I heard on the news this AM that the WTO issued a final ruling that
declared the steel import tariff illegal and clears the way for other
countries to add almost any retaliatory tariff they want on any US
products. This is going to put the Dubya's tush in a crack again. If
he repeals it he gets the steel states upset and if he keeps it everyone
else gets ****ed.

Personally I say good riddance. The tax averaged about 8%-10% but
stainless prices have gone up almost 30% and CRS is up over 40%. I have
used only a few hundred dollars worth since the tariffs went on but I
can see how it has effected small manufacturers a lot worse.

The tariffs were a big mistake in the first place. They were supposed
to reduce imports give the US steel industry time and money to update
facilities but for the most part very little of the extra profit has
been used for any improvements. At the same time imports have not gone
down much. The increase in price has actually attracted more foreign
producers.

It was supposed to save jobs but it has cost more manufacturing and
construction jobs than the entire steel industry employees. Now with
the WTO ruling allowing punitive tariffs on US products farmers and high
tech workers get a chance to pay for the steel industries short
sightedness.

--
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 Tue, 11 Nov 2003 07:00:21 -0500, Glenn Ashmore
wrote:

I heard on the news this AM that the WTO issued a final ruling that
declared the steel import tariff illegal and clears the way for other
countries to add almost any retaliatory tariff they want on any US
products. This is going to put the Dubya's tush in a crack again. If
he repeals it he gets the steel states upset and if he keeps it everyone
else gets ****ed.

The WTO may have declared it illegal, but it dont mean poop until
SCOTUS has made its decision. And its going before SCOTUS now.

Gunner


Personally I say good riddance. The tax averaged about 8%-10% but
stainless prices have gone up almost 30% and CRS is up over 40%. I have
used only a few hundred dollars worth since the tariffs went on but I
can see how it has effected small manufacturers a lot worse.

The tariffs were a big mistake in the first place. They were supposed
to reduce imports give the US steel industry time and money to update
facilities but for the most part very little of the extra profit has
been used for any improvements. At the same time imports have not gone
down much. The increase in price has actually attracted more foreign
producers.

It was supposed to save jobs but it has cost more manufacturing and
construction jobs than the entire steel industry employees. Now with
the WTO ruling allowing punitive tariffs on US products farmers and high
tech workers get a chance to pay for the steel industries short
sightedness.

"Tavoni & Richard" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 07:00:21 -0500, Glenn Ashmore
wrote:

I heard on the news this AM that the WTO issued a final ruling that
declared the steel import tariff illegal and clears the way for other
countries to add almost any retaliatory tariff they want on any US
products. This is going to put the Dubya's tush in a crack again. If
he repeals it he gets the steel states upset and if he keeps it everyone
else gets ****ed.

The WTO may have declared it illegal, but it dont mean poop until
SCOTUS has made its decision. And its going before SCOTUS now.

I'm not with you on this, Gunner. What is it that's going before the Supreme
Court? What's the issue they're deciding, in other words?

Ed Huntress

Tavoni & Richard wrote:

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 07:00:21 -0500, Glenn Ashmore
wrote:


I heard on the news this AM that the WTO issued a final ruling that
declared the steel import tariff illegal and clears the way for other
countries to add almost any retaliatory tariff they want on any US
products. This is going to put the Dubya's tush in a crack again. If
he repeals it he gets the steel states upset and if he keeps it everyone
else gets ****ed.


The WTO may have declared it illegal, but it dont mean poop until
SCOTUS has made its decision. And its going before SCOTUS now.

Gunner

The Supreme Court has nothing to do with Asian or European tariff
structures. The WTO has given them permission to raise tariffs on US
products like orange juice and finished metal products. This is no
longer a legal question. It is pure politics from her on out. Will he
keep his big steel buddies happy and **** off Florida, California and
Michigan?

--
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

I agree that the tariffs were not a good idea. But in the time they
have been in place there has been a lot of consolidation in the steel
industry. There actually was not a lot of extra profit to use for
improvements, just not a lot of deficits.

