NationStates Jolt Archive

He's fourteen.

Man, what a waste of time. I just assumed the immaturity was part of being a hardline conservative...

Man, what a waste of time. I just assumed the immaturity was part of being a hardline conservative...

Give the little douche credit though, he annoys the fuck out of everyone.

(I feel partly responsible about this though).

Give the little douche credit though, he annoys the fuck out of everyone.

(I feel partly responsible about this though).

Meh, don't worry about it. On the plus side, I had to repeat myself so many times that I now have many of the statistics memorized.

By the time I got to page 14 I was starting to wonder how old this person was, glad I waited until I read the whole thing before posting.

Well, that explains why the AUSFTA was so one-sided - not that I expected any different.

The softwood industry in Canada has taken a beating over the last few years. My understanding of the reason behind this is because Canada has been flooding the market with timber far below market value. This may be acceptable in socialist and communist countries but here in the US our markets can not compete with that which is why we have emposed a 9% tarrif on these imports to level out the playing feild.
If subsidies are not acceptable in a non-socialist, non-communist country, why does the US subsidise its agriculture industry (as just one example)? Or is the US now a socialist or communist country? Funny I must have not been watching the news the day that happened... :confused:

The US is protectionist, pure and simple.

Also, the tariffs average out to 27%, not 9% like he stated.

Cry me a river. The UK is quite far north you know, as is Norway, yet Canadians manage to burn over two and a half times as much oil per person as either country.

To summarize: It's never Canada's fault, Canada is perfect, everyone else is wrong.



Gibraltar 1506.24 barrels per day per 1000 people
Greenland 65.63 barrels per day per 1000 people
Belgium 57.41 barrels per day per 1000 people
Netherlands 54.56 barrels per day per 1000 people
Canada 51.91 barrels per day per 1000 people
Ireland 43.42 barrels per day per 1000 people
Finland 40.47 barrels per day per 1000 people
Norway 37.25 barrels per day per 1000 people
Germany 34.12 barrels per day per 1000 people
France 33.40 barrels per day per 1000 people


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_con_cap

Now, why are the British using 29 times more oil than Canada? lol

Gibraltar 1506.24 barrels per day per 1000 people
Greenland 65.63 barrels per day per 1000 people
Belgium 57.41 barrels per day per 1000 people
Netherlands 54.56 barrels per day per 1000 people
Canada 51.91 barrels per day per 1000 people
Ireland 43.42 barrels per day per 1000 people
Finland 40.47 barrels per day per 1000 people
Norway 37.25 barrels per day per 1000 people
Germany 34.12 barrels per day per 1000 people
France 33.40 barrels per day per 1000 people


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_con_cap

Now, why are the British using 29 times more oil than Canada? lol

Wow, Gibraltar people drink the stuff? That's just crazy.

Gibraltar 1506.24 barrels per day per 1000 people
Greenland 65.63 barrels per day per 1000 people
Belgium 57.41 barrels per day per 1000 people
Netherlands 54.56 barrels per day per 1000 people
Canada 51.91 barrels per day per 1000 people
Ireland 43.42 barrels per day per 1000 people
Finland 40.47 barrels per day per 1000 people
Norway 37.25 barrels per day per 1000 people
Germany 34.12 barrels per day per 1000 people
France 33.40 barrels per day per 1000 people


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_con_cap

Now, why are the British using 29 times more oil than Canada? lol

For the sake of argument I will assume that you are not very well versed in geography. Gibraltar is a Naval refueling centre. However, once Gibraltar is factored into the UK population as a whole, well yes, the UK uses far less oil per person than Canada.

The cricket nutter was someone's 14-year old nephew?

*phew*

I just hope he's lost interest...

I just hope he's lost interest...
It rather seems like he might be grounded.

It rather seems like he might be grounded.

He's not grounded. I gave him a stern talking too about winding up Canadians, that's all. He's fairly recalcitrant about the whole incident however. Actually, had anyone engaged him with cricket type stuff he would have been no problem - other than boring the pants off people.

