Americans: Want to know why it's costing you more than it should to build a house?

[Goofball]

Because your government is using unfair, protectionist policies in order to ensure that big American lumber producers can continue lining their pockets at the expense of the American consumer.

Clickey:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tory/National/

[Redleg]

Because your government is using unfair, protectionist policies in order to ensure that big American lumber producers can continue lining their pockets at the expense of the American consumer.

Clickey:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tory/National/

Now you know why so many buy Manfactured Homes - otherwise know as Mobile Homes.

[Don Corleone]

What can I say? Protectionism in any form is bad. It seems the US trade rep thought you guys were subsidizing & dumping, so I don't suspect anything nefarious, but he lost and and should shut up and move on. Does this mean Beirut will be buying a couple of rounds with his share of the windfall?

[Azi Tohak]

-EDITED for safekeeping

Trailer Park Test

You know you're "in a trailer park" when.....

1. The Halloween pumpkin on your porch has more teeth than your spouse.

2. You let your twelve-year-old daughter smoke at the dinner table in front of her kids.

3. You've been married three times and still have the same in-laws.

4. You think a woman who is "out of your league" bowls on a different night.

5. Jack Daniels makes your list of "most admired people."

6. You wonder how service stations keep their restrooms so clean.

7. Anyone in your family ever died right after saying, "Hey watch this."

8. You think Dom Perignon is a Mafia leader.

9. Your wife's hairdo was once ruined by a ceiling fan.

10. Your junior prom had a daycare.

11. You think the last words of the Star Spangled Banner are, "Gentlemen start your engines."

12. You lit a match in the bathroom and your house exploded right off its wheels.

13. The bluebook value of your truck goes up and down,depending on how much gas is in it.

14. You have to go outside to get something from the fridge.

15. One of your kids was born on a pool table.

16. You need one more hole punched in your card to get a freebie at the House of Tattoos.

17. You can't get married to your sweetheart because there's a law against it.

18. You think loading a dishwasher means getting your wife drunk.

19. Your toilet paper has page numbers on it.

20 . Your front porch collapses and kills more than five dogs.

Sorry Redleg, I couldn't resist

Azi

[Redleg]

Sorry Redleg, I couldn't resist

Azi

LOL - but I guess you missed my to Goofball's initial post. I poked fun first - so your actually a two post behind in trying to be funny.

Notice the sig - with the quote from Tribesman

Bow now and all will be forgiven

[PanzerJaeger]

Its a cold day in hell before I'll be lectured by Canadians about my government, especially the Globe and Mail. But thanks anyway..

“We fully expect the United States to abide by this ruling, stop collecting duties and refund the duties collected over the past three years.”

And hell will literally freeze over when Canadians start telling Americans what to do.

[Azi Tohak]

Two posts behind? I can't be. My post has no relevance to the first topic, just yours.

But I had to apologize since I might have hurt your feelings and caused you emotional grief, for which I am sure you would sue the .org for allowing such horrible emotionally destructive behavior. You would have cried to Ba-ba Wah-wah about how awful my behavior was, and signed a book deal, and been on Oprah and Dr. Phil (or are those two the same thing?).

I just wanted to forgo all of that circus and apologize now like a nice boy.



Azi

[Tribesman]

Notice the sig - with the quote from Tribesman
Notice that the sig was from a post where your superior wisdom was faulty Redleg

And hell will literally freeze over when Canadians start telling Americans what to do.
Well if America wants a free trade agreement in place then it has to abide by the rulings . Since countries involved in this pact all have a say in its implementation then hell must have already frozen over Panzer and you didn't notice .

[Goofball]

Its a cold day in hell before I'll be lectured by Canadians about my government, especially the Globe and Mail. But thanks anyway..

Sorry, next time I'll post from a more reputable source like www.ak47world.com. And by the way, aren't you one of the people always bitching about anti-Americanism? I wonder where that sort of sentiment comes from.


At any rate, you have missed the entire point while you were busy jumping in with your very predictible, knee-jerk response.

When NAFTA was created and the U.S. willingly signed on, certain procedures were outlined for resolving trade disputes between member countries. The U.S. knew this going in and, by agreeing to become part of NAFTA, agreed to be bound by those procedures. Now, even though the U.S. has lost every appeal through these pre-established procedures (and then some), they still refuse to play by the rules they agreed to.

But here's the real rub that you ignore:

That 21% (formerly 27%) tax that your gov't has imposed on Canadian lumber: who do you think pays it?

I'll give you a hint:

You do. Every time you buy something made of wood.

But, if you want to maintain your position supporting more government interference in business and protectionism, please carry on. You'll be a card-carrying Democrat in no time, PJ...

And hell will literally freeze over when Canadians start telling Americans what to do.

Actually, all three of the panels that have now ruled against the U.S. have been made up of equal Canadian/American representation. And in fact, the last panel (the one before the ruling that is the subject of the article) was made up of a majority of Americans.

[Beirut]

Its a cold day in hell before I'll be lectured by Canadians about my government, especially the Globe and Mail. But thanks anyway..

And hell will literally freeze over when Canadians start telling Americans what to do.

That's ok. We'll keep our lumber (and our water and our gas and our hydro power).

See you in January. Cold as hell that month I hear. Especially with no electricity.

[Red Harvest]

See you in January. Cold as hell that month I hear. Especially with no electricity.

