# Why Can't Softwoods Be Resolved ?



## tomahawk6 (18 Nov 2005)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/338fvzkp.asp

Found this interesting article and found that it pretty well described the issue and concludes that the real problem is the lack of Canadian support and so this is a way for Washington to show its displeasure. The author's conclusion sure makes sense to me in that softwoods may be the carrot or stick to obtain Canadian cooperation in issues like deserters and or foreign policy. I think I agree that if Hinzman and his ilk are not returned to the US then softwoods may not be resolved for a very long time - if the Liberal Party retains power.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (18 Nov 2005)

I find it interesting how Mr. Dithers seems to be fighting the issue with more resolve now that an election is looming and yet before it was rarely raised during his meetings with Bush.


----------



## Marty (18 Nov 2005)

I dont know if Id say hes fighting with more resolve now.....mabey shooting his mouth off to make some points with the voters, now that he is going to the polls very shortly. He is trying to ensure that he doesnt loose any seats in Atlantic Canada  by apearing to stand up to that big meany Goerge W. Id like to say that it will fail and that the good people of the Maritimes will see it for what it is, but it hasnt happened yet.


----------



## Marty (18 Nov 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> atlantic canada as far as I understand is not a problem when it comes to softwood lumber.  I beleive most of the lumber from there comes from private land and is not subject to the low stumpage fee/subsidy, exports from this region of canada has increased by more than 80%.    I do believe that both the Dems and Republicans will play hardball until the deserters are returned according to international agreements.  Remember the BRYD ammendment is namked after the ex-KK Klan dude....



Atlantic Canada most certainly is a problem or I guess I should say has a problem , in that the mills cant get rid of the end product so they dont buy anymore from the little guys (like me), the Maritime Mafia 9Irving ) passes it on down the line.

I wholeheartadly believe that the US is willing to play hardball over many things , not the least of which is the way Canada has let these turds stay in our country. If I had my way Id hide them in a load of Black Spruce and send them to you COD!


----------



## GO!!! (18 Nov 2005)

Softwoods can't be resolved because the US has no need for candian lumber, and places duties on it in order to protect domestic industry.

The price for softwood lumber is high right now, as a result of the recent disasters, so the industry is healthy, and employing americans. Allowing free trade lumber into the US would kill these local industries and the political chances of whatever candidate campaigns there, in addition to upsetting a powerful lobby.

This is another manifestation of free trade only being free for american exports, it has nothing to do with ideological spats like the deserters or gay marriage or anything else. This trade policy is most prevalent in agribusiness in the US, but is expanding to most resource based industries, with the exception of hydrocarbons.

Simply, because the US won't play by the rules, and we can't make them.


----------



## UberCree (19 Nov 2005)

Exactly GO.
Why encourage free trade agreements if they are not going to be honoured.
The US is really losing its way on this issue.  It will make any country that is thinking of forming a free trade agreement with the US think twice.
I say look the the east for trade, less dependance on US.  So if they dishonour agreements and RULINGS, then we can pull out.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (19 Nov 2005)

Some interesting points here, S Baker has hit the nail on the head from my perspective. Stumpage.
Low stumpage fees in Canada are causing a massive export business to the US. We must increase the cost of stumpage for two reasons, 
One to slow the cutting of our timber. 
Two ensure the playing field with our trading partners is equal. 
The Irving monopoly among others in NB and other Canadian forrests has to end and be divided up to smaller private operators. Just take a trip to the state of Maine with the same forrest as us in NB and you will see less cutting of the forrests there why is that? Cheap Canadian lumber. I still cant believe the NAFTA panel sided with us on this one, I would be pissed if I was a US wood producer.


----------



## GO!!! (19 Nov 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> GO, this horse has been beaten many times.   However, I don't think most CDNs are being intellectually honest.   If the US was such an unfair protectionist why would canada have such a huge trade surplus with the US?   I was wondering if you have read all of the NAFTA decisions?   Indeed the last decision said that Canada is subsidizing the lumber, the only problem is that they did not agree with the tariff percentage.
> 
> As far as agri-business, I can't remember the last time the US government threw or threatend to throw a farmer for selling grain on the open market, can you remember the last time it happened in canada?   Ask my brethren from southern alberta they will tell you.   Also check on all of the subsidies, wheat boards, egg, milk, beer protectionist measures are in canada....I know I grew up on a farm in east central alberta.



I have not made an academic study of the NAFTA decisions, no.

Canada has an enormous trade deficit with the US because they are the No. 1 consumer of nearly every consumer item on the planet. *Most * nations have a severe trade imbalance with the US, we are hardly alone.

As for agri-business, the point is not our levels of  subsidisation, it is that the US pushes universal free trade as a cure - all for every nation, and then engages in punitive tariffs and duties to protect it's own industries. They are imposing rules as conditions for trade, then not following them.

The fact that California rice farmers can grow rice for export more cheaply than Chinese peasants can is only one example of this. Similar situations exist for most agricultural products in the US.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (19 Nov 2005)

Now that would be a sight to see....US farmers employing Mexicans to grow rice to sell to the Chinese.

edit typo


----------



## TCBF (21 Nov 2005)

NAFTA was for COMMERCIAL econonomic integrety, not INDIVIDUAL economic integrity.  Us peasants still get to run the Kanada Kustoms guantlet.

