Lumber dispute, not the softwood lumber dispute
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
dumpthemonarchy said:
Raw logs arnt soft wood lumber. The extra taxe is on soft wood lumber, not raw logs.
and the americans have no problem taking our raw resources to fuel their value added industries. They just don't like us selling finished product.
C'mon somebody - answer the question....
Okay fine.
- "softwood" means just what it says: the softer timber like spruce, balsam, pine, fir, cedar etc. Primarly used for framing houses, or peeling thin veneers and gluing them together as in plywood and so on. Also used heavily in pulp-wood, though that's not a part of the issue, I believe.
- "hardwood" is from trees in this part of the world like maple, oak, birch, cherry and so on. Generally used in furniture-making or high-quality panels, etc. (Imported hardwoods are things like mahogony and so on.)
Because there is no tariff at present on those materials, the dispute is rightfully called the "Softwood Dispute".
Okay fine.
- "softwood" means just what it says: the softer timber like spruce, balsam, pine, fir, cedar etc. Primarly used for framing houses, or peeling thin veneers and gluing them together as in plywood and so on. Also used heavily in pulp-wood, though that's not a part of the issue, I believe.
- "hardwood" is from trees in this part of the world like maple, oak, birch, cherry and so on. Generally used in furniture-making or high-quality panels, etc. (Imported hardwoods are things like mahogony and so on.)
Because there is no tariff at present on those materials, the dispute is rightfully called the "Softwood Dispute".
If most the volume of lumber, and dollar value, of wood that is shipped to the US is what is called "softwood" isn't it kind of redundant to call it "softwood" all the time? Why doesn't the majority rule?