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 4th May 2017, 05:57 AM   #161
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 61,880
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Not for long?
How so? Countries like China and Bangladesh and India still have considerably lower wages.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
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 4th May 2017, 05:57 AM   #162
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,352
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
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?
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 4th May 2017, 05:58 AM   #163
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,052
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.

Last edited by The Don; 4th May 2017 at 06:00 AM.
The Don 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 4th May 2017, 05:58 AM   #164
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,352
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
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 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 4th May 2017, 06:00 AM   #165
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,352
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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.

Last edited by logger; 4th May 2017 at 06:03 AM.
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 4th May 2017, 06:01 AM   #166
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 61,880
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.

Quote:
Or the US may decide to leave it alone.
In which case they'll just be left behind.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
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 4th May 2017, 06:04 AM   #167
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,052
Originally Posted by logger View Post
That's true,
Then that means that your original assertion was wrong.

Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.
The Don 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 4th May 2017, 06:14 AM   #168
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,352
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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.

Quote:

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.
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 4th May 2017, 06:21 AM   #169
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,342
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.

Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.
__________________
"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 4th May 2017, 06:24 AM   #170
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,052
Originally Posted by logger View Post
How's that? Canada's stump prices are still much cheaper.
Well your original assertion was

Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.

Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.

Originally Posted by logger View Post
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 Don 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 4th May 2017, 06:55 AM   #171
The Great Zaganza
Graduate Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,882
Yep, it's only protectionism if the others are doing it...
__________________
"at this point, Trump is waist-deep in dead canaries"
- John Oliver
The Great Zaganza 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 4th May 2017, 08:48 AM   #172
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,820
Capitalism is perfect and the government shouldn't interfere in free markets. Unless it benefits me.
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 4th May 2017, 10:20 AM   #173
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,352
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

If the difference in cost is tiny, why can't the US industry compete
Tiny in the overall cost to build a home.
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 4th May 2017, 10:21 AM   #174
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,352
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
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.


Quote:
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 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 4th May 2017, 10:23 AM   #175
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,352
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
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?
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 4th May 2017, 10:25 AM   #176
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,052
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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

Originally Posted by logger View Post
When discussing 2x4's it probably is irrelevant.
Then why did you bring it up ?

Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.
The Don 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 4th May 2017, 10:26 AM   #177
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,820
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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?
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 4th May 2017, 10:31 AM   #178
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,352
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
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.
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 4th May 2017, 10:35 AM   #179
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,052
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.
The Don 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 4th May 2017, 10:37 AM   #180
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,352
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
.....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.





Quote:
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?
Quote:
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?
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 4th May 2017, 10:38 AM   #181
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,352
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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.
So why did all those jobs go to China and Mexico?
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 4th May 2017, 10:41 AM   #182
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,820
Originally Posted by logger View Post
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.
So it is the government's job to ensure that there is a level playing field?

Are you a socialist?

Last edited by Tony Stark; 4th May 2017 at 10:42 AM.
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 4th May 2017, 10:41 AM   #183
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,352
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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.
Huffpo no less
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-w...b_4550207.html
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 4th May 2017, 10:42 AM   #184
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,352
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
So it is the government's job to ensure that their is a level playing field?

Are you a socialist?
Once again, try and concentrate. No one has advocated we get rid of government. Do you get that?
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 4th May 2017, 10:42 AM   #185
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,052
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Since they set the price on their own land, that's not very surprising.
That makes no sense, lower stumpage costs lead to higher labour costs ?

Originally Posted by logger View Post
They determined thousands? If the price went down the same amount, would thousands be added? Seems some bias has crept into your sources?
They were asked what the impact of this change would be so no, they didn't look at price falls. Then again, affordability has a very big impact on demand for housing.

Originally Posted by logger View Post
Yes, naturally.
Could you link to those sources?
The NAFTA 2006 ruling is a good starting point
The Don 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 4th May 2017, 10:45 AM   #186
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,820
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Once again, try and concentrate. No one has advocated we get rid of government. Do you get that?
I totally get that you want the government to interfere with the market when it helps you.
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 4th May 2017, 10:47 AM   #187
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 61,880
Originally Posted by logger View Post
How is the government going to present a level playing field without being involved?
Isn't that what leftists have been telling you guys forever now?

Quote:
Who has ever advocated them not being involved?
Conservatives.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
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 4th May 2017, 10:48 AM   #188
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,352
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Isn't that what leftists have been telling you guys forever now?



Conservatives.
You're confusing smaller government with no government. Essentially you're thinking as Tony does.
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 4th May 2017, 11:06 AM   #189
The Great Zaganza
Graduate Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,882
Originally Posted by logger View Post
You're confusing smaller government with no government. Essentially you're thinking as Tony does.
You want a government that levels the playing field, by e.g. support startups and prevents monopolies. You want regulations to prevent companies from dumping their waste on small communities. You want to stop banks from gambling with their savers money.
You are Bernie Sanders.
__________________
"at this point, Trump is waist-deep in dead canaries"
- John Oliver
The Great Zaganza 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 4th May 2017, 11:15 AM   #190
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 61,880
Originally Posted by logger View Post
You're confusing smaller government with no government.
No, I'm not. No one accused you of wanting no government at all.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
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 4th May 2017, 02:13 PM   #191
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,434
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Looks like a 24% tariff
It's not reworking, though, it's in violation of the trade agreement; it's the opposite of a trade agreement, it's protectionism, which is the admission that the country does not want to trade in this industry for the foreseeable future.



