"Of course you know, this means war!!!"

[DJL]

there are MANY MANY other countries around the world who would LOVE to trade with Canada like that and get ahold of the produce we send to the US. We give them our best stuff!!! Grade A beef, lumber etc etc etc...

Like who? Do you also propose that all Canadians that manufacture goods for a living (ie Cars) become farmers when the United States puts tariffs on more of our goods due to this trade war?

Now before we draw up a declaration for a trade war, I suggest sober minds come together and understand these figures:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html#Econ

Canada:

Exports - partners: 
US 86.6%, Japan 2.1%, UK 1.4% (2003 est.)

Imports - partners: 
US 60.6%, China 5.6%, Japan 4.1% (2003 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ

United States:

Exports - partners: 
Canada 23.4%, Mexico 13.5%, Japan 7.2%, UK 4.7%, Germany 4% (2003 est.)

Imports - partners: 
Canada 17.4%, China 12.5%, Mexico 10.7%, Japan 9.3%, Germany 5.3% (2003 est.)   



I'd also be intrested to see how much business American farmers lose on sales of Poultry and Dairy products to Canada, due to our tariffs on their products.

 

[JBP]

Like who? Do you also propose that all Canadians that manufacture goods for a living (ie Cars) become farmers when the United States puts tariffs on more of our goods due to this trade war?

Just because we're not currently trading with many other nations that much at the moment doesn't mean there isn't the potential. Obviously we can't trade out to many other countries at the moment because almost all our trade stuffs are going to the US. That shows in those numbers! Regardless of the numbers, sometimes things become a matter of "principal" and I am ashamed that some of you fellow Canadians don't believe in at least standing up for what is right at least partially!

Shame on those of you who would give up so easily. That's like procrastination. Sure it's easier if we just leave it or sweep it under the carpet.

All I'm saying, and what I said in my last post is that we need to eventually make some kind of stand or we might as well just "bend over" like we have been! No point. Obviously there would be a HUGE impact on our economy, massive and it would hurt us deeply. That is if all trade stopped. Is that what would really happen? No, I don't think so, the logic of the old law of "Supply and demand" would override. Since this originated in BC I suppose they would suffer the most?

I'm no expert on trade or international economics obviously but, as I stated my point is that it's better to at least try then just take it in the ass...

 

[Infanteer]

More advice from the experts.... :

You seem to think this is a black/white issue (Americans want to screw us, Canadians must resist screwing), which myself and PBI have clearly stated its not.

As well, like I said in a previous post, which you obviously didn't read, the notion that "Just because we're not currently trading with many other nations that much at the moment doesn't mean there isn't the potential" is plain wrong.

Trudeau tried it and failed miserably.   Short of restoring a mercantilist economy, how do you propose to achieve this when all the fundamentals of the free-market, liberal economic system are against the notion (why ship it from China when you can truck it to Des Moines?)  

Your diatribes that would determine policies for Canada based upon some errant "nationalist" sentiment is whimsical fantasy at best and dangerous ignorance at worst (a trend that is probably much more common in Canadian society then we'd care to admit.).

 

[DJL]

Just because we're not currently trading with many other nations that much at the moment doesn't mean there isn't the potential.

Who has the "potential" then?

Obviously we can't trade out to many other countries at the moment because almost all our trade stuffs are going to the US.

If there were other countries to trade with, obviously we could just increase production, and in turn the volume of our trade "stuffs" would increase.

Regardless of the numbers, sometimes things become a matter of "principal" and I am ashamed that some of you fellow Canadians don't believe in at least standing up for what is right at least partially!

Well that makes two of us that are ashamed of some of their fellow Canadians.......granted for different reasons, you see, I'm ashamed that so many Canadians don't understand the extent of our relationship
with the United States.

Shame on those of you who would give up so easily. That's like procrastination. Sure it's easier if we just leave it or sweep it under the carpet.