Dan


Glenn Ashmore wrote in message news:Rg4sb.15067$62.13280@lakeread04..
..
The tariffs were a big mistake in the first place. They were supposed
to reduce imports give the US steel industry time and money to update
facilities but for the most part very little of the extra profit has
been used for any improvements. At the same time imports have not gone
down much. The increase in price has actually attracted more foreign
producers.

Glenn Ashmore wrote:

I heard on the news this AM that the WTO issued a final ruling that
declared the steel import tariff illegal and clears the way for other
countries to add almost any retaliatory tariff they want on any US
products. This is going to put the Dubya's tush in a crack again. If
he repeals it he gets the steel states upset and if he keeps it everyone
else gets ****ed.

Personally I say good riddance. The tax averaged about 8%-10% but
stainless prices have gone up almost 30% and CRS is up over 40%. I have
used only a few hundred dollars worth since the tariffs went on but I
can see how it has effected small manufacturers a lot worse.

The tariffs were a big mistake in the first place. They were supposed
to reduce imports give the US steel industry time and money to update
facilities but for the most part very little of the extra profit has
been used for any improvements. At the same time imports have not gone
down much. The increase in price has actually attracted more foreign
producers.

It was supposed to save jobs but it has cost more manufacturing and
construction jobs than the entire steel industry employees. Now with
the WTO ruling allowing punitive tariffs on US products farmers and high
tech workers get a chance to pay for the steel industries short
sightedness.

--
Glenn Ashmore


Another tiny nail in the shrub's coffin. ... I hope, against all hope :-( He's
already quite busy buying the next election.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

I don't think the Supreme Court has any jurisdiction in this issue. BTW
- the USA has lost the majority of the recent WTO rulings. The EU is
poised to slap 100% duty tariffs on a number of popular American exports
if Bush does not back down in accord with the WTO. The likely scenario
is that Bush will refuse to back down, the EU (and Asians) will
institute the 100% tariffs, exports will come to a halt, more jobs will
be lost, and the White House will tell us that not being able to export
is actually better for us - there will be more US made goods for us to buy.

I love it.

Regards,

Marv

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Tavoni & Richard" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 07:00:21 -0500, Glenn Ashmore
wrote:


I heard on the news this AM that the WTO issued a final ruling that
declared the steel import tariff illegal and clears the way for other
countries to add almost any retaliatory tariff they want on any US
products. This is going to put the Dubya's tush in a crack again. If
he repeals it he gets the steel states upset and if he keeps it everyone
else gets ****ed.

The WTO may have declared it illegal, but it dont mean poop until
SCOTUS has made its decision. And its going before SCOTUS now.


I'm not with you on this, Gunner. What is it that's going before the Supreme
Court? What's the issue they're deciding, in other words?

Ed Huntress

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.

Jimbo
"Abrasha" wrote in message
...
Glenn Ashmore wrote:

I heard on the news this AM that the WTO issued a final ruling that
declared the steel import tariff illegal and clears the way for other
countries to add almost any retaliatory tariff they want on any US
products. This is going to put the Dubya's tush in a crack again. If
he repeals it he gets the steel states upset and if he keeps it everyone
else gets ****ed.

Personally I say good riddance. The tax averaged about 8%-10% but
stainless prices have gone up almost 30% and CRS is up over 40%. I have
used only a few hundred dollars worth since the tariffs went on but I
can see how it has effected small manufacturers a lot worse.

The tariffs were a big mistake in the first place. They were supposed
to reduce imports give the US steel industry time and money to update
facilities but for the most part very little of the extra profit has
been used for any improvements. At the same time imports have not gone
down much. The increase in price has actually attracted more foreign
producers.

It was supposed to save jobs but it has cost more manufacturing and
construction jobs than the entire steel industry employees. Now with
the WTO ruling allowing punitive tariffs on US products farmers and high
tech workers get a chance to pay for the steel industries short
sightedness.

