You seemed to be singling the USA out as an especially evil offender,
which is a popular pastime among those who have never cracked a
history book and/or turn a blind eye to the rest of the world. It
isn't any worse than any other nation, in my opinion, which is NOT to
say it's saintly, either.

I didn't see in your quoted text where anyone said the USA was not
using energy and resources.

I did see in your quoted text where Ed Huntress said the USA isn't a
sink hole for Canadian goods, which you then appeared to use as a
jumping-off point for an unrelated jab at the USA's use of energy and
resources.

Maybe you didn't quote the part you were actually addressing? Or I
missed something else altogether? Or you were just venting a little
bile and were called on it?

Mike

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:22:29 -0500, Paul Armstrong
wrote:



Mike Patterson wrote:

Which statement applies to every nation (and damned near every human)
on earth, past and present.

Some more then others, but yes.


Your point is?

One man said the US was not. I said it was. It is and you agreed.

Your point is?



On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:02:08 -0500, Paul Armstrong
wrote:

Actually the US is a sink hole (as you put it) for all the energy and raw resources
they can get their hands on.

Bray Haven wrote:

We aren't a sink-hole for your products, Randy. If you want unfettered
trade, then the thing we have to achieve first is *balanced* trade.

Ed Huntress

I'm curious as to how you can "achieve" balanced trade. Certainly not with
protectionist tarriffs that almost never help(usually hurt). Trade is (or
should be) a free mkt process. and a "balance" would simply be coincidental if
it were achieved without interference. I know there's allegations of dumping
and subsidizing industries that supposedly provide unfair competition etc. but
those allegations will always be there. The days when we could manipulate any
major markets are long gone and getting more so, as more countries come on line
with all the same stuff we try to market. we may as well get used to it and
try some American ingenuity rather than tarrifs to be more competitive.
Greg Sefton

Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.

The questions isn't "are there weapons of mass destruction?",
the question is "who has them now?"

http://www.strategypage.com/iraqwar/...ny/default.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/iraqwar/iraqweaponsgap.asp

Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.

The questions isn't "are there weapons of mass destruction?",
the question is "who has them now?"

http://www.strategypage.com/iraqwar/...ny/default.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/iraqwar/iraqweaponsgap.asp

On 12 Nov 2003 14:29:05 -0600, geoff merryweather
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 05:23:40 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


But, either way, it drives me up a wall when someone from another country
bitches about how they're being mistreated in trade with the US, when, in
almost every such case, they're running some huge trade surplus with us.
We have been throguh this one before - you neglect the foriegn direct
investmetn by US companies with the repatriated profits - which
doesn't show up in the trade figures.
Secondly, you forget that the US citizens (the world's greatest
consumers) buy the stuff. You may bitch about imports, but if no one
bought it....
Geoff

Oh my God, I buy imported items, I feel SO dirty.

I and all my countrymen should STOP this evil practice of buying
imports in order to cleanse the stain from our souls.


Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.

The questions isn't "are there weapons of mass destruction?",
the question is "who has them now?"

http://www.strategypage.com/iraqwar/...ny/default.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/iraqwar/iraqweaponsgap.asp

No vent. One man said the US was not. I said it was. It is, and you agreed.

I simply disagreed with what the man said. You agreed with me. I dont "SEEM' to be anything
other then saying what I said, and you concured with it.

Mike Patterson wrote:

You seemed to be singling the USA out as an especially evil offender,
which is a popular pastime among those who have never cracked a
history book and/or turn a blind eye to the rest of the world. It
isn't any worse than any other nation, in my opinion, which is NOT to
say it's saintly, either.

I didn't see in your quoted text where anyone said the USA was not
using energy and resources.

I did see in your quoted text where Ed Huntress said the USA isn't a
sink hole for Canadian goods, which you then appeared to use as a
jumping-off point for an unrelated jab at the USA's use of energy and
resources.

Maybe you didn't quote the part you were actually addressing? Or I
missed something else altogether? Or you were just venting a little
bile and were called on it?

Mike

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:22:29 -0500, Paul Armstrong
wrote:



Mike Patterson wrote:

Which statement applies to every nation (and damned near every human)
on earth, past and present.

Some more then others, but yes.


Your point is?

One man said the US was not. I said it was. It is and you agreed.

Your point is?



On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:02:08 -0500, Paul Armstrong
wrote:

Actually the US is a sink hole (as you put it) for all the energy and raw resources
they can get their hands on.

Bray Haven wrote:

We aren't a sink-hole for your products, Randy. If you want unfettered
trade, then the thing we have to achieve first is *balanced* trade.

Ed Huntress

I'm curious as to how you can "achieve" balanced trade. Certainly not with
protectionist tarriffs that almost never help(usually hurt). Trade is (or
should be) a free mkt process. and a "balance" would simply be coincidental if
it were achieved without interference. I know there's allegations of dumping
and subsidizing industries that supposedly provide unfair competition etc. but
those allegations will always be there. The days when we could manipulate any
major markets are long gone and getting more so, as more countries come on line
with all the same stuff we try to market. we may as well get used to it and
try some American ingenuity rather than tarrifs to be more competitive.
Greg Sefton

Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.

The questions isn't "are there weapons of mass destruction?",
the question is "who has them now?"

http://www.strategypage.com/iraqwar/...ny/default.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/iraqwar/iraqweaponsgap.asp

Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.

The questions isn't "are there weapons of mass destruction?",
the question is "who has them now?"

http://www.strategypage.com/iraqwar/...ny/default.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/iraqwar/iraqweaponsgap.asp

Stumpage is actually a fee charged to the logging company/mill, based on
the volume of wood in the tree. Most logging takes place on crown land.


Steve R.


"Dave Martindale" wrote in message
...
Loren Coe writes:

what is stumpage? --Loren

It is a per-tree fee paid by the lumber company to the landowner - in
this case the provincial government.

Dave

There can never be balanced trade with the US. There are only 30 odd million
of us in Canada. A lot of our sales to the US are in the form of raw
materials for your industries.

Steve R.


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
"Randy Zimmerman" wrote in message
news:gmisb.372307$pl3.222753@pd7tw3no...
I can't say anything other than "It's about time" The worm is finally
turning. In my region of Canada we have been hung out to dry by
protectionist tariffs.
We have lumber we now cannot export. Canada never has the balls
like
Europe to fight back with the steel thing.
We have to wait until the housing cost skyrocket in California and
tariffs
are reduced when the population realizes they are being screwed by their
own
countrymen in power.
Randy

Randy, last year's exports from Canada to the US ran to $209 billion (US).
Your imports from the US were $161 billion. So you had a $48 billion trade
surplus with the US.

Now, what was it you were bitching about? Isn't that enough? 'You want
some
more surplus, I take it?

On the lumber issue, even the WTO, which decidedly does NOT favor the US
in
trade disputes (if you want to know why Europe wins most WTO disputes,
consider before anything else that the EU has 10 votes on the WTO, while
the
US has one vote), split their decision last year on the US/Canadian lumber
dispute. The result was a mixed bag.

But, either way, it drives me up a wall when someone from another country
bitches about how they're being mistreated in trade with the US, when, in
almost every such case, they're running some huge trade surplus with us.

We aren't a sink-hole for your products, Randy. If you want unfettered
trade, then the thing we have to achieve first is *balanced* trade.

Ed Huntress

"Udie" youdeetwothreethree@ victoriadotteecee.ca wrote in message
...
There can never be balanced trade with the US. There are only 30 odd
million
of us in Canada.

In other words, you can sell it, but you can't buy it? Why is that? It isn't
because you can't afford it -- you made the money from exporting.

A lot of our sales to the US are in the form of raw
materials for your industries.

Actually, not. Of the $214 billion you exported to the US last year, only
$23 billion was raw materials. $12 billion was ag products. Another $30
billion was fuels (mostly oil). But $133 billion was manufactured products.

