Here's how you can contribute to a softwood sollution

This has been going on for years and many organizations, especially lumber related ones, have tried boycott's of all american products, but they simply can't get airplay. So yes, talk about this, talk especially about boycotts. There are about 2000 boycotts of american products for reasons that range from economic to political to cultural. Keep in mind though that this is a TRADE agreement, canadians certainly are no friend of the environment, in fact many environmentalists praise this because many lumberyards go out of business. The US has been doing this for years, I think the most important thing in letters to the editor is 'spin'. In the media I've noticed almost unamimous coverage of this as simply being a trade dispute like any other and mentioning matter of factly that the US still has options such as constitutional challenges. If you need more of an excuse to not trust canadian media, there it is.

Sadly, I understand this. The world has witnessed their repeated dismissal of fairness and of international concerns (UN, Iraq, International Criminal Court, etc. etc. etc.). Their record speaks volumes. However, when I look at the Philippine or Australian press, for example, I see a similar discussion that was witnessed here prior to the Canada US FTA. On the fringes there is some talk of the US can't be trusted but not much. And any mention I can find of our problems on softwood give a "balanced" reporting. In other words it is just a disagreement between to parties. I think I have the ability to set aside my bias and I know that we in Canada are not superior to the US. I know that folk there are like folk here. And I think that in sum we likely do not stand on higher moral ground than them. But on issues such as this the US path is one of broken deals and disrespect for the rules. If we can find a way illuminate the value of an "agreement" with the US to a few opinion leaders in the countries currently considering deals with them maybe there can be some encouragement to live up to previous agreements. I know this is a microbe versus the elephant affair but one well placed microbe can cause the elephant to sneeze and loose its footing on a slippery path. In these countries people are making the same arguments that were made here. Perhaps if they could also argue about the value of the "agreement" itself, and the dispute resolution mechanisms, rather than other details they could win one or two more points to the "no" side? Perhaps there is a leverage point here. Don't be discouraged - be creative!! BMac

They are bullies plain and simple. And they have the nerve to wonder why they are thouight of so low in this world. They lose lose and lose and still do not honour the deal? wtf? If it was us doing it to them they would be screaming bloody murder, loudly talking about retaliation etc.... We have to stop being so dependent on these people for trade as it is pretty obvious any deal signed with them is not worth the paper its printed on. China, India and rest of Asia is a big market and maybe its time we start deals with them. I would say add an export tax to electricity, oil, gas etc. Personally myself as I live near the border, I do not cross the line to buy cheap gas, milk, cheese etc. Ten or so years ago used to go to Bellis Fair in Bellingham for the day and do other shopping, but I stopped that due to them not playing fair with signred contracts and how hostile the country is since "W" got in. I have not done so for a long time. I will not travel to America and try very hard not to buy any American made goods. I know I only play a small part, but if more people actually boyocotted American imports and stopped buying cheap goods across border instead of just talking about it, maybe a point could be made?

Keep in mind that as far as 'promises' go, the US doesn't have the monopoly. While you can spend time pointing fingers, our own government has a long history of lying, as natives can well attest to. Keep in mind that aid to countries is also a promise made to third world countries, and those have been basically been laughed at. And of course the biggest lies of all are directed at us, the voters.

I agree we should not be so quick to conclude we are better than others. We are often unhappy with our governments and the same is true in other countries. On this issue most are displeased with a specific foreign government that we thought we had a deal with and that can have a significant impact on our lives. For me that is the focus. That said, I agree with no1important on a couple things. I try not to buy US products but that is not from a dislike of them or even a boycott. It is just that they are so dominant that by making an effort not to buy US and to instead buy Canadian it really only tips the balance back a bit. It's a principle thing for me. I once did a brief analysis of some trade numbers and the impact of buying Canadian. The result was if you buy a $10.00 US product at Home Depot, $4.00 goes into the Canadian economy in terms of wages and taxes. If you buy a Canadian product for $10.00 at Canadian Tire... well, $10.00 goes into the Canadian economy. But I digress. I've got a few minutes right now - I think I'll try to find me a Philippine editor to write to.