Tom


----------



## GO!!! (22 Nov 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I am not an economists, but I do know this much the US cannot remain the engine for the world economy period.   The Japanes have to open their economy plain and simple as well as other asian nations.   The trade imbalance is not healthy.
> 
> As for other posters talking about processing beef and other products in canada, go ahead.   I say move up the chain, but remember it cuts   both ways....the CDN dollar remains artificailly low especially compared to the "crappy" US currency, let see how many jobs are in canada at a 140 CDN per US dollar, not many I would think.
> 
> Say, I was wondering, was not NAFTA suppose to get rid of the tarrifs between the countries?   So why is it that CDN INTERNET buyers have to pay taxes/duty on items they purchased outside the country?



The US discourages other nations from opening their domestic economies in 3 key ways;

1) Repatriation of profits - Large US based corporations make money in a host nation, employ a few people, and either export raw materials or import finished ones. All of the means of production stays elsewhere, and the profits are invested elsewhere too. This creates economic growth without economic development, and is a very bad thing for the nation in question, because when the market for the commodity they are selling fluctuates, their economy does too. As for the importation of finished goods? They are purchased with foreign exchange, and as such their prices can fluctuate wildly.

In the case of Japan, the Japanese want very little of what the US makes. Japanese cars, electronics, high tech and pharmaceuticals are all FAR superior to anything the US sells. Why would they open their quality domestic markets to an influx of substandard US goods, which will be protected with duties and tariffs, leading to the demise of their domestic industries.

2) Non Compliance with trade law - The US has a long history of making trade agreements that seem beneficial to all involved, then not holding up their end of the deal. Softwood lumber is only one example of this. Basically, the US promises to open up domestic rice markets in exchange for, say, oil from Venezuala. The Venezualans sell their oil to the US, and also try to export their rice there, the US slaps an entry tax on the rice, and subsidises California rice farmers, killing the Venezualan rice industry despite their deal. So now all Venezuala sells is oil, and when the US seeks other suppliers, the price of that drops too. 

Softwood lumber is the same deal. The US signed NAFTA with full knowledge of low Canadian stumpage fees, and the low price of Canadian energy. So the US signed NAFTA, taxed Canadian softwood lumber, and tried to negotiate it's way out of a trade deal that they proposed and ratified in the first place. As a result, the Canadian Softwood lumber industry is in serious decline, even as softwood south of the border remains at astronomical prices due to a housing boom in the gulf states after a terrible hurricane season.

3) US interference in internal affairs - The activities of the US military and intelligence agencies are well documented, especially in Latin America, and the US opposition to Huga Chavez is only a recent example of this. States which allow too much market penetration by US corporations bring activity by the US government as well, who often seeks to protect the interests of industry (big oil in particular) at all costs. The US military escorting KBR contractors in Iraq is only one example of this. US energy/foreign/military policy are inextricably intertwined, with the necessity of "freeing" oppressed people who happen to be sitting upon large petroleum reserves. 

The US is it's own worst enemy when it comes to trade law. If they would only follow their own rules, and honor their obligations, there would be alot better chance of the much heralded prospect of "free trade"


----------



## TCBF (22 Nov 2005)

In Canada, we are victims of our own propaganda on this one.  GATT did not side with us, and the NAFTA rules - which we negotiated - allow further negotiation and appeals.  So, by all means, lets follow the process.

Historical point:  After we had signed NAFTA, a big hullaballloo was made about it's benefits.  At that point our senior negotiator - Weisman? - was trotted out in front of the cameras to say what a good deal we made.  He said - in ref to the USA "They negotiated like a third world country" or words to that effect.  TV signals do not stop at the border.  Imagine: after every visit PMPM makes to Washington, George, RCALF, some Georgia forestry tycoons, etc. sit around with glasses of JD, run that tape and laugh.

What goes around, comes around.

Tom


----------



## GO!!! (22 Nov 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Historical point:   After we had signed NAFTA, a big hullaballloo was made about it's benefits.   At that point our senior negotiator - Weisman? - was trotted out in front of the cameras to say what a good deal we made.   He said - in ref to the USA "They negotiated like a third world country" or words to that effect.



The point I'm trying to make is that it really does'nt matter what agreements the US signs. They will only follow them as long as they feel like it. Just like us and the Kyoto accord (which was a stupid idea anyway) we signed it with great fanfare, then quietly exempted Ontario from any participation and promptly forgot to implement any of it. Even better? No one can make us!! 

This is a valid comparison to the US - make any deal, you can always break it later.


----------



## x-zipperhead (22 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The point I'm trying to make is that it really does'nt matter what agreements the US signs. They will only follow them as long as they feel like it. Just like us and the Kyoto accord (which was a stupid idea anyway) we signed it with great fanfare, then quietly exempted Ontario from any participation and promptly forgot to implement any of it. Even better? No one can make us!!
> 
> This is a valid comparison to the US - make any deal, you can always break it later.



Very well said.  This is quite simple.  When both countries sighned this treaty they agreed to have their differences settled by the NAFTA panel, not the WTO or any other organization.  How Canada manages it's forestry is Canada's business.  The US is not living up to it's end of the agreement.  Plain and simple.