If you want to pick apart the details, or if you want to see what your *net*
exports were, you'll see some surprising things. Here is the rough
breakdown:

http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/sitc/sitcCty.pl

Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 05:23:40 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
brought forth from the murky depths:

We aren't a sink-hole for your products, Randy. If you want unfettered
trade, then the thing we have to achieve first is *balanced* trade.

In your dreams, Ed. The US wants more products that we don't produce
than the world wants products we produce. It might happen by chance
some day, but not by any plan known to man today. Balanced trade is
a nice dream, though.

You ought to look up Warren Buffet's plan. After we've all been buffeted
around by China and India for another decade or so, it just may gain some
traction.

Ed Huntress

"geoff merryweather" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 05:23:40 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


But, either way, it drives me up a wall when someone from another country
bitches about how they're being mistreated in trade with the US, when, in
almost every such case, they're running some huge trade surplus with us.

We have been throguh this one before - you neglect the foriegn direct
investmetn by US companies with the repatriated profits - which
doesn't show up in the trade figures.

Yeah, I thought we *had* been through this before, Geoff.

To put it a little crudely, exporting products is like exporting your
unemployment. Investing capital overseas is like exporting your jobs.

Thus, the government of New Zealand is as enthusiastic about receiving
direct foreign investment as it is about exporting your products.

BTW, direct investment from the US is only 13% of your total foreign
investment. We're only the fourth largest investor in NZ. But we're your
second-largest export market.


Secondly, you forget that the US citizens (the world's greatest
consumers) buy the stuff. You may bitch about imports, but if no one
bought it....

I have no problem with US citizens buying your products. The problem I have
is that New Zealand doesn't reciprocate.

Ed Huntress

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:20:26 GMT, the renowned "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Theory, theory. The US currently is running a $460 billion trade deficit.
Part of it is the result of other countries buying our Treasury bonds to
pump up the value of the dollar and to keep their currencies low, to give
them a trade advantage.

It would be pretty easy to stop selling Treasury bonds to foreigners,
wouldn't it? ;-)

Only if you want to run out of money, and watch interest rates hit double
digits.

It's a symbiotic relationship. We help each other to screw ourselves. Asia
screws their current generation of consumers by keeping the price of foreign
products sky-high. We screw our children by running up spectacular deficits
that come due some time in the future.

Ed Huntress

"Dave Martindale" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" writes:

I'm curious if you guys know the issue on which the case is being
decided.
Canada hasn't denied that they subsidize lumber production via
state-determined stumpage fees (well, they *did* make that argument, but
dropped it). What's at issue is a fairly arcane question of where the
cost
basis is supposed to be determined for judging relative economic harm.

To the best of my knowledge, Canada has not admitted "subsidizing" lumber
production. Most timber lands in Canada are publically owned, and the
trees are sold at stumpage fees set by contract. The contract process
is supposed to bring in enough income to pay expenses (so stuff isn't
being "sold at a loss"), and this also allows the provincial government
to control things like raw log exports - it's better for the economy if
the lumber is processed into products locally.



IIRC, the way it went was that the US first made a claim that the stumpage
fees were artificially low because they were based on a cost basis that, as
you say, "paid expenses." In other words, no real-estate amortization costs,
no insurance costs, no profit on the capital represented by the land's
principal value.

But the WTO is not equipped to deal in a direct way with such internal
political issues as how to account for public ownership of raw resources.
Canada never disputed that the stumpage value did not account for the costs
that would have accrued if the resource was privately owned in a free
market. It skipped right over the issue and went to one that the WTO *will*
deal with, which is the question of whether an import does harm to the
importer's industry. And there it has bogged down, as the US International
Trade Commission made a questionable case for this point.

This is a good example of why I scoff at the idea of "fair trade," just as I
scoff at "free trade." Former US Trade Representative Micky Kantor once said
there is no such thing as free trade. I'll stick my neck out a degree
further and say there is no such thing as fair trade.

Canada made cases before both the WTO and the NAFTA commission in this
dispute for an "inherent cost advantage" in the production of lumber.
There's no doubt Canada does have such an advantage. But, depending on which
side of the fence you're on, it's either an unfair advantage that has to be
compensated with tariffs, or it's part of the natural imbalances between
nations that underlie the theory of Comparative Advantage.

This is where "fair trade" starts to run up on the rocks. If government
ownership of the resource, which results in low prices being charged to
private industry for raw materials, isn't an unfair advantage, then nothing
is. Which is to say, even contemplating fairness in trade is an exercise in
self-delusion. Canada trades to serve its advantage, not that of the United
States, and vice versa. So, if we're going to trade, it has to be by some
rules that we both accept. The WTO is falling short in producing a set of
mutually acceptable rules. So we will negotiate, because neither one of us
is going to set ourselves on fire for the sake of some abstract set of trade
rules that fails to serve our purposes, no matter how much other nations may
want us to do so.


It seems that the US position is that if the logs aren't auctioned on
the open market, then the companies aren't paying market prices for the
logs, and this is a "subsidy". It isn't what most people would call a
subsidy, but to the US lumber lobby if it's not done the US way it's
wrong. The US seems to want open auction of logs, and also no
restrictions on raw log exports.

Yeah, that's the kind of thing that's absolutely necessary -- the trade of
intermediate products of production -- if the market is going to set the
true costs of products being traded. Canada doesn't like it, and it is an
ideological point, but, without it, both free trade and fair trade are a
farce. What you're describing is a classical case of market distortion
caused by government ownership of resources, which is being used to provide
an indirect subsidy to industry.


Basically, there is a different system in Canada, at least supposedly
managed for public benefit, but the US won't accept any other system as
being equal.

No other system IS equal. That's why there is no way to produce "fairness"
in trade the way the idea is popularly conceived.

Canada isn't selling the logs at a loss, or giving the
lumber companies direct monetary subsidies, or "dumping" (selling the
lumber for less in the USA than Canadian customers pay), it just isn't
charging as much as private US landowners sell their logs for. In the
US view, the US way is right and Canada's way is wrong, but that's a
pretty biased view.

Actually, although I have little sympathy for the US logging industry,
they're quite right on this point. You have a classical case here. The way
an economist would work this out would be to ask, if Canada is charging less
for stumpage than the price that would result from private ownership of the
property, then who is paying the difference? The answer is, your children
and your children's children, because you're selling an asset short today to
gain a market-share advantage, and you're not accounting for the true cost
of your asset. That's the kind of distortion that results from government
ownership. It's your choice, and that economist would say that the US
shouldn't complain, because you're subsidizing low lumber costs for us by
saddling future generations with an asset you're giving away today. But that
would be a macroeconomist. A microeconomist would say you're trying to grab
market share by hiding true costs. g



I can't help thinking that if the shoe was on the other foot, and the US
public was providing a resource to producers at less than open-market
prices, the US attitude would be that this was wonderful and entirely
fair, or at least allowed. For example, how much do the farmers in
California's central valley pay for water? Does is pay for the dams and
the network of canals that distribute it? Isn't this a much larger
subsidy of farmers by the public? Doesn't this give California farmers
an unfair advantage in producing and exporting food?

Again, there's no such thing as fair trade.


From this side of the border, it looks like US policies are based
entirely on self-interest, not principles. Protectionism is either "good"
or "bad", depending on who benefits and who loses.

Nobody's trade policies are based on principles, except the business
principles that produce for us the best possible result. Certainly not
yours, and certainly not ours. We don't elect our leaders to be altruists to
our trading partners, nor to be economic theorists who would sacrifice our
interests in order to fulfill an abstract theory.


In the case of lumber, it's actually in the self-interest of only a
small number of people in the USA, while the general public gets to pay
higher prices.

That's true, but the final issue is one of both social and economic
structure. Do we want to see timber land values depressed because of cheap
foreign competition? That would undermine the banks that hold the mortgages.
Do we want to undermine the banks that hold those mortgages? That would
force them to call in loans in order to maintain liquidity and to reinforce
their capital reserves. And who will pay for that? Everyone who lives in
that part of the country.

And so on.