He's not grounded. I gave him a stern talking too about winding up Canadians, that's all. He's fairly recalcitrant about the whole incident however. Actually, had anyone engaged him with cricket type stuff he would have been no problem - other than boring the pants off people.
If I followed sports, well...

If I followed sports, well...

Actually, he's a funny little fucker. If you met him in person, you'd probably like him.

And I have to admit, he taught me a lesson. He sure picked up his anti-canada spiel from me, because whenever canada comes across my sights I usually bitch it out. But it's not that cool when you see your cousin parroting it though.

In any case, as I was bollicking him about winding you all up, he told me "why can't we just share the love" or some stuff. I think we could all learn from that.

If subsidies are not acceptable in a non-socialist, non-communist country, why does the US subsidise its agriculture industry (as just one example)? Or is the US now a socialist or communist country? Funny I must have not been watching the news the day that happened... :confused:

The US is protectionist, pure and simple.

Maybe I worded it wrong. It's not the subsidies alone that are unacceptable. Subsidies, in some cases, are neccessary to trigger economic growth. It's a combination of subsidies and the devaluation of product in order to gain an unfair competitive edge that is damaging. Try and think about it from our perspective: Joe produces a product and begins to market it at fair market value, ie.. + or - 15% of actual value. John produces the same product only his out of pocket costs have been reduced by Grandpa giving him half of the money to produce it. Since it costs John less to produce his product, he can sell it for half the price of Joe's product and twice as much and make the same profit as Joe. Sounds great for John and completely unfair for Joe. American timber companies are already competing with other Americans and foreign nations at fair market value. Canadas timber trade is mainly with the US. This is why it was spelled out in the NAFTA agreement that there are quotas on the amounts of Canadian timber that can enter this country. Americans didn't start this. The Canadian timber industry flooded the market with devalued product, not the world market, the American market, their main trading partner. READ my earlier posts. The Canadians gave away 100,000 sq. miles of timber land to the Japanese (over $8 billion worth of timber) and now they whine about the accumulated $5 billion in tariffs the US imposed on them.

Also, the tariffs average out to 27%, not 9% like he stated.


The tariffs started out at 27% but at the negotiation tables, a floor was set at 9%.

We're in the shit-house, boys. Get the feeling we'll stay in the shit-house 'til Bush & friends skedaddle?

Them beavers look pretty unwelcoming right now.

:(

Maybe I worded it wrong. It's not the subsidies alone that are unacceptable. Subsidies, in some cases, are neccessary to trigger economic growth. It's a combination of subsidies and the devaluation of product in order to gain an unfair competitive edge that is damaging. Try and think about it from our perspective: Joe produces a product and begins to market it at fair market value, ie.. + or - 15% of actual value. John produces the same product only his out of pocket costs have been reduced by Grandpa giving him half of the money to produce it. Since it costs John less to produce his product, he can sell it for half the price of Joe's product and twice as much and make the same profit as Joe. Sounds great for John and completely unfair for Joe. American timber companies are already competing with other Americans and foreign nations at fair market value. Canadas timber trade is mainly with the US. This is why it was spelled out in the NAFTA agreement that there are quotas on the amounts of Canadian timber that can enter this country. Americans didn't start this. The Canadian timber industry flooded the market with devalued product, not the world market, the American market, their main trading partner. READ my earlier posts. The Canadians gave away 100,000 sq. miles of timber land to the Japanese (over $8 billion worth of timber) and now they whine about the accumulated $5 billion in tariffs the US imposed on them.

More acurate scenario:
John gets half the money necessary to produce it from his grandpa, but his grandpa stipulates that in order to get the money, John must build his own roads to his factory and replace the product as he harvests it. Suddenly John's costs are the exact same as Joe's again, but Joe still isn't satisfied. Joe gets his government to put additional tariffs on John's industry, so now John's production costs are way higher than what would be fair. John never gained any benefit from grandpa, because grandpa's money all went to fulfilling grandpa's requirements to get the money anyway, and now John has to deal with Joe hitting him on the other side too. Things are not good for John.