--
Glenn Ashmore


Another tiny nail in the shrub's coffin. ... I hope, against all hope
:-( He's
already quite busy buying the next election.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

"Marv Soloff" wrote in message
...
I don't think the Supreme Court has any jurisdiction in this issue. BTW
- the USA has lost the majority of the recent WTO rulings. The EU is
poised to slap 100% duty tariffs on a number of popular American exports
if Bush does not back down in accord with the WTO. The likely scenario
is that Bush will refuse to back down, the EU (and Asians) will
institute the 100% tariffs, exports will come to a halt, more jobs will
be lost, and the White House will tell us that not being able to export
is actually better for us - there will be more US made goods for us to
buy.

I love it.

The only reason I can think of that the S.C. would get involved is if
someone with standing is challenging the constitutionality of the treaty
itself. I don't think that's happening, but maybe Gunner heard something
today that I haven't heard yet.

As for the WTO, don't expect it to last another five years. The Cancun
debacle cripplied its future; the US is making bilateral and regional trade
agreements that are undermining it left and right; the Asians are trying to
do the same thing; and it will collapse like a house of cards if the US
pulls out. We have to give six months notice if we plan to drop the
agreement.

I believe it's doomed, and that it was from the very beginning.

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

Marv Soloff wrote:

and the White House will tell us that not being able to export
is actually better for us - there will be more US made goods for
us to buy.

If you can't win, spin...

Jon

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

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:Rg4sb.15067$62.13280@lakeread04...
I heard on the news this AM that the WTO issued a final ruling that
declared the steel import tariff illegal and clears the way for other
countries to add almost any retaliatory tariff they want on any US
products. This is going to put the Dubya's tush in a crack again. If
he repeals it he gets the steel states upset and if he keeps it everyone
else gets ****ed.

Personally I say good riddance. The tax averaged about 8%-10% but
stainless prices have gone up almost 30% and CRS is up over 40%. I have
used only a few hundred dollars worth since the tariffs went on but I
can see how it has effected small manufacturers a lot worse.

The tariffs were a big mistake in the first place. They were supposed
to reduce imports give the US steel industry time and money to update
facilities but for the most part very little of the extra profit has
been used for any improvements. At the same time imports have not gone
down much. The increase in price has actually attracted more foreign
producers.

It was supposed to save jobs but it has cost more manufacturing and
construction jobs than the entire steel industry employees. Now with
the WTO ruling allowing punitive tariffs on US products farmers and high
tech workers get a chance to pay for the steel industries short
sightedness.

--
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

I heard tonight that because one cow in Canada was found with Mad Cow
Disease that we have banned all Canadian beef for the next three years.
Beef is over a dollar a pound on the hoof right now. A historic high
and expected to go higher. Get ready for $20/pound steaks.

Randy Zimmerman wrote:
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

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:Rg4sb.15067$62.13280@lakeread04...

I heard on the news this AM that the WTO issued a final ruling that
declared the steel import tariff illegal and clears the way for other
countries to add almost any retaliatory tariff they want on any US
products. This is going to put the Dubya's tush in a crack again. If
he repeals it he gets the steel states upset and if he keeps it everyone
else gets ****ed.

Personally I say good riddance. The tax averaged about 8%-10% but
stainless prices have gone up almost 30% and CRS is up over 40%. I have
used only a few hundred dollars worth since the tariffs went on but I
can see how it has effected small manufacturers a lot worse.

The tariffs were a big mistake in the first place. They were supposed
to reduce imports give the US steel industry time and money to update
facilities but for the most part very little of the extra profit has
been used for any improvements. At the same time imports have not gone
down much. The increase in price has actually attracted more foreign
producers.

It was supposed to save jobs but it has cost more manufacturing and
construction jobs than the entire steel industry employees. Now with
the WTO ruling allowing punitive tariffs on US products farmers and high
tech workers get a chance to pay for the steel industries short
sightedness.