Ed Huntress

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:33:18 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
brought forth from the murky depths:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

In your dreams, Ed. The US wants more products that we don't produce
than the world wants products we produce. It might happen by chance
some day, but not by any plan known to man today. Balanced trade is
a nice dream, though.

You ought to look up Warren Buffet's plan.

Will do!


After we've all been buffeted
around by China and India for another decade or so, it just may gain some
traction.

I saw you mention that earlier and it looks quite enticing.
Alas, it's still a dream and looky what Dubya is still doing
to the economy.


-------------------------------------------------------------
* * Humorous T-shirts Online
* Norm's Got Strings * Wondrous Website Design
* * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:47:45 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"geoff merryweather" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 05:23:40 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


But, either way, it drives me up a wall when someone from another country
bitches about how they're being mistreated in trade with the US, when, in
almost every such case, they're running some huge trade surplus with us.

We have been throguh this one before - you neglect the foriegn direct
investmetn by US companies with the repatriated profits - which
doesn't show up in the trade figures.

Yeah, I thought we *had* been through this before, Geoff.

To put it a little crudely, exporting products is like exporting your
unemployment. Investing capital overseas is like exporting your jobs.

Except that you presumably expect to make a continuing return on that
investment. You need to make sure that your previously employed
workers are shareholders in the companies doing the investing. Maybe a
bit of wealth redistribution would be in order ;-)

Thus, the government of New Zealand is as enthusiastic about receiving
direct foreign investment as it is about exporting your products.

BTW, direct investment from the US is only 13% of your total foreign
investment. We're only the fourth largest investor in NZ. But we're your
second-largest export market.


Secondly, you forget that the US citizens (the world's greatest
consumers) buy the stuff. You may bitch about imports, but if no one
bought it....

I have no problem with US citizens buying your products. The problem I have
is that New Zealand doesn't reciprocate.

Ed Huntress

But sometimes we do. Have a look at

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c6141.html

it's been in our favour for the last four years, but for the eight
years before that it was in your favour. Over the last 19 years it has
been us 11, you 8, pretty close to a draw.

Regards
Malcolm.
__
Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address

You ought to look up Warren Buffet's plan. After we've all been buffeted
around by China and India for another decade or so, it just may gain some
traction.

Ed Huntress

It sounds like a better plan than the current (putting out fires) policy. It
might have some inherent problems though, as those countries that would
like/need to build their trade with us, (but are underdeveloped). They would be
hamstrung up front to achieve the "credits" needed to gain favorable markets
for their goods here. A catch 22. As long as the US has the appetite & the
money, there will never be "balanced" trade.
Greg Sefton

"Malcolm Moore" wrote in message
...

I have no problem with US citizens buying your products. The problem I
have
is that New Zealand doesn't reciprocate.

Ed Huntress

But sometimes we do. Have a look at

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c6141.html

it's been in our favour for the last four years, but for the eight
years before that it was in your favour. Over the last 19 years it has
been us 11, you 8, pretty close to a draw.

You may have missed Geoff's original complaint, Malcolm, and the source of
this argument. He was complaining that the US wasn't accepting more of your
sheep products -- now, not in the past.

That's in an environment in which your trade balance with the US is in an
accelerating surplus. If you annualize the 2003 YTD figure, it's over US$808
million.


Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


That's in an environment in which your trade balance with the US is in an
accelerating surplus. If you annualize the 2003 YTD figure, it's over US$808
million.

I would imagine that a good part of that was the hotel and beer bills
coming in from the America's Cup race. :-)

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:22:08 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Jimbo" . wrote in message
...
US softwood lumber tariffs against Canada where also found unsuppotable by
the WTO last month. However the US government was given another 100 days
to spice up their claims and try and prove Canadian softwood lumber
inports
into the USA where actually damaging the domestic producers.

I doubt Bush will overturn the tariffs no matter what the WTO says so the
American consumers looses and Canadian's loose jobs.

There are supposed to be free trade negotiations between Oz & the
US. No way can we get a fair deal when all your farmers are
subsidised by the billions of dollars. Our farmers receive no
production subsidies - unless you count minuscule drought relief aid,
subject to strict conditions, when they are on the bones of their
arse, with no income, a subsidy. We are only permitted to send so
much beef, lamb etc and when the limit is reached, no more and so you
have to pay more in the shops.

2003 Trade figures to September are roughly 2: 1 in US favour
Exports to Oz $9,794.6 million Imports from Oz $4,726.6 million
Balance in US favour $5,068.0 million and if you examine the
figures for the last 19 years they are all similar, we buy about twice
as much as we sell, plus of course profits sent back by US owned
companies.

If you are in the market for a new car, please buy a Pontiac GTO,
a rebadged Holden Monaro, still a GM product but designed & built
tough in Oz, where we have harsh conditions for cars.

Alan
in beautiful Golden Bay, Western Oz, South 32.25.42, East 115.45.44 GMT+8
VK6 YAB ICQ 6581610 to reply, change oz to au in address

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:33:18 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
brought forth from the murky depths:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

In your dreams, Ed. The US wants more products that we don't produce
than the world wants products we produce. It might happen by chance
some day, but not by any plan known to man today. Balanced trade is
a nice dream, though.

You ought to look up Warren Buffet's plan.

Will do!


After we've all been buffeted
around by China and India for another decade or so, it just may gain some
traction.

I saw you mention that earlier and it looks quite enticing.
Alas, it's still a dream and looky what Dubya is still doing
to the economy.

Yeah, I like the idea, and I'm sure that Buffet realizes it's just an
exercise to stimulate some thinking.

I see it as a potential stabilizer, like a hedge fund, for situations like
the one we face right now: an economy that's been in the dumps, with a
serious increase in the national debt, coupled with a level of trade
deficits that's unsustainable and unjustifiable except in an economy in
which the domestic economic growth is very high.

When we're on top of a business cycle, in other words, we don't need
anything like it. We can accept large trade deficits and perhaps even
benefit from them, because of the amount of domestic activity stimulated by
all of that trade, going both ways. But not now. And to institutionalize
$460 billion deficits on the tail end of a recession is to institutionalize
a policy that's destructive to the US, and to the world economy as a whole.

China, however, loves it. g

Ed Huntress

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
You ought to look up Warren Buffet's plan. After we've all been buffeted
around by China and India for another decade or so, it just may gain some
traction.

Ed Huntress

It sounds like a better plan than the current (putting out fires) policy.
It
might have some inherent problems though, as those countries that would
like/need to build their trade with us, (but are underdeveloped). They
would be
hamstrung up front to achieve the "credits" needed to gain favorable
markets
for their goods here. A catch 22. As long as the US has the appetite &
the
money, there will never be "balanced" trade.
Greg Sefton

All of that is true, and I doubt if Buffet would want to see it implemented
just as he has laid it out, especially as an ironclad doctrine that we
imposed without considering individual circumstances.

It looks like a philosophy that could be a great stabilizer. We could use
something like that right now in the US, to avoid the social/economic
carnage that some industries are experiencing. Macroeconomists brush those
problems off as "displacements" and "creative destruction," without paying
much attention to what a "displacement" really means to the social
expectations and principles on which much of our economic activity
depends -- particularly the encouragement for small-business investment and
entrepreneurship. If you create a generation of cynics about the
opportunities in small manufacturing businesses, you've put a big rip in the
social fabric.

We aren't chess pieces on a board, in other words. Sometimes the free-trade
economists and policy-makers seem to think we are.

Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:22:08 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Jimbo" . wrote in message
...
US softwood lumber tariffs against Canada where also found unsuppotable
by
the WTO last month. However the US government was given another 100
days
to spice up their claims and try and prove Canadian softwood lumber
inports
into the USA where actually damaging the domestic producers.

I doubt Bush will overturn the tariffs no matter what the WTO says so
the
American consumers looses and Canadian's loose jobs.