So Joe should be penalized because he had the infrastructure to enter into the business when John didn't And even in your senario, John is still paying only half the costs out of pocket, sure grandpa pays the other half, but Joe is paying 100% out of pocket. IMO John is still better offl.

Just to be clear, Ragbralbur, What you are saying is both nations are trying to prop up thier lumber industries with government interference in the marketplace and the US government has, to this point done a better job of it, correct? If that is the case, the phrase 'tough shit', comes to mind.

So Joe should be penalized because he had the infrastructure to enter into the business when John didn't And even in your senario, John is still paying only half the costs out of pocket, sure grandpa pays the other half, but Joe is paying 100% out of pocket. IMO John is still better offl.

Not really. John stills pays the same costs as Joe to run the operation. As I said before, all of Grandpa's money goes towards fulfilling Grandpa's additional requirements, which means Joe and John pay the exact same amount out of their pockets.

Just to be clear, Ragbralbur, What you are saying is both nations are trying to prop up thier lumber industries with government interference in the marketplace and the US government has, to this point done a better job of it, correct? If that is the case, the phrase 'tough shit', comes to mind.

Not quite. I said that we did ours legally without breaking any of the rules of NAFTA or the WTO, and that they didn't, which is why the phrase "tough shit" doesn't apply.

So if Joe's government pays for Joe's infrastructure (roads, etc.) that is NOT subsidizing Joe's operation, but if John's government makes John pay for the infrastructure but offers lower stumpage rates to compensate, that IS subsidizing his industry. Is that what you are trying to argue? Why do I get the feeling that if John's government raised stumpage fees and then offered to build all the roads and undertake the reforesting projects, Joe's government would still be crying?

The only issue in this thread is that the USA has been ruled against by the WTO and at least one other body I believe. They have to pony up. They signed an agreement and are now trying to squirm their way out of it. It is contractual fraud if they don't. Nothing else is at issue here. The fact is the USA owes Canada 5 billion dollars and is refusing to pay it. In some places you get your legs broke for such behavoiur. The reality is, this has nothing to do with international influence or anything else. It's about when you sign your name on the dotted line you agree to a legal and binding contract. The USA is breaking that contract without notice. It owes Canada 5 billion dollars, pay up! End of story!

the USA has been ruled against by the WTO and at least one other body I believe
The NAFTA dispute panel itself, composed of 2 Canadians and 3 Americans.

Well according to numerous Americans here, apparently this has something to do with it being unfair that we're a different country with our own ways of doing things. That, or we're being punished for things that have nothing to do with fair and equitable trade. Take your pick.

One thing's certain: the bulk of American respondents couldn't care less how criminal their leaders are, and think nothing of the treaties they sign - unless it means a chance to put the screws to other countries.

Hell with that. Hello, China? Let's do lunch.

The NAFTA dispute panel itself, composed of 2 Canadians and 3 Americans.

Yes, thank you, it had slipped my mind. :)

Trade agreement not withstanding, the Canadian way of protecting its lumber industry is backward. From what I've seen on this thread, correct me if I'm wrong, the Canadian government is paying huge subsides while the US is collecting a tariff both in efforts to give the advantage to thier lumber industries? That's simply foolish. As far as agreements go, it seems a completely level playing field would serve everyones best interests, but the pissing contest has taken priority. Such is the way of the world. And I think someone mentioned something about China, the raping the Chinese would give you would make you pine to have the US abuse you in matters of trade again.

And I think someone mentioned something about China, the raping the Chinese would give you would make you pine to have the US abuse you in matters of trade again.
Why, the Chinese raping you?

Why, the Chinese raping you?
China is a gigantic, low-cost labor market and because of low wages a fairly weak consumer market. Fair trade with China, for a nation in which wages aren't comparable is next to impossible.

Trade agreement not withstanding, the Canadian way of protecting its lumber industry is backward. From what I've seen on this thread, correct me if I'm wrong, the Canadian government is paying huge subsides while the US is collecting a tariff both in efforts to give the advantage to thier lumber industries? That's simply foolish. As far as agreements go, it seems a completely level playing field would serve everyones best interests, but the pissing contest has taken priority.