Originally Posted by logger View Post
Its more about the industry than individual jobs. its too broad to worry about individual jobs.
That's problematic, because the industry can succeed without creating any net jobs, which is the likely outcome of a tariff, in my experience. It increases corporate profits, though, so the owner class benefits. (Which would be ME! - I have Interfor shares, so this Canadian makes money if the Washington lumber retailers get to goose up their pricing by 24% - American kids pay extra for new houses, more money for the Interfor shareowners, mortgage lending banks, &c)

Just to give some background, my job is to outsource call centers. I create call centers overseas. If there was a new law saying those call centers had to go, they would. There would be no jobs created here, though. We'd automate.

So, this is where education comes in. There's plenty of jobs onshore for the asking. We need technologically adept people. Why are their jobs not worth supporting, in your opinion?



Originally Posted by logger View Post
The democrats consistently propose craddle to the grave.
Yes.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by blutoski; 4th May 2017 at 02:15 PM.
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 4th May 2017, 02:19 PM   #192
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,434
Originally Posted by logger View Post
No, its about protecting our remaining industries. We've lost much of our manufacturing base, hopefully the rework (if he does it) will bring them back.
It doesn't look like it. Tariffs increase the price of goods Americans will buy, so they will be forced to buy less ongoing. Any jobs that may have been increased by eliminating overseas competitors will be neutralized by the layoffs from the products now being out of reach of millions of Americans.

For example, if Apple brought its iPhone assembly onshore and didn't automate (they would obviously just build a robot factory, but let's assume they went insane and decided to replace workers man for man instead), iPhones would be about $9,000 each. Their US sales would crater, and they'd just have to lay off 90% of those hypothetical workers a year later.

In the meantime, a family buying a couple of $9,000 iPhones will crowd out some other purchase, like a car. So: layoffs in Detroit, too.

Protectionism leads to fewer jobs overall, for everybody. Trade is Win Win. Protectionism is Lose Lose.
__________________
"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 4th May 2017, 02:26 PM   #193
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,434
Originally Posted by logger View Post
If you start off with cheaper raw products, there's no way one can compete.
I think that's mostly true for many extraction industries (there are exceptions, such as when more expensive raw materials can still be extracted cheaper locally).

The reason this is considered a plus in favour of free trade, is that it's Americans buying the end product. The raw material is input for somebody else's product, and ultimately a retail price in the store. Consumers want low prices, they vote with their dollars.


Originally Posted by logger View Post
We get that in labor with other countries like China.
Yes, that's a good example. China does have relatively cheap physical labour. Believe it or not, their labour prices have inflated a lot in the last decade, China is actually starting to outsource now.

Incidentally, this is a major reason Trump's withdrawl from TPP is going to be a crisis for the USA. The USA is abandoning its negotiating power in Asia and handing dominance to China.
__________________
"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 4th May 2017, 02:31 PM   #194
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,434
Originally Posted by logger View Post
How's that? Canada's stump prices are still much cheaper. There's always room for cost cutting.


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.
It's the consumers I'm worried about. The estimate from that link I posted earlier was just under 5%. On a $190k construction, this adds $9500 to somebody's purchase price. Double that if you include the interest over the loan amortization.

So, that's $19,000 disposable spending that is sucked out of the household. Probably a car's worth. This is the lose-lose part from tariffs. An uptick in the lumber industry translates into a pink slip in Michigan. The wealth doesn't magically appear out of nowhere. If you're increasing an import's cost by 24% that money is coming from another industry's revenues.

This is the interconnectedness that was behind Free Trade - Americans agreeing to negotiate together, as Americans, for more jobs overall, instead of against each other, as Loggers vs Auto manufacturers, screw the other guy, I get mine.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by blutoski; 4th May 2017 at 02:32 PM.
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 4th May 2017, 02:35 PM   #195
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,434
Originally Posted by logger View Post
So why did all those jobs go to China and Mexico?
He said China and India. The point being that these countries are not involved with NAFTA.
__________________
"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 4th May 2017, 02:36 PM   #196
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,820
The benefits of free trade is one of the few things that there is near unanimous agreement with among economists.
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 4th May 2017, 02:44 PM   #197
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,434
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
The benefits of free trade is one of the few things that there is near unanimous agreement with among economists.
There are a few holdouts, but I think it's less about trade in principle than it's the partisan dispute in the USA and Canada about how to deal with the displaced, and balancing diplomacy with looking the other way during violations.

Progressives have consistently proposed a social infrastructure designed for a dynamic economy: decoupling retirement savings, unemployment insurance, and health plans from employers, for example. Subsidized education.

Conservatives have rejected these for various overt and covert reasons. Ostensibly, rejection to a nanny state in principle, even if they acknowledge people are materially worse off. But the underlying problem is their cooption by specific elements in the shareowner class that profit from the disruption.
__________________
"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 5th May 2017, 11:20 AM   #198
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,342
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
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 is only one issue, we may get away with it.
How, develop your over version of mathematics where 1 minus 1 = 3?
__________________
"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 5th May 2017, 11:24 AM   #199
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,434
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
How, develop your over version of mathematics where 1 minus 1 = 3?
The BC premier is already commencing a process to bar US coal import.

So, at this point the question is: how many US coal jobs are worth losing to save a few US logging jobs (if any)?
__________________
"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 5th May 2017, 11:26 AM   #200
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,352
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
How, develop your over version of mathematics where 1 minus 1 = 3?
How has Canada reacted to this tariff?
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
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 12:21 PM.
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.