There are supposed to be free trade negotiations between Oz & the
US. No way can we get a fair deal when all your farmers are
subsidised by the billions of dollars. Our farmers receive no
production subsidies - unless you count minuscule drought relief aid,
subject to strict conditions, when they are on the bones of their
arse, with no income, a subsidy. We are only permitted to send so
much beef, lamb etc and when the limit is reached, no more and so you
have to pay more in the shops.

2003 Trade figures to September are roughly 2: 1 in US favour
Exports to Oz $9,794.6 million Imports from Oz $4,726.6 million
Balance in US favour $5,068.0 million and if you examine the
figures for the last 19 years they are all similar, we buy about twice
as much as we sell, plus of course profits sent back by US owned
companies.

If you are in the market for a new car, please buy a Pontiac GTO,
a rebadged Holden Monaro, still a GM product but designed & built
tough in Oz, where we have harsh conditions for cars.

Alan
in beautiful Golden Bay, Western Oz, South 32.25.42, East 115.45.44
GMT+8
VK6 YAB ICQ 6581610 to reply, change oz to au in address

Australia is another country that could benefit from an extension of
offsets, which you already use to good effect on your purchases of civilian
aircraft (they represent nearly half of your trade deficit, but they're a
wash in your overall balance of trade because you require large purchases by
Boeing that are then sold on US markets) and military hardware. As it is,
you depend heavily on ag exports and you need large markets to make much of
a dent in your overall deficit.

You have a difficult job of maintaining balance otherwise, and it shows
little sign of changing. The ag subsidies of Japan, the US, and particularly
the EU, which deep-sixed Australia's anti-subsidy initiative at the Seattle
meeting of the WTO, are not likely to change much in the short term. But
those are the markets you really need. If there's a better example than ag
subsidies of how trade is unfree and unfair, I don't know what it is.
They're so ingrained in the social structures of each of those large trading
partners of yours, however, that there's little chance they'll be unraveled
soon.

You have much more hope of making gains with the US than with the others. I
expect some specific easings of US ag-market protections specifically to
help Australia's situation. But you also have resistance within your own
cattle industry to breaking down barriers in both directions. It isn't going
to be easy.

Ed Huntress

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:42:05 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Malcolm Moore" wrote in message
.. .

I have no problem with US citizens buying your products. The problem I
have
is that New Zealand doesn't reciprocate.

Ed Huntress

But sometimes we do. Have a look at

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c6141.html

it's been in our favour for the last four years, but for the eight
years before that it was in your favour. Over the last 19 years it has
been us 11, you 8, pretty close to a draw.

You may have missed Geoff's original complaint, Malcolm, and the source of
this argument. He was complaining that the US wasn't accepting more of your
sheep products -- now, not in the past.

I was merely pointing out that your concerns about us not
reciprocating were not borne out in all years.

I don't recall the thread where Geoff's complaint was raised and a
Google of Geoff's posts to rcm for the last year or so doesn't help.

In 1999 the US imposed tariffs on NZ and Aust lamb. In 99 the trade
balance was in your favour and we complained loudly then. Given you
stated

"But, either way, it drives me up a wall when someone from another
country bitches about how they're being mistreated in trade with the
US, when, in almost every such case, they're running some huge trade
surplus with us."

then of course your climbing the wall is not warranted in this case.
Those tariff's were also ruled illegal by the WTO, which is what this
thread is about.

That's in an environment in which your trade balance with the US is in an
accelerating surplus. If you annualize the 2003 YTD figure, it's over US$808
million.

The 2003 figures are interesting in that they are consistently and
steadily in our favour whereas previous years fluctuate widely and
swing +ve and -ve in different months. I wonder whether current year
results are subject to change after all the figures are in?

The relative value of our dollars at present would lead to the present
year figure being high but we have negligible control over that.
Exporters here are starting to squeal about being uncompetitive so
there will be some resulting fall in our exports to you.
If you want us to buy more of your products it is up to you to get out
and market them, there is certainly no centrally imposed restrictions
on buying American.

Regards
Malcolm

--
Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address

Ed Huntress wrote:

All of that is true, and I doubt if Buffet would want to see it implemented
just as he has laid it out, especially as an ironclad doctrine that we
imposed without considering individual circumstances.



Ed,

Is this the homily/plan under discussion?

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stock...msgid=19448115


Kevin Gallimore



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

The oil exports hardly count. Most of it is produced in the prairie
provinces. It's less costly to export it to the US, and import oil on the
East and West coasts. Most of the fuel used here is refined in Bellingham
Washington.

Steve R.


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..

"Udie" youdeetwothreethree@ victoriadotteecee.ca wrote in message
...
There can never be balanced trade with the US. There are only 30 odd
million
of us in Canada.

In other words, you can sell it, but you can't buy it? Why is that? It
isn't
because you can't afford it -- you made the money from exporting.

A lot of our sales to the US are in the form of raw
materials for your industries.

Actually, not. Of the $214 billion you exported to the US last year, only
$23 billion was raw materials. $12 billion was ag products. Another $30
billion was fuels (mostly oil). But $133 billion was manufactured
products.

If you want to pick apart the details, or if you want to see what your
*net*
exports were, you'll see some surprising things. Here is the rough
breakdown:

http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/sitc/sitcCty.pl

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


Theory, theory. The US currently is running a $460 billion trade
deficit. Part of it is the result of other countries buying our
Treasury bonds to pump up the value of the dollar and to keep their
currencies low, to give them a trade advantage.

That may be part of their strategy, but if they stopped buying them how we
would we support Dubya's raging deficit? We need to mortgage our future so
that little George and his neocon handlers can feel like men.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:06:27 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
IIRC, the way it went was that the US first made a claim that the stumpage
fees were artificially low because they were based on a cost basis that, as
you say, "paid expenses." In other words, no real-estate amortization costs,
no insurance costs, no profit on the capital represented by the land's
principal value.

Since the Canadian government didn't pay anything for the land, or the
air above it, or the water that flows across it, or the sunshine that falls
upon it, there are no real estate amortization costs. There are no insurance
costs because governments self-insure, and can only be sued if they
*permit* themselves to be sued. Governments aren't supposed to be
profit making operations so no need to make a profit either.

Note that all this applies to US government owned timber lands too.
If the US government *chooses* to charge more than the costs of
administering the sales, it is profiteering. If the US government
*chooses* to refuse to allow timber sales, it is perpetuating the
causes of the wild fires that recently swept through California, ie it
is causing an unconscionable build up of fuel, promoting a tree
density that fosters disease, and virtually guaranteeing catastrophic
fires.

Ideally, the governments of both nations would allow the unowned
resources of both their nations to be taken up into private hands
(homesteaded) so ordinary market forces could work.

Gary

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:40:41 +1300, Malcolm Moore wrote:
If you want us to buy more of your products it is up to you to get out
and market them, there is certainly no centrally imposed restrictions
on buying American.

That's the trade issue in a nutshell. US products are generally overpriced
on the world market. Until that issue is resolved, the US will be unable to
sell sufficient exports to offset imports.

Gary

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:06:13 -0500, the renowned Gary Coffman
wrote:


Ideally, the governments of both nations would allow the unowned
resources of both their nations to be taken up into private hands
(homesteaded) so ordinary market forces could work.

I'd rather see the lands continue to be owned by the Crown and
adminstered by competent technocrats with a long-term view for the
greatest public good, forever and ever. Of course, they can privatize
some of the management aspects with no problem. Same with water.
I wouldn't want much of the national superhighway system falling into
private hands either.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"axolotl" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

All of that is true, and I doubt if Buffet would want to see it
implemented
just as he has laid it out, especially as an ironclad doctrine that we
imposed without considering individual circumstances.



Ed,

Is this the homily/plan under discussion?

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stock...msgid=19448115


Yeah, that's it. That's not the original source, but those are the words.

Ed Huntress

"Udie" youdeetwothreethree@ victoriadotteecee.ca wrote in message
...
The oil exports hardly count.

I agree, but I was giving the benefit of the doubt by pointing them out. The
point is that Canada's exports to the US are not mostly raw materials.
They're mostly manufactured products.

Ed Huntress

"Malcolm Moore" wrote in message
...