--
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





--
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

It's a little like the 30 % tariff on Canadian soft wood. It's destroying
the lumber business in Canada and adding a couple of thousand to the cost of
new homes in the US. The good part is that the American lumber industry is
able to jack up their prices about 30% and make a ton. What does seem funny
though is that while the US lumber barons say that Canadians do not pay
enough stumpage on their timber, they do not mind buying all the Canadian
(tariff free) logs they can get their hands on to process into lumber
themselves.

Just seems odd to me that the US can import this same, below fair market
value wood for processing in their own mills while charging Canadians a 30 %
tariff to do the same thing. ???


Glenn Ashmore wrote:

I heard on the news this AM that the WTO issued a final ruling that
declared the steel import tariff illegal and clears the way for other
countries to add almost any retaliatory tariff they want on any US
products. This is going to put the Dubya's tush in a crack again. If
he repeals it he gets the steel states upset and if he keeps it everyone
else gets ****ed.

Personally I say good riddance. The tax averaged about 8%-10% but
stainless prices have gone up almost 30% and CRS is up over 40%. I have
used only a few hundred dollars worth since the tariffs went on but I
can see how it has effected small manufacturers a lot worse.

The tariffs were a big mistake in the first place. They were supposed
to reduce imports give the US steel industry time and money to update
facilities but for the most part very little of the extra profit has
been used for any improvements. At the same time imports have not gone
down much. The increase in price has actually attracted more foreign
producers.

It was supposed to save jobs but it has cost more manufacturing and
construction jobs than the entire steel industry employees. Now with
the WTO ruling allowing punitive tariffs on US products farmers and high
tech workers get a chance to pay for the steel industries short
sightedness.

--
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

The best part was that an american owned the cow.


Glenn Ashmore wrote:

I heard tonight that because one cow in Canada was found with Mad Cow
Disease that we have banned all Canadian beef for the next three years.
Beef is over a dollar a pound on the hoof right now. A historic high
and expected to go higher. Get ready for $20/pound steaks.

Randy Zimmerman wrote:
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

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:Rg4sb.15067$62.13280@lakeread04...

I heard on the news this AM that the WTO issued a final ruling that
declared the steel import tariff illegal and clears the way for other
countries to add almost any retaliatory tariff they want on any US
products. This is going to put the Dubya's tush in a crack again. If
he repeals it he gets the steel states upset and if he keeps it everyone
else gets ****ed.

Personally I say good riddance. The tax averaged about 8%-10% but
stainless prices have gone up almost 30% and CRS is up over 40%. I have
used only a few hundred dollars worth since the tariffs went on but I
can see how it has effected small manufacturers a lot worse.

The tariffs were a big mistake in the first place. They were supposed
to reduce imports give the US steel industry time and money to update
facilities but for the most part very little of the extra profit has
been used for any improvements. At the same time imports have not gone
down much. The increase in price has actually attracted more foreign
producers.

It was supposed to save jobs but it has cost more manufacturing and
construction jobs than the entire steel industry employees. Now with
the WTO ruling allowing punitive tariffs on US products farmers and high
tech workers get a chance to pay for the steel industries short
sightedness.

--
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





--
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 Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:47:03 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Tavoni & Richard" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 07:00:21 -0500, Glenn Ashmore
wrote:

I heard on the news this AM that the WTO issued a final ruling that
declared the steel import tariff illegal and clears the way for other
countries to add almost any retaliatory tariff they want on any US
products. This is going to put the Dubya's tush in a crack again. If
he repeals it he gets the steel states upset and if he keeps it everyone
else gets ****ed.

The WTO may have declared it illegal, but it dont mean poop until
SCOTUS has made its decision. And its going before SCOTUS now.

I'm not with you on this, Gunner. What is it that's going before the Supreme
Court? What's the issue they're deciding, in other words?

Ed Huntress

As I recall it..the legality of whether or not Bush could set
that steel tarrif all by his lonesome. Its been in the papers out here
in the hinterlands.