You're wrong. Here's why:

The Canadian government placed additional environmental regulations on the companies logging Canadian forests. The companies pointed out this would kill them in the global market, so the Canadian government decided it would keep the requirements but pay the companies for the hardships they endured meeting the environmental requirements. They did this by cutting back the original stumpage fees on each tree. Basically, the Canadian government has independently contracted logging companies and paid them to build roads to the logging sites and to reforest the areas they cut down. Rather than just paying them cash, they reduce the stumpage costs for these companies. It's more efficient for the Canadian government because it means they don't have to set up a separate program to build roads and reforest, and it also means that they don't have to worry about as much money trading hands. At the same time, operations are just as expensive for the logging companies because the only benefits they get are to offset the regulations put against them by the government. Essentially, the government has taken all necessary steps to ensure that the price of Canadian softwood lumber remains what it would normally be on the market. This process does not save the companies any money. It saves the Canadian government money by making the environmental initiatives more efficient.

The only issue in this thread is that the USA has been ruled against by the WTO and at least one other body I believe. They have to pony up. They signed an agreement and are now trying to squirm their way out of it. It is contractual fraud if they don't. Nothing else is at issue here. The fact is the USA owes Canada 5 billion dollars and is refusing to pay it. In some places you get your legs broke for such behavoiur. The reality is, this has nothing to do with international influence or anything else. It's about when you sign your name on the dotted line you agree to a legal and binding contract. The USA is breaking that contract without notice. It owes Canada 5 billion dollars, pay up! End of story!

Read up on the NAFTA agreement and this softwood timber issue. This is not a new issue. It has been an on going battle for half a decade. Lets clarify some things too. Canada has an approximate population of 32 Million, the US has approximately 300+ Million (take into account the nearly 40 million illegals we're paying for from Mexico) The vast majority of Canadians and Americans do not hate eachother, we respect eachother. 96% of all our trade is harmonious. The timber accounts for the other 4% and this industry is obviously a hotbed for discussion. Here are just a few short facts to chew on:

CANADIAN TIMBER INDUSTRY

Lower labor costs and a lower standard of living, compared with the United States helped to keep
the price of timber production down in Canada. This was not the only thing the Canadians have going for
them though, apparently the Canadian government subsidizes stumping charges from timber producers. With
the Canadian government helping the Canadian producers, it drives prices down even further. This is not
great news if you harvest timber in the United States, but it seems to work out pretty well for the
Canadians (rumor has it that they weren't complaining about their position in the market).
All of this said, we can now venture into the different sides of NAFTA, it's shortcomings, and
how it may have opened doors to new markets.

QUOTAS

Before NAFTA had came into the mix, there was always the annoying aspect of quotas, a certain
amount of lumber that could be imported into the United States. With the forthcoming of NAFTA people at
the head of most of the large lumber companies in the United States believed that this new agreement
would slighten these quotas, maybe even do away with them completely. Unfortunately for the U.S. side
was that with NAFTA the quotas became more rigid. Many in the industry were not expecting this agreement
and it turned out to be a worse situation for the Americans.
Before, when stock was low or lumber was in high demand companies used to be able to get their
hands on it. Now with the introduction of strict quotas companies are forced to wait until the beginning
of the next quarter ( Lumber is bought quarterly). A lot of U.S. companies are not to happy about this
and want there to be no quotas at all. The United Forest and Paper Association continues to push
Congress to get the timber industry a better deal with Canada in this aspect.

TARIFFS

Prior to the trade agreement, a significant amount of tariffs and taxes were placed on the
exported lumber from Canada. These tariffs, applied to all lumber coming to us was just passed right
down the line, with the United States's retail lumber stores feeling the blow most heavily from a steady
drop in profit margins.
NAFTA did erase these tariffs between countries, including Mexico, a move that was excellent for
the United States. Many spokesmen from retailers, wholesalers, the mills said they saw an immediate
impact. Noone would say how much, but even a few percentage points extra in profit margins in a billion
dollar industry translates into a lot of money (Northeastern Lumber co.).
Canada got left out in this part of the agreement, of course they didn't want to see the revenue
generated by their tariffs be wiped away. There was the saving grace in that they did hold a significant
amount of control on the market with these strict quotas in place. Most believe that this is the sole
reason Canada backed off of the 'no tariffs ' issue (Western Wood Products).