If you followed the course of that discussion, no one here was complaining
about trade with NZ until Geoff made some silly statement to the effect that
the US is the "most protectionist country in the world," or something like
that. In fact, our tariffs and quotas are among the lowest in the developed
world. That's why we're running a $460 billion deficit.

It wouldn't be so grating if it wasn't for the fact that NZ is running a
relatively large trade surplus at the same time he was complaining.

Ed Huntress

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:49:04 GMT, the renowned "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Udie" youdeetwothreethree@ victoriadotteecee.ca wrote in message
...
The oil exports hardly count.

I agree, but I was giving the benefit of the doubt by pointing them out. The
point is that Canada's exports to the US are not mostly raw materials.
They're mostly manufactured products.

BTW, Canada is currently running a trade deficit with every other
trading partner (smaller ones grouped) except the US. It's
particularly large (percentage-wise) with respect to the UK and the
rest of the EEC. It's probably just about what you'd see if you
analyzed the internal vs. external trade of a grouping of US states
with similar population and industry. California is probably more
economically independent of the US than Canada. Alaska surely is.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:49:04 GMT, the renowned "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Udie" youdeetwothreethree@ victoriadotteecee.ca wrote in message
...
The oil exports hardly count.

I agree, but I was giving the benefit of the doubt by pointing them out.
The
point is that Canada's exports to the US are not mostly raw materials.
They're mostly manufactured products.

BTW, Canada is currently running a trade deficit with every other
trading partner (smaller ones grouped) except the US. It's
particularly large (percentage-wise) with respect to the UK and the
rest of the EEC. It's probably just about what you'd see if you
analyzed the internal vs. external trade of a grouping of US states
with similar population and industry. California is probably more
economically independent of the US than Canada. Alaska surely is.

That's an interesting point, and the EU sometimes tries to draw parallels
between the countries of Europe and the states of the US. They do that when
it helps support one specious argument or another. g

But this is one country, albeit a large one. There are no trade barriers of
any kind between the states -- 'never have been. The specialization and
comparative-advantage issues are built right into our industrial- and total
economic structure. We all operate under the same government and the same
set of federal taxes and laws. The only variations are in local taxes, and
that's only a marginally competitive issue among the states, used to attract
business or not. So there aren't many meaningful parallels that can be drawn
between the states of the US and separate countries that trade with each
other.

Whether the EU will ever achieve that level of economic integration is
questionable. As you know, there are strong proponents on both sides.

I think the important underlying points are that there is no free trade;
there is no fair trade; each country engages in trade for its own advantage;
and the operating theory, around the world, is that trade is good for
everyone's economy.

So everyone tries to get as much trade going as they can, without paying any
more than they have to for it. When you look at the totally free trade
between the states of the US, you can draw the conclusion that there *is* no
price to be paid for free trade. But, in fact, that isn't the case. In the
US, the costs are invisible, and are built into the structure. We see only
the benefits, which are considerable. The situation isn't necessarily the
same between nations. Trade has a powerful influence on a country's social
structure. Internal trade in the US is going on all within a single country.
Different situation.

Ed Huntress

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:47:34 GMT, the renowned "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

That's an interesting point, and the EU sometimes tries to draw parallels
between the countries of Europe and the states of the US. They do that when
it helps support one specious argument or another. g

As they integrate economically, it makes some sense. The more they
standardize their byzantine system and consolidate all those
bureaucrats into a lesser number in Brussels, the more they will save.
That benefits those of us trying to export there, too. Instead of
trying to get safety agency approvals from a dozen agencies (at
$thousands each), one will do for all the countries of Europe (like UL
or CSA or ETL works for the US and Canada). It's mostly all positive,
as there's little argument that, say, Germany needs safer products
than Italy, even if the standards may have been written that way. The
cost savings of making a crappier product just for Italy are just not
worth it. It might be different if you were talking about a totally
different economic level, say in India, where they are happy to take
the dregs of even Chinese manufacturing (30% faulty product in one
case I'm aware of, but the unit cost was still okay because the labor
to sort the bad ones out was considered negligible even though the
product cost only 17 cents each!).

But this is one country, albeit a large one. There are no trade barriers of
any kind between the states -- 'never have been.

Mmm.. are there not licensing barriers for Professional Engineers,
construction contractors and such like? I think there are *some*
barriers, just not that many. NAFTA put most goods and *some* services
in that category except for those items that are being "managed"
between the nations of North America. NAFTA also allows many
professionals to work in any of the countries with negligible
paperwork. The *big* difference is that ordinary Joes cannot easily
move to where there are jobs or other economic opportunity, even if
they wanted to.

The specialization and
comparative-advantage issues are built right into our industrial- and total
economic structure. We all operate under the same government and the same
set of federal taxes and laws. The only variations are in local taxes, and
that's only a marginally competitive issue among the states, used to attract
business or not. So there aren't many meaningful parallels that can be drawn
between the states of the US and separate countries that trade with each
other.

I think there are useful parallels. One is that economic disparity
continues even when goods, services and people can move with almost
complete freedom. So we can probably expect Portugal to be poorer than
Switzerland for the foreseeable future.

Whether the EU will ever achieve that level of economic integration is
questionable. As you know, there are strong proponents on both sides.

Yes.

I think the important underlying points are that there is no free trade;
there is no fair trade; each country engages in trade for its own advantage;
and the operating theory, around the world, is that trade is good for
everyone's economy.

;-) Maybe not so good for many individuals, even though the GDP
per-capita looks good.

So everyone tries to get as much trade going as they can, without paying any
more than they have to for it. When you look at the totally free trade
between the states of the US, you can draw the conclusion that there *is* no
price to be paid for free trade.

Or maybe Americans don't tend to analyze the negative points because
it's just assumed that all states are in it together. For example, the
restructuring that led a lot of the northeastern manufacturing into
the sunbelt might not have happened if there had been a border in
there. That would have resulted in a different set of winners and
losers. Much has been written about the effects of how cities are
funded, and that's very much affected by invisible administrative
borders (because of taxation issues).

But, in fact, that isn't the case. In the
US, the costs are invisible, and are built into the structure. We see only
the benefits, which are considerable. The situation isn't necessarily the
same between nations. Trade has a powerful influence on a country's social
structure. Internal trade in the US is going on all within a single country.
Different situation.

I see many, many shades of gray (or is it grey?) there. I put a number
on the shade when I decide how much more (if any) I'm willing to pay
to get an equivalent product from different suppliers, based on their
location and the location of their control or ownership. I'm more
likely to want to deal with fair traders, and less with those who are
costing me money.

BTW, one of the issues that's bothering me is that the current system
(international trade, NGOs, resource pricing) tends to give the
advantage to the biggest consumer and whoever has the most economic
power and growth. That's fine so long as you happen to be the dominant
top dog, but it could turn against you if others start competing and
outbidding. We may live long enough to see this happen in an obvious
way, but it's already happening subtly.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:47:34 GMT, the renowned "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

That's an interesting point, and the EU sometimes tries to draw parallels
between the countries of Europe and the states of the US. They do that
when
it helps support one specious argument or another. g

As they integrate economically, it makes some sense. The more they
standardize their byzantine system and consolidate all those
bureaucrats into a lesser number in Brussels, the more they will save.

The arguments are not primarily economic. They're primarily over how much
sovereign decision-making they're sacrificing with the EU. No one in the US
would ever imagine tolerating it between our country and any other. Because
we start off with a highly centralized, nominally federal system, we can't
really see what they're facing, nor can we put ourselves in their place.


But this is one country, albeit a large one. There are no trade barriers
of
any kind between the states -- 'never have been.

Mmm.. are there not licensing barriers for Professional Engineers,
construction contractors and such like? I think there are *some*
barriers, just not that many.

They really aren't barriers. They're just cases in which you may have to be
licensed in the state in which you practice. My wife went through that with
her teaching certificate. It's just a duplicative bureacratic procedure, not
a barrier against practicing her profession.


