Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. moves to double Canadian lumber tariffs

woodworkingnetwork.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 100 posts

Re: U.S. moves to double Canadian lumber tariffs

#91

Post by nkurz »

kokanator wrote: post #56
lhorie wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Allow these timber companies to ship our timber overseas to create an intentional artificial shortage ( yes it is documented ). Am I understanding right that this would mean US would be incentivized to not export lumber (since domestic demand would grow in response to the increase in canadian lumber prices), and conversely, Canada would just fill the export gap left open by the US, leaving Canada in a stronger, mor…

I am having a difficult time wading through current "shortage" links to find the original information. However, here is the gist. - The inventory of raw timber ( the type you see in log yards ) has grown too large. - Lumber mills are lowering the amount they will pay for raw timber as a result. As well as the rest of the end lumber market. - This causes timber companies profit per foot to drop. - The timber companies…

Upvoted because it's a good summary, but could you offer a source for your claim that "most of this timber came from public lands"? This is surprising to me, and I'm wondering if this is a local phenomenon rather than a national claim. The very quick searching I did (https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45688.html) suggests that the harvest from NFS lands peaked at about 15% in the 1980's, and has been lower since.

Re: U.S. moves to double Canadian lumber tariffs

#92

Post by sudosysgen »

nafizh wrote: post #30

Incredible. Instead of putting tariffs on Chinese cheap stuff that most people can get by without, US is putting tariff on one of the main exports of its closest allies.

Well yeah, the US has been doing that forever. There is an economic incentive to fuck over Canada, and none to stop enjoying cheap labour and efficient supply chains from China. The US pretty much only does things when it is in it's interest, and if that happens to be a good thing it will be spun as a principled decision but that's generally a coincidence.

Re: U.S. moves to double Canadian lumber tariffs

#93

Post by Teever »

nightowl_games wrote: post #40
btbuildem wrote: post #15

As a Canadian - awesome! (Given that I understand the consequences correctly, that is.) The incredible demand, coupled with supply chain troubles, has driven up the price of lumber here nearly 300% A 8' 2x4 was $2.95 this time last year, today it's $10. I hope this cools the exports of lumber from Canada, and we see the prices move back towards a sane level.

As a Canadian, I disagree. The US has unfortunately been shafting Canada on softwood lumber for decades[1]. Your implying that Canadian logging companies are just going to sell cheaper lumber to Canadians. I would say that that's just one piece of the picture. Canada's economy is based upon selling resources to the United States (mostly oil). The United States historically has abused their monopoly on buying Canadian…

> Canada's economy is based upon selling resources to the United States (mostly oil).

Oil & Gas accounts for less than 10% of the Canadian economy.

Re: U.S. moves to double Canadian lumber tariffs

#94

Post by dzhiurgis »

bobthepanda wrote: post #86
ericmay wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skyscrapers specifically (tall buildings depends on definition of height), but they’re very energy intensive. You can only operate, construct, and maintain them with cheap oil. The problem isn’t density (most European towns are perfect here actually) but too much density. Manhattan is the opposite spectrum of suburbia, and neither are very desirable. France actually does this well in Paris, as you mentioned. The Amer…

Operating them is not that expensive. A building's heating and cooling needs are proportional to surface area, not volume, and in a given apartment building the vast majority of walls are shared with other units instead of outside. So a taller building is more and more efficient with regards to climate control, unless it doesn't contain a whole lot of volume. The Burj Khalifa is obviously not ideal but at least judgi…

Ask people where would they rather live Hong Kong or Auckland (being second worst sprawl after LA)...

Re: U.S. moves to double Canadian lumber tariffs

#96

Post by Matticus_Rex »

imtringued wrote: post #82
Matticus_Rex wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the estimated gains of globalization just in economic terms (to say nothing of worldwide economic stability in most situations), which are in the 14-figure range, there's significant doubt here. Yes, there's likely room for things to be made in more than one place in many instances. But global comparative advantage is still the single greatest contributor to rises in global standards of living. Billions of peop…

One problem with globalization is that it takes forever to pull everyone up to the global middle class (around $10k per capita). That's not just bad for low skilled workers in the US. A lot of countries get stuck in the middle income trap because foreign investors move on to the next cheapest country.

Is that a problem with globalization? Compared to what? Without globalization, most of those in the global middle class wouldn't have gotten there, and wouldn't stay there if globalization ended.

Re: U.S. moves to double Canadian lumber tariffs

#97

Post by Matticus_Rex »

kokanator wrote: post #71
Matticus_Rex wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're suggesting what, exactly? It looks like you're making an emotional point based on some kind of national stake in resources. But it's not "our" timber -- it's the timber of some people who worked and invested in the capacity to cut it. If domestic timber prices are lower than foreign timber prices, making it harder for them to export timber just hurts the industry more . They're not sending it overseas to in…

> They're not sending it overseas to increase domestic timber prices; This is EXACTLY what they did. You missed the point. They exported at a loss to drive up domestic prices.

Exporting at a loss is often the prudent financial measure just because of market conditions, and it does have the effect of increasing domestic prices (as a third-order effect), but the way you're describing it happening isn't plausible.

Do you have a citation that they're intentionally losing money in order to drive prices up to a target price? Because that, no offense, would be idiotic unless they have some kind of subsidization deal that would support it, as the export of any quantity of lumber even at break-even would not increase domestic prices enough to justify the losses of profit on that lumber if profit was available.

It sounds like the market is down, and they have lumber on hand, and it's better to sell at a loss and realize the revenue in most cases than to not sell at all.

Re: U.S. moves to double Canadian lumber tariffs

#98

Post by bobthepanda »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #94
bobthepanda wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Operating them is not that expensive. A building's heating and cooling needs are proportional to surface area, not volume, and in a given apartment building the vast majority of walls are shared with other units instead of outside. So a taller building is more and more efficient with regards to climate control, unless it doesn't contain a whole lot of volume. The Burj Khalifa is obviously not ideal but at least judgi…

Ask people where would they rather live Hong Kong or Auckland (being second worst sprawl after LA)...

Ask people if they would prefer to work or win the lotto.

It's impractical for everyone to win the lotto.

Re: U.S. moves to double Canadian lumber tariffs

#99

Post by ska »

hourislate wrote: post #31

It's interesting who owns a lot of the saw mills in Canada. https://www.lesprom.com/en/news/13_biggest_lumber_companies_... *Four of the top ten largest firms are based in B.C. (West Fraser, Canfor, Interfor and Tolko), with the first three holding substantial sawmilling assets in the U.S.* So it seems these Corps own assets on both sides of the border and it isn't clear how these tariffs help them. From what I under…

> So it seems these Corps own assets on both sides of the border and it isn't clear how these tariffs help them

Maybe that's looking at it the wrong way; tariffs and trade battles are going to happen anyway, if I have operations on both sides of a border in a way I'm hedged against their impact.

Re: U.S. moves to double Canadian lumber tariffs

#100

Post by bcrl »

RoadieRoller wrote: post #8

(I am not a US citizen, but visited many times) Why not build houses using concrete/cement? Poor Asian countries have been building houses for decades using concrete and less maintenance. No, it is not about weather. Concrete can be easily used in Southern US states where winter is less than a month or no snow at all. At least the structure can be concrete and the walls be wood or drywall. I think it is the wood mafi…

Portland cement has a significantly worse environmental footprint than wood. One removes carbon from the atmosphere while the other releases it.
Post reply on HN