Chavez doesn't understand inflation

[Ben Kenobi]

the second one makes the Canadians mad.

It raises the cost of lumber for every house you build down there.

I'm not sure why Americans don't realise it but the tariffs aren't helping the housing situation there. More people could afford houses if they price was cheaper.

Right now the quota is still 15 percent. Even with the US dollar lower you guys are still paying through the nose for lumber.

[DinoDoc]

Well if you'd stop subsidizing your guys, we'd drop the Tariff.

[Ben Kenobi]

Where's the subsidy?

The reason lumber is cheap up here to cut is because we have lots of it, and it's close by.

Are you talking about stumpage?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not sure why Americans don't realise it but the tariffs aren't helping the housing situation there. More people could afford houses if they price was cheaper.

Hence why I said it hurts consumers. Tariffs are almost always bad for consumers (I say "almost always" to protect against one or two exceptions over human history that may be pointed out ).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It raises the cost of lumber for every house you build down there.

I'm not sure why Americans don't realise it but the tariffs aren't helping the housing situation there. More people could afford houses if they price was cheaper.

Right now the quota is still 15 percent. Even with the US dollar lower you guys are still paying through the nose for lumber.

The price of lumber doesn't affect the price of houses too much. The thing constraining the housing market is all financial. It has nothing to do with the cost of materials.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Well it's not just HIS ideas of perfect idealized capitalism . I think Adam Smith (the original, not the post) wouldn't object to that either in his idealized capitalism.

I don't know if I'd say there is a "little to complain" about if one supports free trade. True, it is better than the alternative, but there are some pretty bad trade restrictions, namely on sugar and lumber that hurt American consumers, and the second one makes the Canadians mad.

Adam Smith supported Tariffs against trade cheaters, and not leaving the British merchant fleet to such market forces. Damned protectionist.

And if the Canadians don't like their 50 billion with a B trade surplus, there are remedies.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Whoha
And if the Canadians don't like their 50 billion with a B trade surplus, there are remedies.

Indeed. You guys can massively screw yourselves over even more by not buying our stuff to try to prove a point, and we in turn can sell all our oil and other natural resources to China, which I'm sure the US would love.

[Whoha]

While I'm not particularly happy about it, I don't pretend to think that we can keep ideological allies apart. Because the only way that you can be certain that a fungible resource goes only to china is to turn it over to them exclusively.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kontiki
we in turn can sell all our oil and other natural resources to China, which I'm sure the US would love.

Given that both are fungible commodities, why would we care?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I'm not sure why Americans don't realise it but the tariffs aren't helping the housing situation there. More people could afford houses if they price was cheaper.

Hence why I said it hurts consumers. Tariffs are almost always bad for consumers (I say "almost always" to protect against one or two exceptions over human history that may be pointed out ).

Tariffs are only bad for consumers in the short run, and only as consumers (as if people were only one thing). In the long run, the development of industry means more jobs, and it also protects jobs in th short run. Tariffs are why the Asian tigers are tigers and not kittens.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Whoha


20 million, of the 100 million increase in our population since 1965 was natural growth. Remember this entire time coincided with Roe V Wade and a collapse in birth rates to just below replacement rate.

Only 10 million illegals have been legalized by any of the previous 7 amnesties.

First it was 80 million and now it was 100 million. Look 1 million people are legally allowed in the US per year and most of those are people who are already in the US. If you don't have family members in the US then you're only really have to options 1) refugee status 2) get a technical visa for having an advanced degree which the US Congress says there is a shortage for. If you aren't a refugee and you're not getting a technical waver (like the H1-B) then only 500,000 come per year.

[Whoha]

I said 80 million lawful immigrants. 100 million was the total population gain, including 20 million from native population growth.

[Dinner]

The current rate is 1 million per year. Including skilled immigrants (H1-B), refugees, and family reunitals. There just isn't much room for many more people after that. Certainly not enough to fill job openings.

Employers would have three options. Find out how to make due with fewer workers, not expand, or increase wages (causing price inflation) in order to attract what workers that are available. The first option might be ok [i]if[/i[] there was some way to automate in order to improve worker productivity but there just isn't another PC revolution out there to take up the slack like there was in the 80's and 90's.

[Whoha]

Terrific news then, we'll see some wage growth and some capital investment.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whoha
Terrific news then, we'll see some wage growth and some capital investment.

And maybe some reduction in aid to the poor and such per capita