And I say shame on you for wanting Canadians to collectivity cut off their nose to spite their face.

All I'm saying, and what I said in my last post is that we need to eventually make some kind of stand or we might as well just "bend over" like we have been! No point. Obviously there would be a HUGE impact on our economy, massive and it would hurt us deeply. That is if all trade stopped. Is that what would really happen?

You don't seem to understand that the Americans have the ability to "bend us over" no matter how straight we "stand up" to them. There is a difference between principle and fact.

The Americans don't need to stop trading with us to destroy our economy......just imagine a tariff like the one on softwood lumber put on to Canadian made cars and trucks, and other Canadian manufactured goods.

 

[Infanteer]

You don't seem to understand that the Americans have the ability to "bend us over" no matter how straight we "stand up" to them. There is a difference between principle and fact.

That is the best analogy for "asymmetrical vulnerability" that I've seen to date.

 

[RCA]

The trick is to lobby the right people. The soft lumber is costing a segment of the US consumers money. Get them up in arms. I was in Alabama not long ago, and they were complaining about the high cost of beef. They didn't realize that the border was closed and supply had dropped. If they found out they were paying high prices because American producers were artifically inflating the price, they would be up in arms.

As to NAFTA working, obviously it isn't when it comes to disputes. These mechanisms were put in place to resloves conflicts, but the US gov't is holding up its end. They need to rein in the lobbyists and politicians as a matter of enforcing a mutual binding legal contract and rule of law.

The problem with letting this one go, where does it end. The only items never mentioned are Oil and Water.

 

[Infanteer]

As I said before, I've never advocated "letting this one go".  I'm just stating that the notion of an all out trade war is a ridiculous when options within the accepted (and legal) framework still exist.

Both NAFTA and the WTO have measures which allow for reciprocal duties in the case of non-compliance.  If the US refuses to reign in its demagogues and lobbyists, then we have this option (which we would be wise to exercise.

 

[JBP]

As I said before, I've never advocated "letting this one go".  I'm just stating that the notion of an all out trade war is a ridiculous when options within the accepted (and legal) framework still exist.

Both NAFTA and the WTO have measures which allow for reciprocal duties in the case of non-compliance.  If the US refuses to reign in its demagogues and lobbyists, then we have this option (which we would be wise to exercise.

Fair enough indeed. How long would it take to really get the ball rolling though? How much have we already lost due to these illegal actions by the US and would Canadians be "reimbursed" for the collective losses?

I noticed on the news lastnight that the Paul Martin and Bush were talking about opening up the border for beef again. That is certainly a step in the same kind of direction we need. But apparently they want us to scrap some ban we have on thier "feed" for farm animals etc that has been in place for some time... I suppose everyone's just trying to get the most out of what deal can be made which is only human nature.

The problem with letting this one go, where does it end. The only items never mentioned are Oil and Water.

That was my original point as well...

Is there any updates on the situation or a website we can read about this on?

 

[jrhume]

I come from NW Montana, where lumber was once king.  No more.  Except for lands owned by the big companies, the amount of cutting is way, way down.  Not from anything related to the softwood disputes, but because the enviros are tossing legal roadblocks into the path of everyone with a chainsaw.

So the level of frustration is high.  I suspect, based on what I've seen and heard, that both sides are sinning in the dispute and that mutual griping probably indicates a measure of health in the conflict.  You don't worry about the troops until they quit griping, right? 

That's probably simplistic on my part, but I don't see the issue as being all that big a deal for either side, except, of course, to the locals involved on both sides of the border.  I don't know of any direct subsidies by the US to timber companies, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.  It just means I haven't heard of it.  One thing I suspect, is that the Forest Service is still selling timber at too low a price, which amounts to a subsidy.  It would amaze me if Canada isn't doing the same thing, one way or another.

Infanteer's right.  Everybody needs to stay at the table.  Of course, all parties need to stand up and pound on the table once in awhile, just to keep the constituents back home amused.

Jim