InstantForum.NET v4.1.41BC Civ Forumshttp://www.1bcciv.com/forums@1bcciv.comThu, 08 Jan 2009 07:20:34 GMT20http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033992-56-1.aspxI'm curious if this has hit american media yet, or if it won't until the tarrifs are imposed:[QUOTE] Emerson said Trade Minister Jim Peterson and Finance Minister Ralph Goodale have begun the process of identifying suitable U.S. targets for tariffs. Goodale was cautious in his comments and Peterson said he could only proceed after a crucial WTO ruling expected next year. Canada has already sought approval for $4.8 billion in retaliatory measures. Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew appeared to welcome the idea of tariffs and said California wines were being considered as one possible target. "I do believe that we should do it in a way that will not go to the detriment of other Canadian interests," said Pettigrew, a former trade minister who dealt with the softwood dispute. "We have to do it in a way that some U.S. interests will ring their senators and congressmen in Washington." The warnings come one week after the United States announced it would ignore a decision by a NAFTA panel that found Canadian lumber exports posed no threat of injury to U.S. producers. With more that 80 per cent of Canadian exports going to the U.S. and the countries exchanging $1 billion each day, Canada would need to tread carefully to avoid a crippling trade war. [/QUOTE]Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:26:35 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033992-56-1.aspxNice article.[QUOTE] At this point, there are no good options. Canada has appealed to the World Trade Organization, which will almost certainly rule in Canada's favour, allowing this country to impose counter-measures to collect the $5-billion in tariffs that the Americans have illegally confiscated.That ruling won't come until next year, however. And imposing tariffs on wine, orange juice and other American imports, to recoup the $5-billion, would only hurt Canadian consumers. [/QUOTE]eeep, not my orange juice... couldn't we go after oil instead?[QUOTE] Conversely, slapping export tariffs on Canadian oil and gas exports to the United States, as some have proposed, would harm that sector of the Canadian economy and enrage the Alberta government. Ms. Carney believes that Ottawa should order a freeze on all American investments in Canadian energy companies, claiming it is in the interest of national security.[/QUOTE]ah, ya. fergot.Man, this is scary... I don't want to be paying more for the stuff I use. Side note, at my local grocery store... There are signs to note imports and what country their from on alot of goods. American and Canadian goods aren't differentiated between though and are consider one of the same.Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:22:04 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033992-56-1.aspxAnd people on this site wonder why Americans are disliked around the world![URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050820.wxnafta20/BNStory/National/]Trading with the ‘schoolyard bully'[/URL]Who wouldnt be mad if this happened to them :mad: .Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:55:09 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033992-56-1.aspxJerm, the businesses still have to deal with those same taxes you do... They also have to deal with these tariffs on top of it. How much would you enjoy the gov't making you pay 5 billion in tariffs above and beyond what you currently make. Actually, thats not even fully correct. You make a product and sell it for $10 dollars. You send billions (10 billion per year) over the border (ya free trade) and thats a huge poriton of your income. The nation you're sending these good too decide that you're price of 10$ is unfair and add 5$ to the price of the product. Your sales instantly drop in half... To compensate you try to reduce prices a bit below 10$, but now with reduced sales you're struggling to keep your head above. This tariff is completely independant of the taxes you already pay.This issue has the potential of destroying free trade and american/canadian relations:From this [URL=http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/050816/b081698.html]CBC article[/URL] (cbc = canadian broadcast corp)[QUOTE] "There's been reference to retaliation; I see linkage (with other trade issues) is coming back onto the table," he said, referring to NDP Leader Jack Layton's suggestion Monday that Canada slap an export tax on oil and gas shipments. [/QUOTE]and from the same site, slightly different article[QUOTE] NDP Leader Jack Layton has said Canada must play "hardball" with the Americans by imposing export charges on oil and gas. Otherwise, he said, the United States won't take the issue seriously. [/QUOTE][QUOTE] Finance Minister Ralph Goodale said Washington has to understand that "Canada takes this very, very seriously."' [/QUOTE]As usual, the only spotlight this got in the US is when the annoying canadians on a forum post something about it.Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:03:47 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033992-56-1.aspxYes and No jerm, Taxes and Tariffs are two similar yet different issues. Tariffs cause nothing but dead weight loss for both the economy imposing the tariff, and the economy who has it imposed on them. Essentially the US government is stealing money from Canada and its own citizens, causing huge dead weight loss, neither economy will ever be able to recover. Canada loses about 5 billion dollars because of the Tariff, and 100 billion dollars in dead weight loss due to the stop in the flow of money. The USA loses about 100 billion dollars due to the slow down in the flow of money (wood is more expensive, so people who buy wood have less money to spend elsewhere), and the government gains a meagre 5 billion dollars to compensate, seems hardly worth it. Taxes raise the real price of good, or lower the real income of labourers and firms. Taxes transfer wealth from people to government. Their is still a dead weight loss, but their is also a social gain from the building of roads, hospitals, courthouses, libraries, schools, sewers, and other infrastructure. Taxes are essential, tariffs are not. A Tariff will never increase social welfare (the tariff revenue comes at the cost of lost tax revenue in the construction industry), and the dead weight losses are completely lost. Taxes cause dead weight lose, yet some of that lose is retrieved through public infrastructure. Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:29:01 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033992-56-1.aspxIt should, but most people don't really care. It's sad, I know, but it has nothing to do with media bias and everything to do with ratings. More people will stay tuned for a bear attack while their eyes just glaze over when they hear some Canadians are mad about tarrifs. I for one absolutly agree with you Ness and Seared and LC. I don't think that the Government should impose heavy tarrifs either on the wood or steel or oil that comes in from other countries. The point of my comment was that it seems that you don't like this tax because it doesn't suit you. However, when I have to pay 30% of my business' income in taxes add on another 8% of all my employees income for Social Secrurity, all so the government can spend it on different programs that don't work or for things I can't use or on people who didn't plan for retirement can get taken care of, you don't mind one bit. :(Wed, 17 Aug 2005 02:08:28 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033992-56-1.aspxI, on occasion, watch CNN news. Last time I watched it, about a week before the softwood ruling, they had one short story on grizzly bears in Banff (my home town), because a girl was killed while cycling in the mountains. All and all, I would assume a Grizzly Bear attack story to be less important to the international scene, then a major trade issue. I guess I'm wrong. :(Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:50:01 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033992-56-1.aspxI searched on CNN.com and this story about the ruling didn't come up at all. So much for the liberal American-hating media, eh? :rolleyes:Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:24:00 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033992-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]You shouldn't be Ness. Actually this has been largley unreported in the media. [/QUOTE]Of course, this is a economic issue at home.1. Softwood lumber producers are making a killing from American citizens who are paying out their ***es for the increased prices on this lumber. There is a cheaper option, but this would be at a loss to these large corporations who have big lobby push with the government. Best solution for the government? Keep it under wraps.2. Its a domestic issue (somewhat), therefore can and should be ignored for terror and security. Atleast that appears to be the medias take on it. I mean what draws bigger ratings, top 10 reasons to be afraid or wood costs to much?Once again, please don't take my comments as anti-american... I'd just like to see some Americans question why this happensMon, 15 Aug 2005 12:53:45 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033992-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]I'm surprised the American population isnt angered over their governments lack or resposibility to its citizens. [/QUOTE]You shouldn't be Ness. Actually this has been largley unreported in the media. The first time I heard about it was on here through this thread. Didn't even see it on CNN.com ot Yahoo News which I check daily. To be honest, I think when you posted this hear one of the top news stories being run was on how congress and the Bushies were celebrating the passage of CAFTA. Right. Usher in one free trade agreement while the other one just gets ignored. :(Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:24:05 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033992-56-1.aspxNot to mention, these duties ultimitaly hurt American consumers. I'm surprised the American population isnt angered over their governments lack or resposibility to its citizens.Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:47:27 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033992-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] So what you are saying is that high taxes (duties) are hurting business? What a novel idea.[/QUOTE]This is an interesting one though. Canadian softwood lumber is cheaper to produce... So by allowing free trade on softwood lumber, you'll destroy the American industry. But, by adding the duties on canadian goods, it's making it so the american industry can compete. Unfortunately adding a duty to a good is a flat out breach of any FREE trade agreement. So NAFTA gets to step in... NAFTA says this is unfair taxation and says the duties (5 billion?) should be returned to canadian companies. US says no... Pretty much challenging the authority of the North American Free Trade Agreement. News reports that I've seen are now questioning NAFTA's validity (If the US won't accept their ruling, why should anyone else?) and are saying it could quite likely be it's end. Personally I think we should include a 5$ per barrel oil going to the US tax until this issue is resolved. Bleh, isolating yourself much?Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:06:25 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033992-56-1.aspxSo what you are saying is that high taxes (duties) are hurting business? What a novel idea.Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:51:39 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033992-56-1.aspxCouldn't get the link to work.Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:19:58 GMTDolfhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033992-56-1.aspxRead the article here: [URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050810.wwood0810/BNStory/National/]Canada wins softwood ruling[/URL]When will the madness end? The US government is not just hurting Canada, but also the citizens of the USA. High home construction costs in the USA wont subside until these duties are lifted.added: if link doesnt work, try this:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050810.wwood0810/BNStory/National/Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:07:32 GMTNess