[Alberta's Child]

I'm thinking that maybe I should be writing for The Economist, since I posted almost this exact message right here on FreeRepublic last year. Anyone who advocated protective tariffs should first understand that the worst impact of the U.S. tariff on Canadian softwood lumber has been felt by U.S. lumber producers.

What this article doesn't mention is that the improvements in Canadian mill productivity haven't only helped them stay competitive with U.S. mills -- they've allowed them to sell lumber for substantially less than U.S. mills in major export markets (Japan and Korea, for example).

[Mind-numbed Robot]

The roots of the dispute lie in different traditions. In the United States, most forests are privately owned, and timber prices are set by private contracts or auctions. In Canada, almost all forests belong to provincial governments, which grant companies long-term cutting-rights in return for promises about job numbers and sustainable forestry. Governments set harvest levels, restrict the export of raw logs and set stumpage rates (or cutting fees) according to market conditions.

If I am reading this correctly, the Canadian sellers are getting free trees from the government owned forest while the US sellers are buying them at auction from private timber growers. Heck, even I could probably under sell my competitors and still make a profit with free raw materials.