----------



## TCBF (22 Nov 2005)

"Very well said.  This is quite simple.  When both countries sighned this treaty they agreed to have their differences settled by the NAFTA panel, not the WTO or any other organization.  How Canada manages it's forestry is Canada's business.  The US is not living up to it's end of the agreement.  Plain and simple."

- We agreed differences would be settled by the NAFTA "process" which includes the appeals and other processes used by the Americans.  The process must be allowed to run it's course.

The answer is plain and simple, it just isn't the answer we want to hear.

Tom


----------



## geo (22 Nov 2005)

Hmmm... guess we can say "thank you" to Brian Muldoon for his successful negociations


----------



## Britney Spears (22 Nov 2005)

That doesn't even make sense. How will we displace Japanese manufacturers if everything we make is substandard crap compared to their's?


----------



## TCBF (23 Nov 2005)

"That doesn't even make sense. How will we displace Japanese manufacturers if everything we make is substandard crap compared to their's?"

- Ironic, considering it was an American quality control and productivity expert whose philosophy fired the Japanese commercial expansion in the first place:

http://www.deming.org/theman/articles/articles_50influenced02.html


"Much of the credit for Japan's flight to quality and the making of its world-class reputation goes to quality guru W. Edwards Deming. Deming urged companies to concentrate on constant improvements, improved efficiency and doing it right the first time. Deming was a professor of statistics at New York University when he was invited to Japan in 1950 to run a seminar for business leaders. Since the 1930s, Deming was interested in using statistics as a tool to achieve better quality control. Essentially, his idea was to record the number of product defects, analyze why they happened, institute changes, then record how much quality improved, and to keep refining the process until it is done right. 

Deming owes at least part of his legendary status in Japan to a professor named Genichi Taguchi, Japan's home-grown quality management expert, who credited many of the American's ideas for his so-called Taguchi method. Taguchi and others would go on to influence a generation of Japanese engineers who would become the backbone of the nation's growing manufacturing prowess. 

"I'm very impressed by the way the Japanese admire [Deming]," said Gregory Clark, president of Japan's Tama University. "They keep on talking about him as if he's a god." 

Scholars note that Japan was also receptive to Deming at a time when America was not, in part because Deming's ideas dovetailed with many of Japan's own traditions. Japan had long held hard work and quality craftsmanship as important virtues, and its technology even during the war surprised many Americans. Deming preached that companies must treat workers as associates, not hired hands, and he blamed management if workers were not motivated to work well. 

"We imported the system, but modified it to the Japanese style," said Naohiro Yashiro, professor of economics at Sophia University. When Japan hit its peak in the 1980s, forcing many U.S. industries to their knees and prompting Americans to experiment with quality circles and low-inventory manufacturing systems, many of Deming's ideas were rediscovered by the United States.


Tom


----------



## GO!!! (23 Nov 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> GO......yawn, stereotypical....what do you know what the Japanese want?   You lived there?   I guess you haven't noticed the fact that US aircraft are sold in asia, or that Texas Instruments make the chips that power HDTVs, that apple IPODs are kicking sony's butt,   hollywood (i guess what they can't duplicate they buy-SONYTRI STAR etc, drugs like male enhancements - yeah they aren't popular, or the fact that Microsoft is still number one, NIMH batteries (invented in the US and manufactured under license, etc....but then again Asia especially Japan has such a long history of   free trade.
> 
> However, I can see that you aren't going to be swayed by my opinion and you seem to have a little latent anger towards the US so I'll stay in my corner of cyberspace.
> 
> Just announced the US lowered the Tarriff to less than 1 percent....so I guess that means were now all love each other now?



Riiiiiight. If I disagree with US trade policy, I must hate the US and harbour anger towards it. That's about as convincing as the Israelis calling anyone who disagrees with them anti semitic.  :

Considering that the world's biggest corporation (GM) is floundering, Toyota has risen to the number 3 automaker in america, and US auto workers are being laid off by the thousands, you paint a pretty rosy picture of the US retail industry. In fact I have lived in Japan, since you brought that up, and while there, I never once laid eyes upon a Suburban, the main consumer items from the US being alcohol and fashion items. 

Congrats! Tri-star was purchased by foreigners - you must be so proud! Male enhancements?? Now there's an industry to build a career on, there are only 30 of them in court right now for making fraudulent claims...

You are right about the chips though. Texas instruments sells a 15$ chip to go in a 5,000$ TV, made by samsung, or they recieve a 10$ royalty. That's the type of business you need!

As for iPod? Great idea, doing well, now if only I could'nt buy an equivalent machine from Sony for a third less....

The aircraft sold in Asia? Those would be from Boeing - right? The struggling, ridiculously heavily subsidised US union shop? And their competition is...from the former Warsaw pact and Airbus, who outsold them by 400 units last year.