NAFTA put most goods and *some* services
in that category except for those items that are being "managed"
between the nations of North America. NAFTA also allows many
professionals to work in any of the countries with negligible
paperwork. The *big* difference is that ordinary Joes cannot easily
move to where there are jobs or other economic opportunity, even if
they wanted to.

NAFTA is a collection of halfway measures. It's long-term prospects look
better than those of the WTO, in my opinion, but only slightly so.


The specialization and
comparative-advantage issues are built right into our industrial- and
total
economic structure. We all operate under the same government and the same
set of federal taxes and laws. The only variations are in local taxes,
and
that's only a marginally competitive issue among the states, used to
attract
business or not. So there aren't many meaningful parallels that can be
drawn
between the states of the US and separate countries that trade with each
other.

I think there are useful parallels. One is that economic disparity
continues even when goods, services and people can move with almost
complete freedom. So we can probably expect Portugal to be poorer than
Switzerland for the foreseeable future.

But somebody moving from, say, Alabama to Michigan doesn't have to learn
another language, doesn't have to function as an alien worker, and so on.
That's why I say the parallels between the US and the EU are pretty flimsy.


BTW, one of the issues that's bothering me is that the current system
(international trade, NGOs, resource pricing) tends to give the
advantage to the biggest consumer and whoever has the most economic
power and growth. That's fine so long as you happen to be the dominant
top dog, but it could turn against you if others start competing and
outbidding. We may live long enough to see this happen in an obvious
way, but it's already happening subtly.

I'd have to know what specific events you're talking about to follow what
you're saying here.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

Gary Coffman wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:06:27 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
IIRC, the way it went was that the US first made a claim that the stumpage
fees were artificially low because they were based on a cost basis that, as
you say, "paid expenses." In other words, no real-estate amortization costs,
no insurance costs, no profit on the capital represented by the land's
principal value.

Since the Canadian government didn't pay anything for the land,

I wish that were so.

The department of indian affairs currently costs our tax payers five billion a year
to run. That will continue forever. Not sure why that is. Some say the US conquered
all their indians while we made deals with ours. Whatever, but it does irritate me
to think that my descendants a thousand years from now will still be paying to
support these guys. This also, does not include the billions upon billions that are
consumed in land claims and legal wrangling (it is an industry in itself) Smuggling,
special tax exemptions and the illegal resale of ATF products.

We have paid for the land lots of times. Are still paying. Will continue to pay.
Forever.





or the
air above it, or the water that flows across it, or the sunshine that falls
upon it, there are no real estate amortization costs. There are no insurance
costs because governments self-insure, and can only be sued if they
*permit* themselves to be sued. Governments aren't supposed to be
profit making operations so no need to make a profit either.

Note that all this applies to US government owned timber lands too.
If the US government *chooses* to charge more than the costs of
administering the sales, it is profiteering. If the US government
*chooses* to refuse to allow timber sales, it is perpetuating the
causes of the wild fires that recently swept through California, ie it
is causing an unconscionable build up of fuel, promoting a tree
density that fosters disease, and virtually guaranteeing catastrophic
fires.

Ideally, the governments of both nations would allow the unowned
resources of both their nations to be taken up into private hands
(homesteaded) so ordinary market forces could work.

Gary

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:53:13 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


If you followed the course of that discussion, no one here was complaining
about trade with NZ until Geoff made some silly statement to the effect that
the US is the "most protectionist country in the world," or something like
that. In fact, our tariffs and quotas are among the lowest in the developed
world. That's why we're running a $460 billion deficit.
No, I would say the EU would be amongst the most protectionist in the
world. The US is somewhat hypocritical however, wanting free access
without returning the favour.
It wouldn't be so grating if it wasn't for the fact that NZ is running a
relatively large trade surplus at the same time he was complaining.
Well, the US has a large population (both physically and numerically
:-)with lotsa money and a "consumerism" culture . It is hardly
surprising they import lots of stuff. Expecting other, poorer
countries with smaller populations to buy an equal quantity is
unrealistic. More to the point, if you want to reduce the trade
deficit, get out and sell stuff. It is a world market, and you have to
be competitive,and unfortunately, in my experience, US companies are
largely domestic focused, and don't realize there is a world outside
the US borders. Many US sourced products are uncompetitive in the
world market anyway. A couple of things I have tried to source from
the US in the past include plastic resin (HDPE, PP and other commodity
plastics, and some engineering plastics), fan motors (3* the cost of
our Taiwanese supplier, 2* the Spanish and even more expensive than
the overpriced Germans) and impellers. Don't bleat if you can't
compete.
Finally, complaints about trade deficits are a bit thin, when it
doesn't include repatriated profits. Bell Ameritech owned the NZ
monopoly telecom company in the 1990s, which regularly made profits
~$NZ700m (approx $US350m) per annum out of 3,8million people, by the
expedient of not spending any money on it. ~$NZ400m was returned to
the US each year - this was larger than our trade deficit but doesn't
show in the figures
Geoff

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 18:03:42 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

They really aren't barriers. They're just cases in which you may have to be
licensed in the state in which you practice. My wife went through that with
her teaching certificate. It's just a duplicative bureacratic procedure, not
a barrier against practicing her profession.
It is a non-trade barrier, which helps keep some bureaucrats employed
and stops out-of-state workers taking the jobs. I doubt if teaching
has such differing requirements between US states that it needs
different certificates for each state, or at most a short course
it is the same as non trade barriers (eg certification requirements)
between countries.

"geoff merryweather" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:53:13 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


If you followed the course of that discussion, no one here was
complaining
about trade with NZ until Geoff made some silly statement to the effect
that
the US is the "most protectionist country in the world," or something
like
that. In fact, our tariffs and quotas are among the lowest in the
developed
world. That's why we're running a $460 billion deficit.

No, I would say the EU would be amongst the most protectionist in the
world. The US is somewhat hypocritical however, wanting free access
without returning the favour.

What you actually said, on Oct. 16th, is " The US is one of the most
protected markets in the world. Geoff

Which is patently untrue. Take a look at the average tariff figures in the
WTO stats and you'll see that the US has among the lower tariffs, as well as
some of the lowest non-tariff barriers. As for "returning the favor," the
trade-balance figures make clear that you're off base on that, as well.


It wouldn't be so grating if it wasn't for the fact that NZ is running a
relatively large trade surplus at the same time he was complaining.

Well, the US has a large population (both physically and numerically
:-)with lotsa money and a "consumerism" culture . It is hardly
surprising they import lots of stuff. Expecting other, poorer
countries with smaller populations to buy an equal quantity is
unrealistic.

No problem. You said you favored that offsets idea. Buy what you can from
us, and we'll buy the same amount from you. That will keep your exports in
line with what you can afford to import. Fair enough?

More to the point, if you want to reduce the trade
deficit, get out and sell stuff. It is a world market, and you have to
be competitive,and unfortunately, in my experience, US companies are
largely domestic focused, and don't realize there is a world outside
the US borders.

The most interesting thing to me in this discussion is the insular,
parochial view you (and perhaps the other New Zealanders) have of what's
really going on in world trade. Geoff, the US is the world's largest
exporter of goods, and the world's largest exporter of services. We "get out
and sell stuff" quite a lot; a lot more than any other country.

As for being competitive, we have (according to the World Bank and other
sources) the most efficient and productive manufacturing in the world.

You just did an interesting switch here. I wonder if you recognize it.
You're living in a country with a gross national income of about 1/3 that of
the US, per capita, so your ability to buy is low, and your costs of
manufacture are also low, despite a poor capital infrastructure. Then you
say the US should try harder. Try harder at what, to sell products to a
country where incomes are a fraction of ours? It's a waste of time and
money.

