[nathanbedford]

Trump is probably simply following is standard negotiating tactic of attacking his opponent or his opponent's position in order later to enjoy a more favorable compromise. Later, we can expect some sort of accommodation on the lumber issue.

But let us suppose there is no accommodation and American homebuilders are confronted with a 20 to 25% increase in the cost of lumber, that is not only bad for homebuyers, that is consumers, but it is bad overall for the economy because it is one of many building blocks like steel or energy which makes an economy work well or drives inflation. One thing a nation $20 trillion in debt cannot sustain is increased inflation.

It is not just your willingness to pay a bit more for lumber, it is the whole economy which can be seriously affected.

International trade is not a win-win situation in every instance, however, when it is not the cure can also be a win-lose situation. It is easy to campaign on trade reform but when one governs those who are injured by the so-called "cure" have a right to be heard. The overall effects on the economy have to be considered. During a campaign we can call those who raise these issues "globalists" but when we govern we find out they are also citizens.

[Alberta's Child]

There's nothing wrong with an America-first trade agenda in Washington, but over my years of doing business on both sides of the border I never understood why the U.S. government would go to great lengths to protect an industry that the same U.S. government had worked so hard to destroy.

This is the equivalent of imposing an import tariff on foreign coal to protect a coal mining industry that has been effectively shut down by the EPA.