Gunner

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus
ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.

"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

Recently..... In Canada..... An American businessman was interviewed
about his recent relocation of his American company to Canada.

He went on to explain in some detail the protectionist attitude of the
American government and how it had finally forced him to relocate his
company to Canada.

His product depended on a raw material that was both produced in the US
and imported into the US. It had very high tariffs attached to it, and
that particular raw material was controlled by a small number of US
companies who for decades had enjoyed artificially high prices for
their material due to intense lobbying and the sucess of high tariffs.

The finished product was to many a national icon whoes history goes
back almost a hundred years. They had been located in the same American
community for their entire history and untill the day they moved out,
the welcome sign to that community reminded the world that this town
proudly manufactured this companies product. A product used by billions
of people in the preceeding century but also enjoyed by billions of non
Americans from around the word. The product was a household name
and when America marched to war this product marched with the soldiers
just like coca cola and GM cars. The product had wide spread appeal to
all generations from kids to seniors, regardless of color, sex or any
other consideration. One could safely say that virtually everyone who
ever tried the product..... liked it.

And yet the manufacturer was finally forced by the economics of a
protectionist attitude in the US to move to a more receptive coutry
where they were free to buy their raw materials in a free market which
saved them about half of their production costs.

Can anyone name the raw material, and the finished product....???????

"Johnny Canuck" wrote in message
...

And yet the manufacturer was finally forced by the economics of a
protectionist attitude in the US to move to a more receptive coutry
where they were free to buy their raw materials in a free market which
saved them about half of their production costs.

Can anyone name the raw material, and the finished product....???????

You're talking about sugar, and Lifesavers.

Out of sympathy, we're throwing in a few hundred dentists and nutritional
therapists with the deal. g

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

You're talking about sugar, and Lifesavers.

WOW!!!..... I'm impressed - and you are correct.

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

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

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
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).

The best plan I've seen is one that Gunner pointed me to a couple of weeks
ago, proposed by Warren Buffet in an editorial somewhere. It involves
issuing trade credits to countries that buy our products, which authorize
them to sell an equal amount back to us. I had been thinking in terms of an
offset system, which every country in the world that buys civilian aircraft
or military hardware from the US uses on us, but Buffet's plan has an added
benefit: The credits themselves could be traded on world markets, which
would have the effect of erasing some of the anti-competitive price
advantages that result from extremely low wages (China's, for example) that
are held down artificially by government manipulation.

Trade is (or
should be) a free mkt process. and a "balance" would simply be
coincidental if
it were achieved without interference.

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. Japan practically patented this method 30 years ago
and all of the Asian Tigers, plus China, have picked up on it. You can't
have free trade in such an environment. But enacting currency controls would
be a cure worse than the disease.

The theory of Comparative Advantage, which is the underlying idea to our
"free-trade" policies, is itself based on an assumption of perfectly
balanced trade. In fact, its arithmetic was worked out originally on an
assumption that trade would be all barter, or its money equivalent -- zero
balances of trade.

I know there's allegations of dumping
and subsidizing industries that supposedly provide unfair competition etc.
but
those allegations will always be there.

Dumping and subsidizing are, in theory, destructive only to the country that
engages in them. But the practice is quite different. They tend to be
market-grabbing techniques and they've been very effective.

However, as you say, they're hard to prove and they'll always be there. The
only way to short-circuit them that I've seen is something like Buffet's
plan.

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.

We don't need tariffs. We need balanced trade. And we don't have to
manipulate anyone else's market. We only have to take some control of ours.

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

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

That's why we're the most productive and efficient producers in the world,
according to the World Bank. g

Unlike most of the developed world, our energy and materials markets aren't
taxed to high heaven by governments that use energy taxes to fund social
programs. That's the free market for you, eh? You ought to try it. Then
maybe your per-capita, purchasing-poower-parity GDP (US$29,400 for 2002)
might edge its way up to something like, say, Norway (US$31,800) or Ireland
($30,500).