My guess is that most of the readers here don't know much about New
Zealand's economy, and it would be useful here to inset a capsule summary.
This is from Nationmaster, and I think it was written in late '01 or early
'02:

"Since 1984 the government has accomplished major economic restructuring,
transforming New Zealand from an agrarian economy dependent on concessionary
British market access to a more industrialized, free market economy that can
compete globally. This dynamic growth has boosted real incomes (but left
behind many at the bottom of the ladder), broadened and deepened the
technological capabilities of the industrial sector, and contained
inflationary pressures. While per capita incomes have been rising, however,
they remain below the level of the four largest EU economies, and there is
some government concern that New Zealand is not closing the gap. New Zealand
is heavily dependent on trade - particularly in agricultural products - to
drive growth, and it has been affected by the global economic slowdown and
the slump in commodity prices."


A little explanation: New Zealand had a post-colonial economy until the
mid-'80s, at which time it decided to join the developed world. Tariffs were
high, foreign investment was low, and the country had neither the resources,
the technology, nor the economic structure necessary to grow into the world
economy on its own.

The NZ government took some very brave action to change this situation, and
they have had considerable success. One of the major steps was to slash
tariffs, although most of that occurred over the past six years. Their
tariffs on manufactured goods are now about the same as those of the US:
averaging the last few years, we're both at about 4% actual, average tariffs
on goods, and both of our tariffs are dropping (although you have a
moratorium on any more reductions until your economic policymakers do an
evaluation in 2005).

Because NZ is so dependent on ag exports, it also dropped ag tariffs to
1.8% -- as a tactic to leverage lower tariffs from its trading partners more
than anything, because the effect of lower tariffs on ag *exports* is many,
many times the effect on ag *imports*. The purpose was to gain freedom to
increase ag exports, in other words. It is one of the lowest ag tariff rates
in the world. It was a smart move.

Another thing the NZ government did was to actively solicit foreign
investment (US investment is only 13% of the total). They also encouraged
high-technology workers to move to NZ, to boost the technological base of
industry. Thus, a good deal of the industrial infrastructure is now
foreign-owned. The benefit to NZ, in both job production and in improving
the standard of living, has been high, and the government is encouraging
even more of it.

One benefit of foreign investment in commercial enterprise is that the
benefits nearly ALWAYS exceed the value of any profits that are taken out,
at least while a country is developing its technological base. Without the
foreign investment, there would have been no returns to take out in the
first place, because the jobs and the economic output wouldn't be there,
either. (This is vastly different from the foreign investment being made in
US government securities, for example, which saddle us with future tax
liabilities.) The only problem with this will come if you maintain a high
rate of foreign ownership *after* you've developed into a world leader in
industrial efficiency, and if your growth rate slows down for an extended
period while that is going on.


Many US sourced products are uncompetitive in the
world market anyway.

Right. That's why we have higher levels of exports than any country in the
world.

A couple of things I have tried to source from
the US in the past include plastic resin (HDPE, PP and other commodity
plastics, and some engineering plastics), fan motors (3* the cost of
our Taiwanese supplier, 2* the Spanish and even more expensive than
the overpriced Germans) and impellers. Don't bleat if you can't
compete.

Apparently your anecdotal example proves that the WTO world trade data is
all wrong. g


Finally, complaints about trade deficits are a bit thin, when it
doesn't include repatriated profits.

So, if you don't like it, don't accept the foreign investment. Do you have
an objection to the foreign investment in New Zealand? Do you believe that
those investors shouldn't take out profits? And, most importantly, how does
that investment replace jobs or economic activity that you had going on
before?

Obviously, it doesn't, or NZ wouldn't be welcoming all of that investment.
When you run big trade deficits, however, you *may* experience job losses
and other problems. That's where the US is right now -- not because of NZ,
of course, but because of the aggregate numbers.

Again, if you'll track the course of this discussion, no one here was
bitching about the trade situation with NZ until you started bitching that
the US was "protectionist" and unfair to small countries, all the while
you're running a half-billion-dollar trade surplus with the US. It isn't
that NZ is an annoyance that's on our minds all the time. It's just the
grating reaction we have when a country that's already running a surplus
with the US says they want more, and that we're "hypocrites" for not giving
it to them.


--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

"geoff merryweather" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 18:03:42 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

They really aren't barriers. They're just cases in which you may have to
be
licensed in the state in which you practice. My wife went through that
with
her teaching certificate. It's just a duplicative bureacratic procedure,
not
a barrier against practicing her profession.

It is a non-trade barrier, which helps keep some bureaucrats employed
and stops out-of-state workers taking the jobs.

Oh, mine Gott...g OK, Geoff, we'll take them before the NAFTA council and
the WTO and straighten out those trade protectionists, by golly...

I doubt if teaching
has such differing requirements between US states that it needs
different certificates for each state, or at most a short course

That's all it is. A test, actually. My wife knocked off the studying for it
in a couple of days.

it is the same as non trade barriers (eg certification requirements)
between countries.

Certification for professions is hardly a trade barrier. It's a matter of
regulating the granting of authority in order to fulfill a local government
responsibility.

You probably don't know the issues here. Education is a state prerogative in
the US. So is administration of medical doctors, barbers, and a lot of other
things.

If the states are going to pay for it and are responsible to regulate and
manage it, they're going to administer the authorization of it: the issuing
of certificates to practice the profession.

It's a remnant of state sovereignty. It's political and social, and it's
much less of an impediment than you may think.

Ed Huntress

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 02:25:48 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
brought forth from the murky depths:

My guess is that most of the readers here don't know much about New
Zealand's economy, and it would be useful here to inset a capsule summary.
This is from Nationmaster, and I think it was written in late '01 or early
'02:

"Since 1984 the government has accomplished major economic restructuring,
transforming New Zealand from an agrarian economy dependent on concessionary
British market access to a more industrialized, free market economy that can
compete globally. This dynamic growth has boosted real incomes (but left
behind many at the bottom of the ladder), broadened and deepened the

Wow, they have become JUST LIKE US!
(I wish the best of luck to the Kiwis for that.)



Many US sourced products are uncompetitive in the
world market anyway.

Right. That's why we have higher levels of exports than any country in the
world.

I love that 180° agreement, Ed.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heart Attacks: God's revenge for eating his little animal friends
-- http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development --

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 02:25:48 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"geoff merryweather" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:53:13 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


If you followed the course of that discussion, no one here was
complaining
about trade with NZ until Geoff made some silly statement to the effect
that
the US is the "most protectionist country in the world," or something
like
that. In fact, our tariffs and quotas are among the lowest in the
developed
world. That's why we're running a $460 billion deficit.

And all I did was point out that balance of trade figures are cyclical
and as in the past you will be ahead again one day. If you are worried
then get out and do something to improve your export figures, don't
just slap on tariff's.

No, I would say the EU would be amongst the most protectionist in the
world. The US is somewhat hypocritical however, wanting free access
without returning the favour.

What you actually said, on Oct. 16th, is " The US is one of the most
protected markets in the world. Geoff

Which is patently untrue. Take a look at the average tariff figures in the
WTO stats and you'll see that the US has among the lower tariffs, as well as
some of the lowest non-tariff barriers. As for "returning the favor," the
trade-balance figures make clear that you're off base on that, as well.

I interpret Geoff's "returning the favour" as asking for the US to
refrain from imposing tariff's at the drop of a hat. We don't and we
ask that you don't either.
There is no reason why trade between two countries needs to be
balanced in any calendar year. If we sell more to the US but you sell
more to Aust and Aust sells more to us, then whats the problem. Add a
few more countries in there and things even out. The only problem is
if you consistently end up in the red, but then your dollar falls and
so you are more competitive and you get your act together and your
exports increase again.

It wouldn't be so grating if it wasn't for the fact that NZ is running a
relatively large trade surplus at the same time he was complaining.

Well, the US has a large population (both physically and numerically
:-)with lotsa money and a "consumerism" culture . It is hardly
surprising they import lots of stuff. Expecting other, poorer
countries with smaller populations to buy an equal quantity is
unrealistic.

No problem. You said you favored that offsets idea. Buy what you can from
us, and we'll buy the same amount from you. That will keep your exports in
line with what you can afford to import. Fair enough?