Canada needs the US, alot more than the US needs us, but the powers that be have to wake up a bit. Major issues like the US Federal Debt and Deficit must be addressed, the violation of trade treaties and agreements that removes the credibility of US negotiators, and the "with us or against us" mentality that you, mr. Baker have so thoroughly bought into are setting the States up for a fall. This must not be allowed to happen, but the factors are largely internal, not external.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Nov 2005)

The US economy is the best in the world. Lowest unemployment. Best growth of any western democracy. Deficits are nothing new. The US has run them since 1900. Our highest deficit was during WW2 - 30% of the total economy. Our current deficit is about 4.5% of the total economy - probably too large but not fatal. The biggest competitive advantage the US has is that we dont have to fund a national health care program which seem's to be a lodestone around the neck's of the european democracies. In fact as these countries struggle to pay the ever rising costs they have steradily reduced the size of their armed forces. If this trend continues the US will be the only NATO nation capable of sustained military action. To offset this trend I think the US needs a nation such as India to partner with in the future. The US can supply naval and air power while India would supply much of the manpower. There are many in the world who would like to see the US economy fail, but if that happens the entire world will be in depression.


----------



## ErorZ (23 Nov 2005)

Haven't seen anything about this...

U.S. reduces softwood duties to less than 1%
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051122/softwood_duties_051122/20051123/


----------



## GO!!! (23 Nov 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The US economy is the best in the world.


That's an unsupportable allegation, and rather misleading considering that nearly 11% of it is based in government supported industry (defence) and all of that money is borrowed. 


> Lowest unemployment. Best growth of any western democracy.


40 million Americans work full time but still live under the poverty line. Highest murder rate and illiteracy rate of any western democracy too. Economic growth is supported by credit, average rate of US consumer savings in the negatives. Highest consumer indebtedness on earth.


> Deficits are nothing new. The US has run them since 1900. Our highest deficit was during WW2 - 30% of the total economy. Our current deficit is about 4.5% of the total economy - probably too large but not fatal.


Not fatal? The majority of the money that the US is borrowing right now is from Asia. Simply by refusing a loan to the US the Chinese could drive interest rates up 1-3%, putting a major cooler on the US economy.


> The biggest competitive advantage the US has is that we dont have to fund a national health care program which seem's to be a lodestone around the neck's of the european democracies. In fact as these countries struggle to pay the ever rising costs they have steadily reduced the size of their armed forces.


Seeing as this is the desire of their electorate, so be it. Where do you get the idea that these nations should somehow be disregarding the will of their populations? I thought the US supported freedom based democracies? Also, seeing as the US is willing to invest so heavily in its armed forces, and intervene in other nations' messes so quickly, often in order to protect valuable sources of raw materials, as well as local markets, why should they? 


> If this trend continues the US will be the only NATO nation capable of sustained military action. To offset this trend I think the US needs a nation such as India to partner with in the future. The US can supply naval and air power while India would supply much of the manpower. There are many in the world who would like to see the US economy fail, but if that happens the entire world will be in depression.


You are referring to the capability to project massive power to another continent, which the US has always has a monopoly on. Most nations are capable of significant force projection in and around their own borders and coasts, because the _raison d'etre _ of their militaries is security and defence. Only the US considers the requirement to be able to sustain large wars on two continents/oceans to be an indispensible facet of foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Welcome to 2002, India is already a nuclear power, and has a regionally significant Air Force and Navy as well. 

You are right about the US economy however,   China will be an excellent source for investment by the time it does collapse though.


----------



## TCBF (24 Nov 2005)

Now that this is degrading into an economic investment thread, I have to jump in.  Don't go overweight on China, they have some serious social and political issues, and we could be looking at the worlds first nuclear civil war in five or ten years.

On the plus side, that could drop the price of a ChiCom NorInCo M-14 through the cellar floor, what with them being chock full of Neutron Induced Activity, and all.

Tom


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Nov 2005)

Quote from GO!!!,
_In the case of Japan, the Japanese want very little of what the US makes. Japanese cars, electronics, high tech and pharmaceuticals are all FAR superior to anything the US sells. Why would they open their quality domestic markets to an influx of substandard US goods, which will be protected with duties and tariffs, leading to the demise of their domestic industries._

.....for the same reasons we buy sub standard stuff from China and Taiwan, if its cheaper they will buy it. [drive by a dollar store today??]
If only their govt. would fairly open the market up....


----------



## GO!!! (24 Nov 2005)

The point is, the US continues to subsidise unprofitable industries for export. The chinese export lots of garbage too, but it is "freely traded" garbage.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The point is, the US continues to subsidise unprofitable industries for export. The chinese export lots of garbage too, but it is "freely traded" garbage.



Good grief, GO!!!.

Yes, the US does subsidize things.

So does Canada: softwood lumber â â€œ from BC, especially, is heavily subsidized.  Such subsidies are 'legal' under NAFTA â â€œ that's why we win; they are improper under the WTO â â€œ that's why it rules in favour of the US.  We were the 'smart' guys who opened the WTO case â â€œ the civil service is not getting smarter with affirmative action.

China subsidizes, too, and heavily.  Controlled labour is one of the most effective subsidies, artificially low currency valuation is another.  Both Japan and the EU subsidize in manners which are clearly and blatantly contrary to their treaty obligations.

In general the US is one of the world's freer and fairer traders, probably the most free and fair amongst the major trading powers â â€œ Canada is not in any position to throw stones, we may not be worse than the US but we are not any better.