Ed Huntress

I see your point Ed but there are only 30 million of us up here. We try our
damndest to spend our money before our government gets it but there is only
so much amercian stuff our population could buy.
If it wasn't for the hassle at that border I would be buying stuff on
E-Bay all the time:')
Personally I would like the US to walk in and take over Western Canada. We
have nothing in common with Central Canada. Interesting too that Eastern
provinces are exempt from this tariff barrier.
Randy

"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

"Randy Zimmerman" wrote in message
news:YGrsb.376563$pl3.138131@pd7tw3no...

I see your point Ed but there are only 30 million of us up here. We try
our
damndest to spend our money before our government gets it but there is
only
so much amercian stuff our population could buy.

Haha! There are a lot of explanations for why Canada's economy is lagging
these days, but one fact that's hard to avoid is that you're still working
off a legacy of high tariffs from days gone by. At one point your import
duties led to the creating of entire industries of "mini-plants," including
car plants, 60% owned by foreigners, that duplicated plants in the US and
Europe. They were highly inefficient because they were too small.
Manufacturers around the world built those plants because they couldn't
export to Canada without facing high tariffs. But it raised your prices on
almost everything, and it depressed your growth. Canada feels these trade
problems acutely because the percentage of your economy that depends on
trade is much higher than that of the US.

It's being corrected. Your foreign ownership of plants is down to something
under 40%, I think, and it's falling. Since NAFTA, your plants have stopped
trying to be miniatures of US plants and have started specializing, taking
advantage of reduced trade barriers to produce fewer things in higher
volumes, with world-class efficiency. It looks good for Canada's economy
overall. I wouldn't be pessimistic about where your economy is going in the
long run. The trick is to live long enough to see the "long run." g

If it wasn't for the hassle at that border I would be buying stuff on
E-Bay all the time:')
Personally I would like the US to walk in and take over Western Canada.

Aack! Not on your life. It's too damned cold.

We
have nothing in common with Central Canada.

Well, the real United States (the original 13 states) sometimes seems to
have little in common with the Territories, too. g I'm aware of your
divisive problem with central and eastern Canada. I don't know what to say,
except that you need a real leader or two up there who can bring the country
together. You have too much common interest to let the competing interests
make a mess of it.

Interesting too that Eastern
provinces are exempt from this tariff barrier.

I don't know how it's split up. I do know that anything that has to do with
agriculture or timber is a total mess, tradewise, throughout the world. The
subsidies that Japan, the EU, and the US (not that Canada is exempt, but our
subsidies have more effect) have in place are astronomical and make a
complete mockery of "free" trade. But that's a legacy, too, one that's
causing no end of problems for the manufactured-products end of trade.

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

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

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:54:27 -0500, Glenn Ashmore
wrote:

snip
The WTO has given them permission to raise tariffs on US
products like orange juice and finished metal products. This is no
longer a legal question. It is pure politics from her on out. Will he
keep his big steel buddies happy and **** off Florida, California and
Michigan?

Of course, then it can come down to a real ****ing match - say, 100%
duty on imports. Really, other than a piece of paper saying "you can
do XXX", what REAL powers does WTO have? None!

--
73
KC2IXE

For the Children - RKBA!

A rose by any other name would be "deadly thorn-bearing assault
vegetation."

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 06:59:20 GMT, Johnny Canuck
wrote:

snip
Can anyone name the raw material, and the finished product....???????

Sugar and some sort of candy - probably Chocolate

--
73
KC2IXE

For the Children - RKBA!

A rose by any other name would be "deadly thorn-bearing assault
vegetation."

"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.

I'm tempted to go look at the Canadian newspapers (I read the Toronto Star
about once a week, but not the others) to see how this is playing in Canada.

FWIW, the argument before the WTO is almost the exact opposite of the one
Canada made over dairy imports from the US. Canada lost on the dairy issue;
if the WTO sticks to the same reasoning, they'll probably win on the
softwood issue.