We can afford to import more from you but there are other countries
also vying for our business, and if you aren't marketing to us or if
your products are too expensive or if they are badly designed then
we'll buy from someone else. Simple as that.
Your suggestion above would involve a massive bureaucracy to monitor
trade flows in and out, and issue licenses. We don't have that level
of regulation.

More to the point, if you want to reduce the trade
deficit, get out and sell stuff. It is a world market, and you have to
be competitive,and unfortunately, in my experience, US companies are
largely domestic focused, and don't realize there is a world outside
the US borders.

The most interesting thing to me in this discussion is the insular,
parochial view you (and perhaps the other New Zealanders) have of what's
really going on in world trade. Geoff, the US is the world's largest
exporter of goods, and the world's largest exporter of services. We "get out
and sell stuff" quite a lot; a lot more than any other country.

You are the world's largest exporter in dollar terms but that is
meaningless. You have a large population, large landmass and lots of
natural resources. Of course you export lots. What is more meaningful
is the value of goods and services as a percentage of GDP. The WTO
gives NZ exports as 32% of GDP in 1992 and US as 23.6% in 1996. If you
can find more recent figures I'd be interested to see them but I don't
think you can accuse us of not knowing about world trade.

As far as parochialism goes, check out the percentage of US citizens
who have never left your boundaries as compared to other countries. I
recall seeing the figure for your national politicians as being only
about 40%, I'd be very surprised if ours was less than 100%. I think
you can expect the general population to be proportionately less than
that in both countries.

As for being competitive, we have (according to the World Bank and other
sources) the most efficient and productive manufacturing in the world.

You just did an interesting switch here. I wonder if you recognize it.
You're living in a country with a gross national income of about 1/3 that of
the US, per capita, so your ability to buy is low, and your costs of
manufacture are also low, despite a poor capital infrastructure. Then you
say the US should try harder. Try harder at what, to sell products to a
country where incomes are a fraction of ours? It's a waste of time and
money.

Well don't complain that we don't buy enough of your products. We have
the whole world to choose from.

My guess is that most of the readers here don't know much about New
Zealand's economy, and it would be useful here to inset a capsule summary.
This is from Nationmaster, and I think it was written in late '01 or early
'02:

"Since 1984 the government has accomplished major economic restructuring,
transforming New Zealand from an agrarian economy dependent on concessionary
British market access to a more industrialized, free market economy that can
compete globally. This dynamic growth has boosted real incomes (but left
behind many at the bottom of the ladder), broadened and deepened the
technological capabilities of the industrial sector, and contained
inflationary pressures. While per capita incomes have been rising, however,
they remain below the level of the four largest EU economies, and there is
some government concern that New Zealand is not closing the gap. New Zealand
is heavily dependent on trade - particularly in agricultural products - to
drive growth, and it has been affected by the global economic slowdown and
the slump in commodity prices."

Actually the move from depending on access to Britain as a market
started in the sixties when Britain joined the then EEC. 1984 onwards
led to the floating of the dollar, freeing up money flow in and out of
the country and the sale of some government owned operations.
The description of NZ as an agrarian economy in 84 is "interesting".
:-)

A little explanation: New Zealand had a post-colonial economy until the
mid-'80s, at which time it decided to join the developed world. Tariffs were
high, foreign investment was low, and the country had neither the resources,
the technology, nor the economic structure necessary to grow into the world
economy on its own.

I think perhaps you need to widen your sources of information!

The NZ government took some very brave action to change this situation, and
they have had considerable success. One of the major steps was to slash
tariffs, although most of that occurred over the past six years. Their
tariffs on manufactured goods are now about the same as those of the US:
averaging the last few years, we're both at about 4% actual, average tariffs
on goods, and both of our tariffs are dropping (although you have a
moratorium on any more reductions until your economic policymakers do an
evaluation in 2005).

The obvious difference between NZ and the US is that we have not had
any tariff's considered by and judged illegal by the WTO. The only
tariff I can recall being imposed recently was against Korean
whiteware manufacturers who were clearly dumping product here.

The evaluation happened this year, the tariff reductions are to
continue, beginning 2005 as previously planned.

Because NZ is so dependent on ag exports, it also dropped ag tariffs to
1.8% -- as a tactic to leverage lower tariffs from its trading partners more
than anything, because the effect of lower tariffs on ag *exports* is many,
many times the effect on ag *imports*. The purpose was to gain freedom to
increase ag exports, in other words. It is one of the lowest ag tariff rates
in the world. It was a smart move.

Another thing the NZ government did was to actively solicit foreign
investment (US investment is only 13% of the total). They also encouraged
high-technology workers to move to NZ, to boost the technological base of
industry. Thus, a good deal of the industrial infrastructure is now
foreign-owned. The benefit to NZ, in both job production and in improving
the standard of living, has been high, and the government is encouraging
even more of it.

One benefit of foreign investment in commercial enterprise is that the
benefits nearly ALWAYS exceed the value of any profits that are taken out,
at least while a country is developing its technological base. Without the
foreign investment, there would have been no returns to take out in the
first place, because the jobs and the economic output wouldn't be there,
either. (This is vastly different from the foreign investment being made in
US government securities, for example, which saddle us with future tax
liabilities.) The only problem with this will come if you maintain a high
rate of foreign ownership *after* you've developed into a world leader in
industrial efficiency, and if your growth rate slows down for an extended
period while that is going on.


Many US sourced products are uncompetitive in the
world market anyway.

Right. That's why we have higher levels of exports than any country in the
world.

See my comments above regarding GDP.

A couple of things I have tried to source from
the US in the past include plastic resin (HDPE, PP and other commodity
plastics, and some engineering plastics), fan motors (3* the cost of
our Taiwanese supplier, 2* the Spanish and even more expensive than
the overpriced Germans) and impellers. Don't bleat if you can't
compete.

Apparently your anecdotal example proves that the WTO world trade data is
all wrong. g

No, but it may explain why you are rightly concerned by the US
performance.
I could add an anecdotal piece about working on a piece of US
manufactured equipment this last week but I don't think it's worth the
effort.

Finally, complaints about trade deficits are a bit thin, when it
doesn't include repatriated profits.

So, if you don't like it, don't accept the foreign investment. Do you have
an objection to the foreign investment in New Zealand? Do you believe that
those investors shouldn't take out profits? And, most importantly, how does
that investment replace jobs or economic activity that you had going on
before?

Actually it was you who was complaining about trade deficits. I
believe Geoff was pointing out that if you total your export receipts
to us, and repatriated profits from here, then you are in the black.
Not usually a thing to complain about.

Obviously, it doesn't, or NZ wouldn't be welcoming all of that investment.
When you run big trade deficits, however, you *may* experience job losses
and other problems. That's where the US is right now -- not because of NZ,
of course, but because of the aggregate numbers.

And the constructive solution is to improve your performance, not
impose tariff's like the steel one which is the topic of this thread.

The lamb tariff's I referred to the other day are an interesting
example of some thinking in the US. I think you'll agree that sheep
meat is not a large selling product in the US. When it became obvious
that the US sheep farmers had succeeded in getting government support
for the tariff, the NZ lamb marketing company approached the US
industry body and suggested they form a joint venture to actually
raise the profile of sheep meat in the US and grow the market. A win
win situation for both parties. The US farmers weren't interested. As
predicted the tariff's were judged illegal and eventually removed, and
the US farmers are still where they were, struggling.
..
Again, if you'll track the course of this discussion, no one here was
bitching about the trade situation with NZ until you started bitching that
the US was "protectionist" and unfair to small countries, all the while
you're running a half-billion-dollar trade surplus with the US. It isn't
that NZ is an annoyance that's on our minds all the time. It's just the
grating reaction we have when a country that's already running a surplus
with the US says they want more, and that we're "hypocrites" for not giving
it to them.

As I said before, I think you are misinterpreting. We don't want more
exports to the US unless we can win the sales openly and fairly.
Slapping tariff's on at your whim is being hypocritical because you
profess to be against them.

Regards
Malcolm
--
Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address