|
THE FORUM
The Forum
Below are selected letters from readers regarding the HousingZone Lumber Tariffs Forum interviews.A Question of Good Sense
One needs to look at both sides of the issue. Certainly there are those who cry protectionism to shelter their market share of products sold by creating a government 'subsidy' that assesses tariffs on competitive goods.
Should we apply this to industries in local counties, states or regions? The fact is that many Northern U.S. industries have moved to Southern states over the past 40 years. Why? More sensible local government policies, lower insurance, taxes, etc. Certainly these factors affect the end product, so should the similar industries remaining in Northern U.S. states try to have tariffs applied to make the Southern products more expensive? Yes, I know someone will scream that it's unconstitutional, but is the Constitution there to protect the American people? The question is, who pays? Is it the users of the goods, in this case lumber? Is it the final purchaser -- the U.S. public's purchase of homes, public construction and projects using lumber? What are, and what will be, the effects on the U.S. economy for the short term and long term? Besides lumber, I have heard that Canada is the largest customer of U.S. products. Likewise, Canada's largest customer is the United States. What are the short- and long-term consequences of escalation of disputes and likely tariffs? Will there be a dissolution of NAFTA? Will the public on both sides of the border be, as usual, bearing the burden financially and otherwise? Will the price of lumber -- both Canadian and U.S. -- increase? Most definitely! I'm firmly against the tariff and it should be rescinded ASAP. Remember, it's not a question of saving face, but more importantly it's a question of good sense. How about U.S. and Canadian lumber producers learning more about their industries toward efficiency, forest management and harvesting, quality, etc., while still being competitive? Of course the politicians on both sides of the border have their days lashing out, making programs and 'good' policies while spending (wasting) lots of public money. Who pays? Good sense is a function of applying simplicity, a trait apparently lost in our modern civilized world. John Freedman
Who's Getting Protected?
I suspect that if we looked, we would find that most of the Canadian lumber suppliers are owned by U.S. companies.
Who, then, is getting protected with lumber tariffs? Michael Marix
U.S.' Return to Protectionism
The Bush administration is attempting to address the strong dollar with tariffs on lumber and steel and by increasing aid to farmers. The problem is that the dollar's decline began almost immediately after these tariffs were imposed. A weaker dollar, when added to these tariffs, has a compounding effect. The end result is that the American consumer will spend more for products, causing inflation that would not have existed had the the Bush administration been more patient.
While I like Bush and appreciate his strong leadership against terrorism, I am not sure I would vote for him again. A return to protectionism is not the direction this country should be headed toward. This from a home builder and lifelong Republican. John Cunnane
Steel Frame Builder
I've been building using steel framing for about three years. The market is showing improvement, but the people - especially wood builders - do nothing but bad-mouth steel. I don't know what to do anymore because it seems you're fighting a losing battle. People need to be educated about steel framing. I'm not here to hurt wood builders but want to offer a better product.
For example: I built a spec house in a new subdivision using steel framing and went to order the plywood for the flooring, and the owner of the lumber company wouldn't deal with me because I'm a steel builder. A builder came in later and built a wood house, and now when people come into the subdivision and are looking for my spec house because they want to see a steel-framed house, the other builder will give the people a hard time or tell them there is no steel-framed house in this subdivision. So I'm sitting on this house now for six months and can't get people to come. The money I've spent on open houses and running ads in newspapers! The real estate people won't show it. I've had one showing in six months. I'm going broke and getting tired of all the bull you have to put up with because we use steel instead of wood. I'm looking for any advice or help on these problems that we are always running into. Thanks, Martin Bailey
Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports
In reading Mr. Dottori's interview, I was very disturbed by the following question asked by Bill Lurz:
"Am I wrong in my assessment that the goal of the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports - the producers who initiated the claim against the Canadian imports - seem to be using this as a tool to force negotiations on another Softwood Lumber Agreement of a similar nature to the one that expired?" The coalition makes it very clear in our interview that our objective is to restore fair competition to the softwood lumber market by creating open and competitive timber and lumber markets in both the United States and Canada. If Mr. Dottori would like to make the argument that the United States is bullying Canada, then let him do so on his own. If you choose to ask such a leading question, then the coalition should be asked the same to provide a response. The U.S. and international trade laws are not designed as tools to force negotiations. They are designed to prevent subsidies and dumping from injuring other countries. If Canada wishes to continue to subsidize its industry, it has every right to do so. The United States also has the right to offset the government subsidies to prevent injury, as the Department of Commerce has done in the softwood lumber dispute. Furthermore, the coalition would oppose another SLA similar to the nature of the one that just expired. We would not want another short-term agreement that fails to address the core of the dispute - the Canadian government's pricing practices, tenure system and mandates. Deborah Regan
|
|