----------



## GO!!! (24 Nov 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Good grief, GO!!!.
> 
> Yes, the US does subsidize things.
> 
> ...



The whole point of the NAFTA ruling in Canada's favour was that the softwoods dispute was based in the definition of "subsidy". You are expanding the definition of the word by claiming that controlled labor and currency valuation fall into the definition. This may be the case in the WTO, but seeing as that organisation and it's rulings are not binding, and there is no nation on earth that obeys all of it's rulings, it seems a little hollow.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Nov 2005)

Softwoods now resolved,a good thing I think that will remove an impediment to friendly relations between neighbors.


----------



## geo (24 Nov 2005)

tomahawk...
softwood decision taken... but won't be implemented for a while yet
AND there is always a possibility that another appeal will be launched by interested lobbyists. What do they have to lose?


----------



## Demophobia (24 Nov 2005)

From what I've read on the softwood dispute the NAFTA rulings aren't a total vindication of the Canadian position. Essentially what they said was that Canadian softwood is subsidized but the tariffs the Americans implemented were too high. 

I am in favour of NAFTA, I believe it provides a benefit for Canada, but we do run into problems because all countries don't play by the same rules. If all countries decided to let market forces be the sole determining factor in the price of goods free trade would operate more effectively. However that is an unrealistic proposition given different national policies and situations. As a result countries that trade a lot with each other run into problems. 

The Canadian rules that apply to our softwood lumber are designed to give our producers an advantage in selling their lumber in the American market. If the roles were reversed and the Americans adopted rules that gave them an advantantage Canadians would be voicing a lot of the same complaints that Americans are now.

NAFTA and the WTO were set up to try and resolve disputes but their rulings aren't binding and regardless no country is really very willing to go along with an imposed ruling that would hurt their economies. Canada doesn't like the WTO rulings and America doesn't like the NAFTA rulings.

I'm glad that this episode seems to be winding down but no is really blameless and we will run into more disputes. I hope we can handle the next ones better.


----------



## GO!!! (25 Nov 2005)

That's right demophobia,

We should all hold hands and never take a stand on anything, after all, it's all relative and we must all ride in this wonderful place called spaceship earth, and get along in harmony and love. Sitting on the fence is a virtue, endless negotiations are preferable to decisive action.

Spare us.  :


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Nov 2005)

Now send those deserters back ASAP !!!


----------



## GO!!! (25 Nov 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Now send those deserters back ASAP !!!



For good measure, we'll throw in the ones from Vietnam too! And kick over their stupid memorial.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/09/08/draft_dogers040908.html

This $hit makes me sick...


----------



## squealiox (25 Nov 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The biggest competitive advantage the US has is that we dont have to fund a national health care program which seem's to be a lodestone around the neck's of the european democracies. In fact as these countries struggle to pay the ever rising costs they have steradily reduced the size of their armed forces.



you've got it exactly backwards, actually. the us has the MOST expensive health care system as a % of GDP, in the industrialised world. mostly because of the inherent inefficiencies of the private health insurance market. 
not to deny the us's competitive advantages, but that is definitely not one of them.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Nov 2005)

It is an advantage. Its one less thing the government has to fund.


----------



## squealiox (25 Nov 2005)

a higher cost is a higher cost. someone pays for it.


----------



## geo (25 Nov 2005)

In the US they have to deal with private insurance and HMOs who decide whether or not you get a procedure or not... so you've got insurance if it suits them.... or you don't if it doesn't.....


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Nov 2005)

The individual/private sector pay for health insurance. Thus the government has more money for items like defense. Take Canada for example, the government funds healthcare, as well as generous welfare benefits. These items compete with defense for funding.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Nov 2005)

squeeliox said:
			
		

> because of the inherent inefficiencies of the private health insurance market.



From what I've read, these inefficiencies are not due to the private nature of the health insurance, but due to the way it is managed.  Canada experiences the exact same problems - our health insurance is managed by the provincial governments dedicated to keeping costs down (there-by reducing services).  The American market is, for the most part, managed by the HMO industry (which, in the search for profits, is also dedicated to reducing costs).

Moving away from health care managed by big bureaucracies (whether they be public or private ones) is the key.  The auto insurance market provides some interesting perspectives on insurance systems based off of consumer management and incentives.


----------



## squealiox (25 Nov 2005)

The problem is, you can't make money selling that kind of insurance unless you have a "captive" market. the people most willing to buy health insurance are not the ones you want to be selling it to. so it's only a viable business proposition if you sell it to people under mandatory coverage, like employee plans. and even then, you still have to spend a lot on screening and investigation, to keep bad customers off the plan. 
there aren't a lot of situations where a monopoly or oligopoly would be the most efficient business model, but this happens to be one of them.


----------



## TCBF (25 Nov 2005)

The efficiencies to be made in health care are in the areas of competitive provision of services: clinics, doctors, hospitals all properly run and competing against each other to bid on the services needed.  Competition keeps productivity up and costs low.  The trick is to have the government provide the structure, and the private sector provide the contractual services.  

That is for life and limb stuff.  If you want a face lift, a boob job, a sex change or whatever, you go buy it.

If other services are available that the govt did not contract (maybe they lost the bid) then by all means buy it - but don't expect the govt to fund THAT - you do.

