Seems Trump isn't interested in making a few sawmill owners in other countries rich.
Level the playing field? Why should the government interfere in the free market?
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 12:54 PM   #83
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,564
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So are they going to go after american beef and the lower fees for grazing on federal lands?
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
Unlikely. It's only bad when the 'wrong people' do it. Wrong people means, other countries, brown people, 'leftists' (whatever a leftist is).

if the 'right' is doing it, there will never be any complaints. If 'leftists' (whatever a leftist is) were grazing cattle on federal land for reduced costs, the right would be up in arms, and frothing at the mouth over it.
Lordy!
This is about our country fellas. Trump said he was going to care for our country, isn't that what a president is supposed to do? This is just hilarious, proves the left doesn't give a rip about the working class and guess what, they know it!

He supposed to somehow take care of other countries because they're brown? ******* hilarious!
Don't yellow people count? Or are you just another racist?
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 12:56 PM   #84
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,564
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
Level the playing field? Why should the government interfere in the free market?
Because that is what they're good at. I haven't been a proponent of free trade for a long time. It's made a few rich men richer. Your first clue would be the example given. Canada has lots of timber. Like China has lots of labor. How come you don't understand such simple things?
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 01:02 PM   #85
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Yes it is that cut and dry. The stumpage price is by far the largest portion.
And the difference is significant, last information I read.
Something like $4 in BC versus $11 in WA, median average. (there are different fees for different types of lumber projects, this is the median average)

25% tariff on the $530 finished product - adding $133 - far exceeds the $7 difference in stumpage fee, so this is not really designed to address the alleged subsidy. Which we could have guessed from the conveniently rounded number and lack of discretion from province to province (each of which has a different stumpage fee schedule).

It's punitive protectionism, which is a bad precedent to set because Canada might retaliate. We import 4x as much lumber from the USA than they do from us, which puts the USA as the biggest potential loser in a tit for tat trade war for this industry category.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 01:04 PM   #86
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,417
Originally Posted by logger View Post
That certainly is one way of looking at it. Seems a tariff is a perfect way of leveling the playing field. That is if we want to keep our sawmills. We could go the way of steel, remember how we let China have our steel mills. Seems Trump isn't interested in making a few sawmill owners in other countries rich.
Leveling the playing field? I thought you guys were against government interfering in the free market? Answer:

Quote:
Because that is what they're good at. I haven't been a proponent of free trade for a long time.
So you're on the far-left, then.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか


Last edited by Argumemnon; 26th April 2017 at 01:06 PM.
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 01:09 PM   #87
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,564
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Leveling the playing field? I thought you guys were against government interfering in the free market? Answer:



So you're on the far-left, then.
You and other leftists always think conservatives are for pure free market. We aren't anarchists, funny they're leftists too.

Laws are created to have a level playing field, which fits well with small government, not the bloated BS your side votes for. So the left can get more goodies.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 01:14 PM   #88
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,564
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
And the difference is significant, last information I read.
Something like $4 in BC versus $11 in WA, median average. (there are different fees for different types of lumber projects, this is the median average)

25% tariff on the $530 finished product - adding $133 - far exceeds the $7 difference in stumpage fee, so this is not really designed to address the alleged subsidy. Which we could have guessed from the conveniently rounded number and lack of discretion from province to province (each of which has a different stumpage fee schedule).
Really. Washington states stumpage is more than twice what Canadas is and 15 to 24% is too much?
Quote:
It's punitive protectionism, which is a bad precedent to set because Canada might retaliate. We import 4x as much lumber from the USA than they do from us, which puts the USA as the biggest potential loser in a tit for tat trade war for this industry category.
Isn't that because Canada needs a certain kind of lumber? If all they needed was Lodgpole, they'd be fine.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 01:39 PM   #89
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Really. Washington states stumpage is more than twice what Canadas is and 15 to 24% is too much?
Arguably, yes, because it contributes just slightly over 1% of the final wholesale cost that suppliers would be paying.

This is why previous complaints about this being 'a subsidy' have failed NAFTA arbitration. There's no evidence that it impacts the final price enough to qualify as dumping, and secondly, the stumpage fee schedule is set by local supply and demand, it's not really directed at exports.



Originally Posted by logger View Post
Isn't that because Canada needs a certain kind of lumber? If all they needed was Lodgpole, they'd be fine.
Not sure what you mean by that. Countries need many kinds of softwood. It's not just for construction. Everything from furniture to pharmaceuticals.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 05:23 PM   #90
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,417
Originally Posted by logger View Post
You and other leftists always think conservatives are for pure free market.
Wait a second! Are you saying that things are... more nuanced than just left-right, black-and-white thinking?