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.

The WTO, being a new organization, is still working out its doctrines. In a
sense, this case is one in which the US and Canada are testing the WTO to
make it refine its doctrines on how "harm" shall be determined. It isn't an
issue of fair trade at all -- as you can see by checking the course of the
decisions, Canada doesn't deny that they subsidize lumber production. It's a
case of how this tangled mess of agricultural and timber subsidies will be
dealt with, until, hopefully, the day that both subsidies and tariffs are
removed.

That day is a long way off, based on the results of Cancun.

Ed Huntress

In article , Collin wrote:
It's a little like the 30 % tariff on Canadian soft wood. It's destroying
the lumber business in Canada and adding a couple of thousand to the cost of
new homes in the US. The good part is that the American lumber industry is
able to jack up their prices about 30% and make a ton. What does seem funny
though is that while the US lumber barons say that Canadians do not pay
enough stumpage on their timber, they do not mind buying all the Canadian

what is stumpage? --Loren

Ed:

I think you will agree that a lot of the trade diputes are really powerful
business interests trying to use or abuse tariffs to give themselves a
market advantage. The companies, usually American, use powerful lobby
groups to force the US government into beating up on so called weaker
nations.

Canadians politician for what ever reason have done their constituants a
great disservice by playing the weak cousin in our cross border trade
negotiation and I for one think it's about time we started playing a little
hard ball in those negotiations. That shouldn't make me anti American
should it? Canada and the USA need each other more than most American's
really know and if we don't learn to repect that fact both our countries are
in a lot of trouble.

You sound like a very reasonable person so it might be a good idea for you
to explain to your fellow American's just how much trade both in goods and
technology crosses both our borders every day. If the border between
Canada and the USA where closed tomorrow both our economies would collapse
almost immediately and that's a fact.

The EU is becoming a very power economical force that will hopefully force
both our countries to start working together instead of against each other.

Jimbo


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
t...
"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.

I'm tempted to go look at the Canadian newspapers (I read the Toronto Star
about once a week, but not the others) to see how this is playing in
Canada.

FWIW, the argument before the WTO is almost the exact opposite of the one
Canada made over dairy imports from the US. Canada lost on the dairy
issue;
if the WTO sticks to the same reasoning, they'll probably win on the
softwood issue.

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.

The WTO, being a new organization, is still working out its doctrines. In
a
sense, this case is one in which the US and Canada are testing the WTO to
make it refine its doctrines on how "harm" shall be determined. It isn't
an
issue of fair trade at all -- as you can see by checking the course of the
decisions, Canada doesn't deny that they subsidize lumber production. It's
a
case of how this tangled mess of agricultural and timber subsidies will be
dealt with, until, hopefully, the day that both subsidies and tariffs are
removed.

That day is a long way off, based on the results of Cancun.

Ed Huntress

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

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

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? ;-)

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

"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.

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.

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. 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.

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?

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.

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.

Dave

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

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

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

I must assume you are being facetious. Who else are we going to pawn
off the next trillion dollars of debt that the Dubya's tax cut is
costing us? I sure can't buy many bonds with the $200 tax cut I got.

--
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 Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:37:20 -0500, "Jimbo" .
brought forth from the murky depths:

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.

And in the interim, both us and the US gov't overpay for scarce
plywood since they're sending, ****, millions of sheets to rebuild
Iraq right now. Oops, I meant to say "Put up US quarters in Iraq."
None of this crap makes any sense whatsoever, so it's nothing new
to OUR gov't.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 07:54:23 GMT, Johnny Canuck
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

Ed Huntress wrote:

You're talking about sugar, and Lifesavers.

WOW!!!..... I'm impressed - and you are correct.


It's his job, and he's good at it! You walked into the
rec.crafts.metalworking trap. G
************************************************** ****************************************
Until I do the other one,this one means nothing
Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

!!
")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/