Soft wood Lumber, yet again.

[I think not]

the problem is your sophistry assumes a company need be mutlinational to export lumber over the line.

Under the softwood agreement, the U.S. would give back 80 per cent of the tariffs that were imposed on Canadian lumber. That means import duties of $4 billion the U.S. charged Canadian companies since 2002 will be returned. But the U.S. keeps $1 billion.

get a grip.

Like I said your reading comprehension is something not to be envied.

I have been trying to explain that in order to IMPORT you have to maintain a legal corporate status in the US. I have directedyou repeatedly towards US Customs sites. I have elaborated via Canadian government sites that the importers of record get the money.

All you come back with are insults and spin, not to mention the usual bullshit that comes out of you when your inept logic is pushed against the corner.

You haven't the simplest grasp of practical business applications.

Learn who Imports and Exports and who has the authority to impose tariffs, before engaging in conversations you obviously are clueless about.

 

[BitWhys]

name one US "importer of record".

 

[BitWhys]

good article about "Steve"'s list of broken promises...

Harper takes hardline stand

...In their 2006 election platform, under the heading "a better democracy," the Conservatives promised to "make all votes in Parliament, except the budget and main estimates ‘free votes’ for ordinary members of Parliament." This would allow MPs to reject the softwood deal but without precipitating an election.
...

bit of a stretch but I get his point. this one's a doozie though...

Denying Parliament a free vote is not the only promise the Harper government is breaking. In its election platform it also promised it would "demand that the U.S. government play by the rules on softwood lumber. The U.S. must abide by the NAFTA ruling on softwood lumber, repeal the Byrd amendment, and return the more than $5 billion in illegal softwood lumber tariffs to Canadian producers."

that's whopper.

and ITN if you don't think its Canadian producers that are supposed to get their money back, take it up with Harper. Its his (failed) plank.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Soft wood Lumber, yet again.

name one US "importer of record".

I have no idea who imports Canadian softwood lumber

 

[BitWhys]

Re: RE: Soft wood Lumber, yet again.

name one US "importer of record".

I have no idea who imports Canadian softwood lumber

that says it all right there. thanks.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Soft wood Lumber, yet again.

name one US "importer of record".

I have no idea who imports Canadian softwood lumber

that says it all right there. thanks.

It does? LOL. Only to you perhaps. Am I supposed to keep up with every company in the US that imports a product to make a point? All i know is the entity has to be incorporated in the US, whichever State.

I don't think you realize the purpose of this whole conversation and what I'm trying to get at.

1) You lumber industry laid off workers with the onset of the duties.
2) Your lumber industry has been selling lumber to the US like hotcakes despite the CVD. With the exception of 2003, when the US construction market dipped.
3) The importers paid the CVD, passed it along to the American consumers, and now Bush and Harper and patting each other on the back for a job well done.
4) Meanwhile the importers are getting a $4 billion bonus, since the cost of the CVD has been recovered.

And here you are arguing, basic import and export practices for what purpose? To convince me that Canadians got the short end of the stick?

If they did, attention has been successfully diverted South of the border, since your lumber industry never blinked an eye with sales. In fact their sales increased.

The only people that have lost are the American consumers and those who got laid off. Your lumber industry, our lumber industry all got rich off of this.

Anything else, is bullshit in the wind.

 

[BitWhys]

Re: RE: Soft wood Lumber, yet again.

The only people that have lost are the American consumers and those who got laid off. Your lumber industry, our lumber industry all got rich off of this.

that was your country's mistake, not ours and there's no damn way Canadian companies should have to pay for it.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Soft wood Lumber, yet again.

The only people that have lost are the American consumers and those who got laid off. Your lumber industry, our lumber industry all got rich off of this.

that was your country's mistake, not ours and there's no damn way Canadian companies should have to pay for it.

Canadian companies based in Canada never paid for it.

For a "liberal" individual you are certainly way too concerned about billion dollar corporations, why is that?

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Soft wood Lumber, yet again.

name one US "importer of record".

I have no idea who imports Canadian softwood lumber

Weyerhaeuser Company.

 

[BitWhys]

you no idea who imports Canadian lumber but you know for a fact expenses are being consolidated across national boundaries. that's rich.

you think "liberals" can't be practical? that, as well, would be the case simply by your own definition.

 

[BitWhys]

Re: RE: Soft wood Lumber, yet again.

name one US "importer of record".

I have no idea who imports Canadian softwood lumber

Weyerhaeuser Company.

ooh

google

how much they got coming to them?