Quote:
We aren't anarchists, funny they're leftists too.
No they're not. Holy hell, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:
Laws are created to have a level playing field, which fits well with small government, not the bloated BS your side votes for.
It's not my "side". You're the only one between you and me who thinks in terms of "sides" here.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 05:28 PM   #91
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Both anarchists and fascists are leftists according to logger.

lol
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 06:11 PM   #92
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,228
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Both anarchists and fascists are leftists according to logger.

lol
Both anarchists and fascists are revolutionary progressives, so it kinda makes sense.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 06:16 PM   #93
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,017
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Both anarchists and fascists are revolutionary progressives, so it kinda makes sense.
Not always. Logger is a Fascist, what with his desire for a one party conservative state in the US.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 01:22 AM   #94
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,507
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
[/b]What more does Trump think the U.S. has to gain in a trade war? They already got Wayne Gretzky, Celian Dion and Justin Bieber.

Not to mention Tommy Chong.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 03:57 AM   #95
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,952
Fascists are progressives now?

__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 04:38 AM   #96
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,417
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Fascists are progressives now?
It's amazing what you can do with words, these days.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 06:16 AM   #97
Porkpie Hat
Critical Thinker
 
Porkpie Hat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by logger View Post
You should go somewhere else, but you won't, because you can't.
That's an ignorant statement since we've already been down this road before and new trade deals have been recently signed which show how wrong you are.

What I find interesting is there's people within my social circles who are already vowing to reduce the amount of American made products they purchase. People who are cancelling trips to the US and either spending their vacation dollars here at home or travelling to Europe instead.

Reading comments in the following article seem to support my contention that Canadian's won't give the almighty US a free pass on their choice of a bully in chief and that when it comes down to brass tax, trump really is a horrible negotiator who cuts off his own nose to spite the American's who really on our trade for their living.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trad...xico-1.4085031

Also noteworthy is it seems other countries are viewing this in a similar light.
Porkpie Hat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 11:01 AM   #98
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by logger View Post
That certainly is one way of looking at it. Seems a tariff is a perfect way of leveling the playing field. That is if we want to keep our sawmills. We could go the way of steel, remember how we let China have our steel mills. Seems Trump isn't interested in making a few sawmill owners in other countries rich.
Why do you hate free markets? What’s the point in “keeping sawmills” or “keeping steel mills” if the only way to do so is government imposed inefficiencies on the marketplace?
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 12:10 PM   #99
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,564
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Why do you hate free markets? What’s the point in “keeping sawmills” or “keeping steel mills” if the only way to do so is government imposed inefficiencies on the marketplace?
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.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 12:11 PM   #100
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,564
Originally Posted by Porkpie Hat View Post
That's an ignorant statement since we've already been down this road before and new trade deals have been recently signed which show how wrong you are.

What I find interesting is there's people within my social circles who are already vowing to reduce the amount of American made products they purchase. People who are cancelling trips to the US and either spending their vacation dollars here at home or travelling to Europe instead.

Reading comments in the following article seem to support my contention that Canadian's won't give the almighty US a free pass on their choice of a bully in chief and that when it comes down to brass tax, trump really is a horrible negotiator who cuts off his own nose to spite the American's who really on our trade for their living.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trad...xico-1.4085031

Also noteworthy is it seems other countries are viewing this in a similar light.
Yeah sure, that will make a Huge dent. My point is when money is involved the market will dictate where people go.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 12:13 PM   #101
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,017
Liberals. The cause of all the worlds ills. Should we place them all in concentration camps? Perhaps lumberjacks can run the furnaces...
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 12:24 PM   #102
Molinaro
Illuminator
 
Molinaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,033
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.
__________________
100% Cannuck!
Molinaro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 12:44 PM   #103
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,992
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 12:56 PM   #104
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.
Originally Posted by logger View Post
They don't seem to have so many liberals.
Canada has fewer liberals than the US?
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Plus many have dictators.
Canada has a dictator?
Originally Posted by logger View Post
makes products even cheaper with slave labor.
Canada has slave Labour?
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Is paying someone a decent wage one of those inefficiencies you're talking about?
I thought you opposed minimum wages?
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 01:27 PM   #105
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,567
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Buggy whips are still being made.
Largely for people who are also into chains and ball gags....
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 02:05 PM   #106
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,826
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
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.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 03:50 PM   #107
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 03:52 PM   #108
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Well in this case Canada is doing it cheaper and they're simply riddled with Liberals.
The ruling party is literally called the Liberals.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 03:54 PM   #109
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,140
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
The ruling party is literally called the Liberals.
These people run the country now.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 04:09 PM   #110
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
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.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 04:12 PM   #111
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,507
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
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.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 04:16 PM   #112
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,826
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
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.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 04:35 PM   #113
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,507
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
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.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 04:39 PM   #114
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,564
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
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.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 05:29 PM   #115
Molinaro
Illuminator
 
Molinaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,033
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.
__________________
100% Cannuck!
Molinaro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 05:48 PM   #116
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,564
Originally Posted by Molinaro View Post
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
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 06:02 PM   #117
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,812
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 06:29 PM   #118
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,564
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
I shudder to think that you represent the "informed conservative voter" of 2017.
I shudder to think you'll be serving coffee again.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2017, 11:01 PM   #119
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,992
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 01:41 AM   #120
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,295
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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?
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:07 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.