If you don't mind my asking, can you tell me about your analysis of Home Depot, that's good information to have. Keep in mind though that ALL that money going to Canadian Tire does not stay in Canada since all of CT's products aren't made in Canada-perhaps even MOST aren't, which means they have to pay the supplier. But it's still good info, where did you get your numbers from? And what does the phillipino lawyer mean?

Remember - you asked for it. Below are some excerpts from rough notes I found in the depths of "My Documents". I was starting to put together a presentation I gave about 5 years ago on "buying Canadian". I don't have the final transcript, speaking notes or any of the actual source documents anymore. There are some links on the bottom of the page - all of the facts in the notes are from these sources. With time and the (almost) completion of my MBA this appears pretty week. While some of the conclusions may be off and additional complexities glossed over I believe the facts presented are accurate. The Philippine editor is reference to my efforts to bring the recent history of U.S. reneging on deals to some of the people that are currently considering making fresh deals with them. In the discussions I have found around the ten current sets of FTA negotiations with the US I have yet to find mention of the US lack of compliance with the agreed terms or dispute resolution mechanisms. There is reference to NAFTA but it's all dollars or refers back to the original negotiations. My sense is that people who know the party on the other side of the table is not planning on living up to their end of the bargain might see the negotiatios a little differently and in the end this might provoke that other party to actually start honouring their agreements. Naive? Perhaps - but you never know which little crack is going to cause the big break. Sorry for the enourmous post ___________________________________________________________________ Voting with Loonies The dollar amount that the U.S. purchased from Canada in 2000 equaled 2.3% of their Gross Domestic Product (Canadians spent about 25% of our GDP on U.S. products). An oversimplified view of this tells us that 2.3% of the profit from our purchase of U.S. products comes back to Canada. Of course it is much more complicated than that. U.S. companies with stores in Canada employ Canadians. For instance probably 100% of the lowest paid jobs at Wal-Mart, Costco and Sears are held by Canadians. Most of the rent and property taxes paid on the Canadian portions of their operations benefit Canadians. However, many of the high paying local jobs, all of the head office jobs and most of the corporate overhead benefits their home country. Operating expenses for a large retail operation appear to typically be in the neighbourhood of 20 to 35% of gross sales revenue. Most of that is local operating costs, which amount to 70 to 90% of what stays in this country. To demonstrate how your vote works: If you purchased an Indonesian made garden rake at Home Depot for $10.00 you just put somewhere between $2.50 and $4.00 into the Canadian economy. Mostly local operating costs (payroll, rent, utilities, some local supplies, local marketing etc.) All of the cost of the good sold as well as the profit and corporate overhead leave the country. Never to return. Not entirely true because 2.3% of the U.S. GDP is spent on Canadian goods, so some of it comes back. However, if you purchased a Canadian made rake at Canadian Tire or Home Hardware you just put $10.00 into the Canadian Economy. It doesn’t usually take a lot of effort but the more effort you put in the more we all benefit. If Globalization is inevitable then it is all the more important that we support our own markets. I read recently that it’s illegal now for our government to urge us to buy Canadian (NAFTA) so we have to encourage each other. There is always a lot of opportunity to buy imported goods - As there should be. Trade is good. But if we fail to make an honest effort to support the home team we are really only hurting ourselves. The money that leaves our country only serves to improve someone else’s standard of living, it is money that does not benefit of the Canadian economy, none of it goes into our health care system, or education or infrastructure. It creates jobs only in another country. I realize we can’t spend all of our time hunting down “Made in Canada” products at Canadian stores for all of our purchases. The reality is we could probably be at least partially undermining the purpose, which is to improve our lives. ______________________ I am not an economist but I’ve done a little research. If we could re-allocate 15% of our total spending from foreign to Canadian goods we would increase the size of our economy by 10% (assuming that about 60% of what we spend on foreign goods actually leaves the country). That’s 10% more for government revenue (hospitals, schools, maternity leave etc.) and 10% more for us to spend on Canadian goods. There is a real opportunity here to improve things for all of us. If Home Depot is a km away and Revy is 1.5 kms, you can chose to go to Revy. If the item you want is at Costco be aware that it is probably also at Real Canadian Superstore. Get your gas at Petro Canada, Mohawk or Husky when you can. We don’t need to worry about this practice of supporting Canadian companies hurting those that we know that might work for these foreign companies. Because in all cases where you have a choice to buy Canadian - if that foreign company was not there, its place would be filled by Canadian competition. And keep in mind, part of the reason for the success of many of these U.S. companies is the “Buy U.S.” philosophy in that country. Where we spend our dollars should be based on more than just who has the greatest ability to bombard us with advertizing. We should consider what happens when those dollars leave our hands. This goes beyond just buying Canadian, of course. We should know whether there was child labour involved, or whether some repressive regime received the money or whether we are supporting someone else’s economy at the expense of our own. Conclusion It is not all bad and it is not all out of our control. There is something we can all do. Buy ethical AND Buy Canadian: Let your dollars continue to have a positive effect after they leave your wallet. Support Canadian jobs, social services, your own and your children’s standard of living. This is a real opportunity and it presents itself everyday... including today. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c1220.html http://www.bmo.com/economic/headlines/cjan18a.html <a href='http://www.economist.com/countries/Canada/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Economic%20Structurehttp://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/bilateral/canada/canada.htm'>Economist</a> http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget97/tax/tax3e.html http://canadianbuys.com/whybuycanadian.cfm http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2000/cb00-210.html http://www.thehardwarestore.com/cost_business.ihtml <a href="http://www.thehardwarestore.com/cost_business.ihtml">here</a><a />