We keep looking at cCabnada vs the USA on this.  Lets widen our arcs - look at Japan, etc.

Tom


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Nov 2005)

A monopoly is what you have already with a government run healthcare system. I do not think the government should provide healthcare, unless you are employed by the government. Healthcare is best provided through the work place.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Nov 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I do not think the government should provide healthcare



I do, but maybe that is just the Canadian in me.  The workplace is not the best place to provide healthcare, as it must filter through employers who see it as another administrative burden when dealing with their employees (trust me, I've been in this position) - as well, the labour market is (or should be) quite fluid - it is a pain in the butt when D9'er can't get important dental work she needs done (your teeth are a health issue, no?) because of the condition of employment she is in.  Tom was right when he said we have to look farther than a US/Canada comparison.  To date, MSP's and the ideas of Dr David Grazer have been the best I've seen.  A system in which the government guarantee's all major health problems and consumers (patients) run their own account for the normal health concerns (perscriptions, check-ups, glasses, etc, etc) seems ideal.  I don't care who provides the service.


----------



## TCBF (25 Nov 2005)

Believe it or not, that was the system envisioned by Paul Hellyer when he was MND.   He thought Walter Gordon and his ilk had it backwards and that they were out of their depth because they had never had to meet a payroll - which Hellyer did.   When Hellyer - still MND - submitted his counter proposal, Gordon - a leadership rival - said "It's not politic" and Pearson said "Well, that's it then."

And here we are today.

On the other hand, tagging your boss with health care just pulls down the company.   Right now, GM is a health care provider that also happens to build cars.

The truth is out there, but may not necessarily be found either side of the 49th parallel.

Tom

Edited for my usual sloppy spelling.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Nov 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Right now, GM is a health care provider that also happens to build cars.



Yeah, and look how they're doing right now.... :-\


----------



## Britney Spears (26 Nov 2005)

Well, I think it has less to do with their health care program and more to do with their make-POS-cars program.


----------



## TCBF (26 Nov 2005)

Maybe a bit of both.  But, when part of your negotiated benefits program is the provision of healthcare after retirement, massive layoffs and early retirement means you have fewer workers producing but lots of retirees consuming.

So who carries the can when GM goes under?  John Q US Taxpayer.  

Meantime, how much R&D can GM put into better cars and trucks when everyone  is screaming about their underfunded pension and healthcare benefit programs.

Dogma, right and left, only cloud this issue.  I am normally slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun on most issues, but on this I would be willing to hear a scientific solution.

Tom


----------



## RangerRay (26 Nov 2005)

The Yanks aren't in a hurry to settle trade disputes with us because the Liberal government finds it politically expedient to poke their fingers into the Yanks' eyes at every opportunity.  Is it any wonder why the White House isn't doing us any favours?

Look at the Aussies.  They have been faithful allies to the Yanks and have had their trade disputes resolved.


----------



## geo (26 Nov 2005)

since we've taken a tangent on health care & insurance, thought I'd slip this little gem in 

US Army Recruits........

Boudreaux, the smoothest-talking Cajun in the Louisiana National Guard, got called up to active duty one day. Boudreaux's first assignment was to a military induction center, and because he was a good talker they assigned him the duty of advising new recruits about government benefits, especially the GI insurance to which they were entitled.

Before long, the Captain in charge of the induction center began noticing that Boudreaux was getting a 99% sign-up rate for the more expensive supplemental form of GI insurance. This was odd, because it would cost these low-income recruits $30.00 per month more for the higher coverage, compared to what the government was already providing at no charge.

 The Captain decided that he would   not ask Boudreaux directly about his selling techniques, but instead he would sit in the back of the room at the next briefing and observe Boudreaux's sales pitch. 

 Boudreaux stood up before the latest group of inductees and said, "If you has da normal GI insurans an' you goes to Iraq an' gets youself killed, da governmen' pays you beneficiary $20,000.   If you takes out da supplemental insurans, which cost you only t'irty dollars a mons, den da the governmen' gots ta pay you beneficiary $200,000!"

"NOW," Boudreaux concluded, "which bunch you tink dey gonna send ta Iraq first?"


----------



## Demophobia (26 Nov 2005)

GO!!! My post wasn't intended to say that we needed to try and all get along no matter what, it was to try and view the argument from more than one side. 
Yes we need to take a firm stand on the issues that affect us, and I don't believe that we have truly been doing that as much as we should. But we must be able to empathize with the other side, not necessarily sympathize with them rather just understand where they are coming from. If we close ourselves off and take the position that our way is the only true and right way then I believe we are doing a disservice to our negotiations. We can take decisive action without having to slag our opposition and I believe that we have a stronger case if we stay away from such politics. Understanding is the first step to overcoming.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Nov 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> since we've taken a tangent on health care & insurance, thought I'd slip this little gem in
> 
> US Army Recruits........
> 
> ...


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Nov 2005)

I'm curious as to what each party defines "subsidy" as.