Get that. Canada backed off the "no tarriffs" issue for timber. This is a battle between timber industry corporate giants and not the average run of the mil Canadian or American. So to hate my entire country over this issue is rediculous but it is easy to understand why you do when the 10 percent of the US population that are in political and corporate control outnumber the entire Canadian population. Right or Wrong, the tarrifs were in place on timber only the day the NAFTA agreement was signed!

This is not a new issue. It has been an on going battle for half a decade.
And we're all rather painfully aware of that up here. And America's response to protracted wrongdoing is to try to tell us how to run our economy, while they renege on signed deals and flip the bird to NAFTA and the WTO.

Nice.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/08/26/Portman_softwood20050826.html


To Hell with Rob Portman.
To Hell with George Bush.
To Hell with the con job of NAFTA and the original Free Trade Pact.
To Hell with all of it. Keep it. I don't want nothin' to do with you skinflint double-dealing LIARS, thieves, and thugs. I'd sooner starve than trade with jerkwaters who have the temerity to suggest that a sovereign nation do things the "American way". God knows if all the countries in the world did things the American way, there'd be no damn world left.

Pay up, get lost, stay away. I am sick half to death of this perennial bullshit percolating up from south of our most unfortunate border.

Ah,.. Canadians...

You MUST respect such,... ineffectual whining. I certainly do. :)

Hae ae ae... some day you will grow up. Then you will see the wisdom of your
betters.


-The REAL Iakeo

And we're all rather painfully aware of that up here.

How so? I have asked you before. How has this affected you personally? Did you lose your job? Family lose a job? If so, I'm personally sorry for that, but as an average run of the mil American who has absolutely no say so in political or corporate affairs like the other 90+% of Americans, can do nothing about that. It's inflamatory to generalize the entire American population, and I guess I have probably done the same in earlier posts with respect to Canadians but I have tried not to be rude. If this timber issue is personal for you, maybe you can lobby your government to renegotiate the terms of the NAFTA concerning timber trade. I may be inclined to request the same from my congressman. I know my country would be pleased to get as much of your timber as we could get our hands on without limitations of quotas. Look at the news, we have a CAT 5 hurricane that is hours away from destroying New Orleans. Hundreds of thousands of people are soon to be homeless, an entire historical city to drown in 35 feet of storm surge. (sorry, just got off on a tangent, just took a pain killer for my tooth ache.)

How so? I have asked you before. How has this affected you personally? Did you lose your job? Family lose a job? If so, I'm personally sorry for that, but as an average run of the mil American who has absolutely no say so in political or corporate affairs like the other 90+% of Americans, can do nothing about that. It's inflamatory to generalize the entire American population, and I guess I have probably done the same in earlier posts with respect to Canadians but I have tried not to be rude. If this timber issue is personal for you, maybe you can lobby your government to renegotiate the terms of the NAFTA concerning timber trade. I may be inclined to request the same from my congressman. I know my country would be pleased to get as much of your timber as we could get our hands on without limitations of quotas. Look at the news, we have a CAT 5 hurricane that is hours away from destroying New Orleans. Hundreds of thousands of people are soon to be homeless, an entire historical city to drown in 35 feet of storm surge. (sorry, just got off on a tangent, just took a pain killer for my tooth ache.)

So you're saying we should butt out because it doesn't affect us personally? Let's try a parallel: Not everyone suffered directly because of the events at Enron and WorldCom, yet there was an outcry from across America, from just as many people who weren't even involved in the event as who were. Why? It offended American sensibilites. This timber issue has done the same thing to Canada. We don't even need to lobby our government. They know about the issue and they took it to every international body they could think of that could rule on trade in a non-biased way. This issue has been front page in our papers because of the comments the American ambassador has made in regards to respecting our sovereignty.

