Why Can't Softwoods Be Resolved ?
- Thread starter tomahawk6
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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.tomahawk6 said:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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
- Reaction score
- 5,864
- Points
- 1,360
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....
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....
- Reaction score
- 4,670
- Points
- 1,160
GO!!! said:
Good grief, GO!!!.
Yes, the US does subsidize things.
So does Canada: softwood lumber â “ from BC, especially, is heavily subsidized. Such subsidies are 'legal' under NAFTA â “ that's why we win; they are improper under the WTO â “ that's why it rules in favour of the US. We were the 'smart' guys who opened the WTO case â “ 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 “ Canada is not in any position to throw stones, we may not be worse than the US but we are not any better.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Edward Campbell said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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. :
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. :
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
tomahawk6 said:
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...
tomahawk6 said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
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.
- Reaction score
- 9,741
- Points
- 1,260
squeeliox said:
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.
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.
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.
Similar threads