----------



## geo (28 Nov 2005)

that's easy.... both do
which goes to explain why this is going on.... ad nauseum


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Apr 2006)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060424.wsoftwood0425/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20060424.wsoftwood0425

Looks like a deal is in the works. The US would give back most of the $5b collected in duties and lift the tariff. In exchange Canada will agree to cap its share of the market at 1/3, which is current market share.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Apr 2006)

More "good news" for parts of the country making their living from lumber  

The USA agrees to give back most of the funding they weren't supposed to take in the first place, and we agree to limit the ability of softwood lumber producers to sell to the States - free trade, indeed...

I guess there's not enough Conservative votes in saving the lumber industry.

(Can you tell I live in a part of the world where lumber, once, was king?


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Apr 2006)

And your solution would be ?


----------



## George Wallace (25 Apr 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I have a possible solution.  Canadian governments give up the socialist planned sectors of their economy, i.e. Canada Wheat Board, milk, eggs, alcohol, subsidized stumpage fees, etc . .  . no cap on CDN exports, and I don't agree with the CDN government setting the stumpage fee either.   Sell the right to cut logs on government land at auction instead of an absurdly low fee.  Free markets, low cost to government (no more planned economy, govt. monopoly)  especially since all governments arounds the world have shown they are poor managers of the "peoples money!



WHOA There!

Subsidies.  You want to talk about subsidies.  Our farmers are spending more in planting crops than they are getting in selling those crops.  Subsidies to US and other Foreign farmers are killing the family farm here in Canada.  NAFTA and the free movement of goods, without any duties or tariffs placed on them is a serious factor in this problem.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Apr 2006)

I suppose you do have a point about the 'mafias' that are in control of our various Marketing Boards.  I am hearing plenty of horror stories about the Dairy and Beef Marketing Boards and the control that the Party Quebecois has over some of them through their 'Associations'.  Perhaps they have served their purpose and should now be disbanded.


----------



## geo (25 Apr 2006)

Funny thing that...... 
Canada, the USA and all of Europe have subsidies. They're just not called by the same name from place to place.
No point in name calling - it's a lose / lose situation...

With respect to the softwood tarifs, if GATT and NAFTA boards and appeal review boards have, at one time or another, all agreed that the tarifs were not justified - then it is high time that they be removed.  Maybe Condoleza Rice is warming up to Stockwell Day  (lord knows he was tripping over himself heaping praise on her - she almost looked embarassed).


----------



## geo (25 Apr 2006)

correct me if I'm wrong but, wasn't the intent of the tarifs to raise the price of lumber going into the US so that US consumers would have to pay more for the lumber that was already going into the US.  The coin collected was supposed to go to lumber company owners weren't prepared to sell to US consumers at the same price the Cdn producers were......
So it's the US Consumer who gets it in the neck here - right?


----------



## Armymatters (25 Apr 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> correct me if I'm wrong but, wasn't the intent of the tarifs to raise the price of lumber going into the US so that US consumers would have to pay more for the lumber that was already going into the US.  The coin collected was supposed to go to lumber company owners weren't prepared to sell to US consumers at the same price the Cdn producers were......
> So it's the US Consumer who gets it in the neck here - right?



Pretty much. The American consumer has to pay more for lumber, and they also have to pay more money for new houses. In the end, the end consumer gets shafted. And besides, American softwood ain't as great as Canadian softwood; the grains in Canadian softwood tend to be longer and stronger, resulting in superior wood. And in a free market, the superior good is prefered over an inferior product at the same price level, which is what the lumber market is: a free market with the market setting the prices. And since Canadian softwood lumber is usually sold at the same price as American lumber, consumers will prefer the superior good over an inferior product, in this case, Canadian softwood lumber. Basic Economics 101 for ya.


----------



## geo (26 Apr 2006)

was reading up some more on this softwood thing.
would appear that the US will keep some of the 20% of the tarif $ that has been collected over the years. Then Canada would agree to cap its share of the U.S. lumber market at one third, which is roughly the current level in a complex arrangement that would include both a quota and an export tax.

correct me if I've missed something here but isn't this what the government rejected as capitulation last year?


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Apr 2006)

>So it's the US Consumer who gets it in the neck here - right?

Exactly.  All that collected money originally came from US customers.  Any part of it that Canadian producers obtain, whether they would've done so in a free market or do so now by agreement, is (or should be) profit.  As I wrote in the other thread, we should've imposed our own penalties long ago so that we could "import" a share of those penalties into Canada.


----------



## DJ (28 Apr 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> No American is killing any CDN farm, the CDN government and it's taxes are what is killing the CDN farm.  The U.S. does not stop Canada from selling its commodities on markets in the world, move into the 21st century,


  

Not necessarily true.  Farmers aren't able to sell on the international markets because excess subsidies from the U.S. and Europe create incentives for their farmers to overproduce.  For all of the lovers of supply and demand economics on this board it should be easy to see that with an excess world supply comes a decrease in world price, eliminating the possibility for other countries to compete without subsidies.  All agriculture subsidies should be eradicated in all countries.  Do a Wiki search on Cairns Group.


----------



## Gunner (28 Apr 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Canada doesn't subsidize Farmers.....Right.....



Not to the same extent as US and European governments.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Apr 2006)

One man's social programme is another man's subsidy.