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Soft wood Lumber, yet again.

you no idea who imports Canadian lumber but you know for a fact expenses are being consolidated across national boundaries. that's rich.

you think "liberals" can't be practical? that, as well, would be the case simply by your own definition.

No I think your version of liberalism takes the back seat with your nationalism.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Soft wood Lumber, yet again.

name one US "importer of record".

I have no idea who imports Canadian softwood lumber

Weyerhaeuser Company.

ooh

google

how much they got coming to them?

Yeah google, something wrong with that? Weyerhaeuser Company, oddly enough :roll: , is a US based lumber company with mills in BC. Strange isn't it?

I'll call their accountant and let you know. :lol:

Drop it Bitwhys, you're clueless.

 

[I think not]

Aww look at this.

Final Results of Review of the Antidumping Duty Order: The Department received more than 400 individual requests for reviews from Canadian producers/exporters of softwood lumber. The Department chose eight mandatory respondents: Abitibi-Consolidated Company of Canada (Abitibi), Buchanan Lumber Sales Inc. (Buchanan), Canfor Corporation (Canfor), Slocan Forest Products Ltd. (Slocan), Tembec Inc. (Tembec), Tolko Industries Ltd. (Tolko), West Fraser Mills Ltd. (West Fraser), and Weyerhaeuser Company (Weyerhaeuser).

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/factsheets/factsheet-canada-softwood-lumber-ad-cvd-final-121404.pdf

Weyerhaeuser, a "Canadian" softwood exporter. Hmmmm.

 

[Said1]

Aww look at this.

Final Results of Review of the Antidumping Duty Order: The Department received more than 400 individual requests for reviews from Canadian producers/exporters of softwood lumber. The Department chose eight mandatory respondents: Abitibi-Consolidated Company of Canada (Abitibi), Buchanan Lumber Sales Inc. (Buchanan), Canfor Corporation (Canfor), Slocan Forest Products Ltd. (Slocan), Tembec Inc. (Tembec), Tolko Industries Ltd. (Tolko), West Fraser Mills Ltd. (West Fraser), and Weyerhaeuser Company (Weyerhaeuser).

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/factsheets/factsheet-canada-softwood-lumber-ad-cvd-final-121404.pdf

Weyerhaeuser, a "Canadian" softwood exporter. Hmmmm.

I didn't think they were a Canadian business.

 

[I think not]

I don't doubt it, you're a sharp individual. Wish I could say the same for others.

 

[Said1]

RE: Soft wood Lumber, yet

They're American. Now if I could only remember why their name rings a bell. I refuse to google. :lol:

 

[gc]

Re: RE: Soft wood Lumber, yet

I think not,

I don't understand why you are bringing this up. I already know that Americans paid the tariff, that is not my point. I think my previous post sums it up, but you have yet to give a proper reply, so here it is again word for word.

If there were no tariffs, then either Canadian producers could have charged more money (and hence would have received most of that $5 billion) or else if they charged the same amount, the goods would be cheaper and more people would want to buy them and hence the industry would not have suffered and thousands of people wouldn't have lost their job. So it doesn't matter who paid the tariff, it matters who that money would have gone to if there was no tariff.

Yes, the American consumer is the loser, but who's fault is that? The real winner is American lumber companies.

It doesn't matter to you who paid the tariff, because obviously Canadians didn't. Had the shoe been on the other foot, I'm sure you would have thrown that in the mix.

But I'm not throwing it in the mix, so it doesn't help to speculate what I would be arguing. I am arguing, and have always argued, that regardless of who paid the tariff, it should have ended up in the pockets of the Canadian companies for the reasons I have stated above. Please respond to my arguments, not hypothetical arguments if the situation was different.

But since you brought it up, explain to me how in 2002 when the CVD came into effect (May of 2002), the BC lumber industry exported almost as much lumber than the previous year. In 2003, it dipped, and in 2004 and 2005 despite the CVD exported more than 2001 levels?

I noticed you singled out one province, why not look at all of the data? Look at how much exports from Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta decreased. I can only imagine that had the tariffs not been charged, exports in B.C. would have rose. I'm certainly not an economist but it makes sense to me that if a companies profit margin increases that is a good thing for the company. Link

And even though B.C. exports didn't decrease, look at the jobs lost

The trade war took a toll on Canadian jobs. Thousands in the industry lost their jobs, including about 15,000 forestry workers who were laid off in British Columbia.

Link

 

[BitWhys]

Re: RE: Soft wood Lumber, yet again.

Drop it Bitwhys, you're clueless.

You mean all those Canadian companies aren't supposed to get their money back?

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Soft wood Lumber, yet again.

Who's Harper?

Where's England?