We don't have an issue with Americans. We have an issue with how the Bush administration has handled this situation, and we also have an issue with those who defend the Bush adminstration's handling because we believe they are wrong. We've been through why the subsidies are there, and I think it has become evident that if the Canadian timber industry gets any benefit, which seems doubtful, it's far smaller than even the 9% floor the United States has set. We're simply out of options short of a trade war. The American government wants us to come back and negotiate, but at this point it's seeming more and more like they're just stalling so they don't have to pay. That's the predicament we face. It's not against you Americans. You have to pay higher housing costs as a result, so we feel for you. We're just stuck.

So you're saying we should butt out because it doesn't affect us personally? Let's try a parallel: Not everyone suffered directly because of the events at Enron and WorldCom, yet there was an outcry from across America, from just as many people who weren't even involved in the event as who were. Why? It offended American sensibilites. This timber issue has done the same thing to Canada. We don't even need to lobby our government. They know about the issue and they took it to every international body they could think of that could rule on trade in a non-biased way. This issue has been front page in our papers because of the comments the American ambassador has made in regards to respecting our sovereignty.

We don't have an issue with Americans. We have an issue with how the Bush administration has handled this situation, and we also have an issue with those who defend the Bush adminstration's handling because we believe they are wrong. We've been through why the subsidies are there, and I think it has become evident that if the Canadian timber industry gets any benefit, which seems doubtful, it's far smaller than even the 9% floor the United States has set. We're simply out of options short of a trade war. The American government wants us to come back and negotiate, but at this point it's seeming more and more like they're just stalling so they don't have to pay. That's the predicament we face. It's not against you Americans. You have to pay higher housing costs as a result, so we feel for you. We're just stuck.


Well, I'm an American, and it offends MY sensibilities that our government would enter into an agreement, and then, when it founf the agreement was not as much to its benefit as it thought, or would like...they go and renege on the agreement.

I'd like to think the government that represents me always lives up to its word and always does the honorable thing. Then again, this IS the Bush Administration, and the Republicans we're talking about, neither of which have much experience with honesty, or doing the honorable thing, for that matter.

This is bad for both countries, but especially America. If lumber is restricted, building costs will remain higher than they should be. Why? It makes no economic sense.

This issue has been front page in our papers because of the comments the American ambassador has made in regards to respecting our sovereignty.

We don't have an issue with Americans. We have an issue with how the Bush administration has handled this situation, and we also have an issue with those who defend the Bush adminstration's handling because we believe they are wrong. We've been through why the subsidies are there, and I think it has become evident that if the Canadian timber industry gets any benefit, which seems doubtful, it's far smaller than even the 9% floor the United States has set. We're simply out of options short of a trade war. The American government wants us to come back and negotiate, but at this point it's seeming more and more like they're just stalling so they don't have to pay. That's the predicament we face. It's not against you Americans. You have to pay higher housing costs as a result, so we feel for you. We're just stuck.


First off, what comments are you refering too with regards to Canadian sovereignty, were they made by Wilkins about the timber issue or the old guy about the missile defence? Forgive my ignorance on this, it is not front page news here. Secondly, walking away from the negotiation table, whether its a stall tactic or not, is no way to solve this issue. Let me explain why it's going to be hard to sell the idea that subsidies is a non-issue and why the timber lobby here is fighting this so hard. All of the American timberlands are privately owned. Private enterprise has built the infrastructure needed to compete in this industry. In Canada, 90% of all the timberlands are government owned and the government lowered the stumpage fees for loggers to not only build their own infrastructure but it also allowed for lower timber costs. Even though no money exchanged hands between the Canadian government and the loggers, the lowering of stumpage fees in essence was a subsidy. The industry here views that as an unfair advantage to gain market share. I can empethize with those that feel a loss of revenue or livelihood due to this unfortunate experience. I live in South Carolina and timber is our main cash crop. Timber here is an $800 million per year source of revenue for South Carolina plus we import $40 million in timber from Canada each year. So, if anyone feels the economic squeeze this has caused, it is us South Carolinians.