Wasn't a problem where I grew up. We heated with wood and even had a wood cooking stove that we could fall back on. When a blizzard hit and we lost power we just went to bed earlier (kerosene lamps were not a good substitute for bulbs.) Heating with wood was a lot cheaper...

[KukriKhan]

Now you know why so many buy Manfactured Homes - otherwise know as Mobile Homes.

Kukri is a proud builder/owner/occupier of a manufactured (not very mobile, except in earthquakes) home. Incidentally partially made of imported Canadian lumber products.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Just because a Canadian says it doesn't make it untrue. Plenty of Americans will tell you the same thing, and it's true. The Government should not give out favors to businesses any more than it should unfairly hamper them.

I cant argue with that.

In this case Bad America. Were not always perfect


All this does is make us pay more for lumber.

[Redleg]

Notice the sig - with the quote from Tribesman
Notice that the sig was from a post where your superior wisdom was faulty Redleg

Notice the bottom of the sig Tribesman where it states you were trying to hard to be sarcastic.

[Productivity]

I cant argue with that.

In this case Bad America. Were not always perfect


All this does is make us pay more for lumber.

YES!

Arbitary wealth redistribution to lumber producers. America may not have to abide by it, but I can't see a reason why a non-lumber producing American would want to abide by it, except for jingoism.

[sharrukin]

Well, as a Canadian, I can understand having some trade barriers as a means to give an advantage to domestic producers. It shouldn't however exceed certain levels as that tends to cause damage to your own domestic industry by making it less competitive.

The US did sign the NAFTA agreement. As they say; "You welch on a deal, you face the wheel!" or more realistically "you welch on a deal, you get away with it because your bigger, and you get to laugh your ass off as Canada goes running back to whine that your not being fair".

[Del Arroyo]

Oh no! Yes, what a travesty! We must take action immediately! Because if there's ANYTHING we need in this country, it's definitely more great big ugly homes and sprawling suburbs!!

Indeed, we must swiftly end these tarriffs, so that the resulting drop in lumber prices will allow the destruction of EVERY last ranch house in America and the proliferation of over-sized, uggily-designed mansions on small lots stretching without cease from coast to coast!! YES!!! BRING ON THE NEW MANIFEST DESTINY!!!!!



DA

[scooter_the_shooter]

Why, goof ball I didn't know you liked the ak47 site i showed you....lots of unbiased info there about clinton there

[UglyandHasty]

All this does is make us pay more for lumber.

It also have cost a lots of people jobs in Canada, especially in my home region where 2 sawmill were closed.

[Xiahou]

I don't know alot about this issue but, isn't it true that the WTO found that Canadian practices did amount to government lumber subsidies? I also believe that, as a result, the use of tariffs was legitimate, but the issue was how the US was calculating the tarrifs, which were found to be too high.

Having said that, tariffs are almost always bad for consumers.

[Goofball]

I don't know alot about this issue but, isn't it true that the WTO found that Canadian practices did amount to government lumber subsidies?

Nope.

Although Canada has won many of legal battles under the NAFTA, as well as at the World Trade Organization, that has had little real effect in the dispute.

[Xiahou]

Nope.

World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body Report: United States-Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada (WT/DS257/AB/R) (January 19, 2004)

The WTO Appellate Body upheld an earlier Panel decision finding that Canada's stumpage programs for the harvest of timber constituted a countervailable subsidy and were inconsistent with the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) under the WTO rules. In addition, the Appellate Body held that the Panel erred in finding that the U.S. Commerce Department's methodology was inconsistent with Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement.

The United States argued that the stumpage programs allowed Canadian companies to harvest lumber at artificially low prices, resulting in an unfair competitive advantage over U.S. lumber companies. The United States requested the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's findings that Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement required the United States to use private timber prices in Canada in order to determine the adequacy of remuneration for government-provided timber.

The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's findings with respect to Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement and found that the U.S. Department of Commerce was entitled to use a benchmark other than private prices in Canada, given that the United States had established that the private prices of the goods in Canada were distorted as a result of the Canadian government's predominant role in this market. However the Appellate Body upheld part of the Panel's decision finding that the U.S. Commerce Department needed to conduct more extensive pass-through analysis regarding arm's length sales of lumber in order to show that the benefit conferred by a financial contribution directly on producers is passed through to producers of the processed product.

link

None of the Canadian websites I looked at talk about this- they only seem to report rulings and parts of rulings that are in their favor. Oddly enough, most US websites I saw only talked of their legal victories in the dispute as well.... It seems like it'd be tough to sort through all the BS on this one.

[Goofball]

link

None of the Canadian websites I looked at talk about this- they only seem to report rulings and parts of rulings that are in their favor. Oddly enough, most US websites I saw only talked of their legal victories in the dispute as well.... It seems like it'd be tough to sort through all the BS on this one.

Good research Xiahou. I've followed this issue pretty closely, and have been deliberately been looking at American sources as well in case I was missing something such as this, but I still hadn't seen this before.

However, I'd like to see the actual numbers. The tariff imposed has been exhorbitantly high, and the Commerce Department also proposes to give the majority of $$ collected (about $5,000,000,000 so far) directly to U.S. lumber producers. Do you think they will in turn lower their prices to U.S. consumers because of this? Not a chance.

At any rate, that is now four rulings that I am aware of. Three of them have said the U.S. should stop charging the tariff, and one said they should at least lower it.