I can't speak to the farming industry in the US but I do know that the US fishing industry complained bitterly about EI payments to Canadian Fishers (10-12 weeks work got you 40 weeks of EI).  In the US fishermen fished when there was fish and did something else when there was none.   This being not the most attractive proposition it meant that as the industry played out in the North East it meant more and more unskilled "first timers"  and poorer returns.  To keep a seasoned force such as could supply FPI and NatSea by paying their employees year round just wasn't possible.

In both the fishing and farming industries in the US health care is the individual's responsibility.

Both of these social programmes can be seen as subsidies.

The Europeans now......they are another kettle of fish.  They have both social programmes and subsidies.  Of course they are also going broke.


----------



## DJ (29 Apr 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Canada doesn't subsidize Farmers.....Right.....


  

I never said that they didn't.  However, I did say that this country is at least advocating for less subsidies.  



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> Not to the same extent as US and European governments.



Exactly.


----------



## Gunner (29 Apr 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> And your proof is?  Please don't tell me you believe the Former PM Martin and Chretien.  They only tell CDNs what they want to hear, for instance.  Canada won all of the NAFTA tribunals about Softwood lumber, wrong.  What Canada did get from the tribunal was a ruling that said the tariffs were too high, the tribunal also said Canada subsidized the industry (because they did, and do).  Furthermore, the WTO, which Canada asked to mediate (not the US) said that there was a subsidy and that the US did indeed correctly estimate the tariffs on softwood lumber.  So again, what is it that we can't agree on?  The fact is, Canada does have a lot of archaic wheat control boards, milk, egg producers, etc that in effect subsidize farmers.  I was wondering how many of you say that Canada does not subsidize its farmers have actually been a farmer (besides me)?
> 
> The bottom line, if the Canadian government axed the stumpage fee and sold the rights to harvest the timber at market rates there would be no tariff.  You see when market forces are equal the most efficient businesses  win and so do the consumers.




Sherwood, your "beef" against Canada continues to cloud your rationality.   ;D

The OECD doesn't agree with your wide spread generalizations on the Canadian economy.  

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/54/32034202.pdf

Any facts to back up your ascertations?


----------



## TCBF (2 May 2006)

Also, this dispute only covers the stuff that gets milled by Canadians, we ship VAST amounts of our logs to the USA (a lot by tug and boom from BC) to be sawn up by the same lumber barons who don't wan't our finished product.  It is the 'value added' - milling - that makes the big bucks.  They certainly don't complain about stumpage fees keeping the price of our raw logs low, do they?

Tom


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 May 2006)

>the tribunal also said Canada subsidized the industry

Just out of curiosity, how did that ruling come about?  We don't, AFAIK, charge industries for consuming air or water, or charge farmers for the use of nutrients in soil, or fishermen for the fish they pull, so why would it make any difference how we choose to allocate timber or any other natural resource, renewable or otherwise?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 May 2006)

Good point, Brad. 
So therefore by having lower taxes on their properties all American saw mills are subsidized and we should be collecting a tariff?


----------



## geo (8 May 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Gotta love CDN logic....Unfortunately a large number of CDN businesses feel that they need a lower CDN dollar and subsidies to compete, I doubt that will change much.



Uhhh..... Cdn$ valuation is 100% a question of supply and demand.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 May 2006)

Has anyone analyzed the history of actual Canadian softwood exports to the US over the past couple of decades to estimate what the profit might have been in the absence of the US-imposed duties?  What is the evidence that the $4B is not _more_ than would have been charged in a freer, competitive market?


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 May 2006)

I think you missed my point.  Amidst all the allegations that Canadian lumber companies "lost" 1$B of profit, no-one has bothered to analyze the historical trading patterns to estimate whether the duties were greater than what would have been shown as profit if no duties were levied.  It would be the finest sort of irony if the $4B "returned" turned out to be larger than estimates of the additional profits in the absence of duties, which would in turn bolster a hypothesis that the US government gouged its own consumers and turned the extra profits over to Canadian and US producers.  Canadian lumber producers would, after all, have continued to price competitively, whereas the duties presumably were charged at a level calculated to satisfy the less competitive US producers.


----------



## GO!!! (12 May 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Brad you commission a study on the softwood lumber, I'll do one on the costs the United States would have saved if it had minded its own business in WWI and WWII, then lets compare notes.



Especially if you calculated in the interest earned on the billions of dollars in "reconstruction aid" supplied to all sides, the supplying of raw materials and finished goods to all sides prior to Pearl Harbour being attacked, the wartime loans (and more interest) granted, and the immeasureable worth of a worldwide network of military ports, airfields and bases supplied by defeated nations and defenceless allies, yes, those would be interesting notes indeed.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 May 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Brad you commission a study on the softwood lumber, I'll do one on the costs the United States would have saved if it had minded its own business in WWI and WWII, then lets compare notes.



You forgot to add that we'd all be speaking German if it weren't for you.... :


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 May 2006)

I'm not suggesting the US government intended it to work out that way.  Where I see the potential for irony is in comparing the complaints from Canadian producers that part of the withheld duties will be retained in the US, to the possibility that the duties which will not be withheld in the US actually will result in a greater net profit than might have been otherwise achieved.

I believe that each nation should be free to deal with its externalities as it pleases.  If we wanted to give away timber or allow companies to expel any pollutants they please, that should be our concern and only our concern.


----------