Let me explain why it's going to be hard to sell the idea that subsidies is a non-issue and why the timber lobby here is fighting this so hard. All of the American timberlands are privately owned. Private enterprise has built the infrastructure needed to compete in this industry. In Canada, 90% of all the timberlands are government owned and the government lowered the stumpage fees for loggers to not only build their own infrastructure but it also allowed for lower timber costs. Even though no money exchanged hands between the Canadian government and the loggers, the lowering of stumpage fees in essence was a subsidy. The industry here views that as an unfair advantage to gain market share. I can empethize with those that feel a loss of revenue or livelihood due to this unfortunate experience. I live in South Carolina and timber is our main cash crop. Timber here is an $800 million per year source of revenue for South Carolina plus we import $40 million in timber from Canada each year. So, if anyone feels the economic squeeze this has caused, it is us South Carolinians.

And it's the Canadian government's view, as well as the WTO, that a 27% tariiff on raw logs or finished product is too high. Besides if you're importing wood to an area where wood is a main industry, obviously supply can't meet demand. US forest and wood processing companies benefit while the consumer pays higher prices, because the forest lobby pushed for this. Sure sounds like a subsidy to me.

Let me explain why it's going to be hard to sell the idea that subsidies is a non-issue and why the timber lobby here is fighting this so hard. All of the American timberlands are privately owned. Private enterprise has built the infrastructure needed to compete in this industry. In Canada, 90% of all the timberlands are government owned and the government lowered the stumpage fees for loggers to not only build their own infrastructure but it also allowed for lower timber costs.

Thanks for playing, but despite it repeatedly being said, you've missed it.
The government has lower stumpage fees because they *also* require the loggers to take actions to ensure the environment stays replenished, such as by replanting, etc. In your free market, it'd be the same thing if some private owner offered his land only if the logging company promised they'd replant it after.. they'd demand big discounts before signing on. So perhaps cutting down the tree costs a little less, but that difference is made up in the environmental duties they take on when they cut a tree down.

The problem isn't that Canadian lumber is subsidized. The problem is that American industries have been shielded for so long (though admittedly by nothing more than their own shrewd negotation previously) before now that they haven't had to upgrade their technology to effectively compete.

This is why every panel convened that actually examined the matter has concluded that the US's duties are illegal, and that Canada is not illegally subsidizing anything. We're charging logging companies a lower price because we demand more from them.

In addition, there is the Byrd Amendment that directs all duties taken from Canadian lumber companies be given directly to the "injured" American companies, further shielding them from having to become technologically competitive. This is flatly illegal, as the full remedy against anti-competitive behavior is supposed to be that the duties level the playing field, not that they give internal companies a leg up.

Exactly, the American argument is based on the idea that lower stumpage fees automatically mean lower costs for timber companies, but as we've shown repeatedly, this is not the case in Canada.

Ah... It might be fun to point out that NAFTA was George HW Bush's baby, a major sore-point domestically here in the U.S., and still worth a decent shouting match or two a week in some of the taverns I used to frequent. The softwood lumber issue wouldn't be an issue without it, and Ross Perot wouldn't have been taken nearly as serously in 1992 without it, either.
NAFTA was great for American Corporations-being able to outsource duty-free south of the border, use unlicensed Mexican trucking to move goods north without inspections, and having the government pay for a south-of-the-border bailout made it very popular in some circles. Just... those Pesky Canadians, who're not a third-world hell hole are also involved (had to be, really-otherwise those Northeastern and Midwestern Senators might've looked a little more closely, and asked a few more questions...)
Point is, it's obviously not working for Canada. Something about Canada not being "easy" to do business in (I presume your politicians are more expensive than Mexico's...) if you're looking to pay under-10% of the price you'd pay for the same labour and capital in the U.S.

A "Trade War" is probably just what needs to happen to finish of George Sr.'s Legacy.