Bmac - I edited your 'economist' link so it wouldn't do the page widening thing . . .

I haven't read all the above post yet, so this may be redundant, but a good study would be to simply look at the history of the maritimes in Canada and compare it to now. Just before Canada became a country was the reciprocity treaty with the US, which was essentially a free trade deal which was cancelled by the US once it no longer served their purpose. The maritimes were the first industrial settlements of Canada-coal and metalworks in Nova Scotia, fisheries, and lumber from New Brunswick. That was the 'centralization'. That changed as Ontario began to be developed and early on the businessmen of Ontario did what all businessmen try to do, which is to control markets. So in a sense, when you look at Canada now it is a VERY close parrallel the maritime history, so if you want to point out 'where we're going', that's not a bad analogy. It may already be a fait d'accompli, little discussion is made of the fact that early on Ontario businesses were controlled by US giants, in turn they controlled the maritimes and prairies. Central businesses in Ontario and Quebec then proceeded to buy out companies in more rural places and replace them with branches. Here's a nice quote I found: "Branch businesses may be regarded as emissaries of the metropolis, advancing it's economic interests and consolidating its empire throughout the hinterland" LD McCann So, for example, a bank is centralized in Ontario, and has branches everywhere. It's biggest 'client' may be a steel plant in Hamilton, which comes to it whenever it wants to buy a company, need consulting, or anything. So that is a 'preferred' client. Now look at a steel plant in Sydney, Nova Scotia, which may have all the same advantages as the one in Hamilton, but in fact has MORE because it is on the ocean which lowers shipping costs, and there is a wealth of ore in the province, which gives a lower operating cost. However, when this company is starting out, it needs capital. No bank is going to supply it with capital because it already HAS a preferred customer already making money for them, why lose that customer on a chance endevour? Essentially that's how 'branch economies' get screwed over when decisions are made elsewhere. And increasingly you find that the 'big' companies are not even canadian, they are multi-national.