I'd like to think the government that represents me always lives up to its word and always does the honorable thing. Then again, this IS the Bush Administration, and the Republicans we're talking about, neither of which have much experience with honesty, or doing the honorable thing, for that matter.
I was rather under the impression that the current administration has made rather a point of not properly representing the American people, to the unfettered delight of those who voted Misters Bush and Cheney in. If they can't be bothered to honour their office, in these days of high polarity, why should honour be expected from them at all, other than to make copious use of the word for the purpose of cobbling together still more self-congratulatory soundbytes?

It's a pity, I used to really respect Canada and Canadians in general - I thought they were an open minded and friendly people.

Then I see a group of them start generalising Britain and acting in a manner bordering on racism. Yes, i'm sure England was wrong to "treat the Scottish and Welsh the way they did". Sure, the Scottish made periodic border raids where they massacred and/or raped innocent unarmed men, women and children - but they were after all English and therefore sub human, so probably deserved it.

Now why don't you continue your American esque arrogance, acting like Canada is above any other country in the world and it is perfectly acceptable to be racially bigoted against others because you aren't American. However, perhaps you should consider the fact CANADA WOULD BE OWNED BY THE US IF IT WASN'T FOR BRITISH HELP!

I was rather under the impression that the current administration has made rather a point of not properly representing the American people, to the unfettered delight of those who voted Misters Bush and Cheney in. If they can't be bothered to honour their office, in these days of high polarity, why should honour be expected from them at all, other than to make copious use of the word for the purpose of cobbling together still more self-congratulatory soundbytes?

Ah, but you completely missed the paradox, you see...because the Bush Administration is DELIBERATELY not representative of me. not only are they not representative of me, in that I didn't vote for them...but their every action and policy has effects that are inimical to my interests, or at the very least, have deleterious effects upon my interests. Not only that, but they seem to KNOW that this is the case, and they congratulate themselves, and high-five each other over this.
So, I'm not in the least surprised that the U.S. has chosen to renege on its agreements with Canada.
Looks like we're stuck with it till 2008, no matter what. Doesn't look like Bush will ever be held accountable for jack-shit...and even if he is, cheney is behind him...and then Dennis Hastert is behind HIM (and we all know that Tom Delay is Hastert's puppet master) so, even if we DID manage to get an impeachment process going, things don't appear poised to improve too much at this time.
I can only hope that, by 2008, enough of America will have woken up to what evil bastards these PNAC fuckers are, and we'll finally get rid of them.

It's a pity, I used to really respect Canada and Canadians in general - I thought they were an open minded and friendly people.

Then I see a group of them start generalising Britain and acting in a manner bordering on racism. Yes, i'm sure England was wrong to "treat the Scottish and Welsh the way they did". Sure, the Scottish made periodic border raids where they massacred and/or raped innocent unarmed men, women and children - but they were after all English and therefore sub human, so probably deserved it.

Now why don't you continue your American esque arrogance, acting like Canada is above any other country in the world and it is perfectly acceptable to be racially bigoted against others because you aren't American. However, perhaps you should consider the fact CANADA WOULD BE OWNED BY THE US IF IT WASN'T FOR BRITISH HELP!

That so? You saying we couldn't stand up to the British, and TAKE what we wanted? Incidentally, even assuming your last statement to be true...then why is it that we DON'T own Mexico? I mean, hell, we only conquered Mexico City (their capital) in 1848! I don't think we ever conquered Ottawa.

It's a pity, I used to really respect Canada and Canadians in general - I thought they were an open minded and friendly people.

Then I see a group of them start generalising Britain and acting in a manner bordering on racism. Yes, i'm sure England was wrong to "treat the Scottish and Welsh the way they did". Sure, the Scottish made periodic border raids where they massacred and/or raped innocent unarmed men, women and children - but they were after all English and therefore sub human, so probably deserved it.

Now why don't you continue your American esque arrogance, acting like Canada is above any other country in the world and it is perfectly acceptable to be racially bigoted against others because you aren't American. However, perhaps you should consider the fact CANADA WOULD BE OWNED BY THE US IF IT WASN'T FOR BRITISH HELP!

Where did this come from?