But aren't home-buyers American? And aren't there more American home-buyers than Americans in the lumber industry? How does keeping out low-cost lumber constitute looking out for Americans first?
You don't happen to be from Sidney MT do you?- the Hwy with the weight restrictions eliminated to circumvent the railways for MT wheat and equalize Canadian weights with MT weights? - It made MT wheat farmers competitive with Canadian wheat farmers.
If you are from MT, you know perfectly well that this is not about lowering the cost of lumber for Americans, its about FORCING America to raise taxes in order to subsidize their own lumber industry or kill off the US lumber industry.
The US lumber industry does NOT need subsidies and has in fact invested millions upon millions if not billions in new sawmill technology to be competitive on the world market- unlike Canada. There the industry just asks the taxpayers to fork over more to make up the gap of their lack of competitiveness.
US producers produce some of the lowest cost products in real dollars, but the Canadians are Socialists- they throw money into their timber "stumpage" subsidies with reckless abandonment just to keep their people employed vs. their people and mills competitive.
Would you have US taxpayers pay more in taxes to provide you with a lower cost 2x4 rather than ask the Canadians to actually FORCE their mills to be globally competitive and have price be driven by efficiency and market demand?
Canadian lumber can indeed "cost less" for US consumers at the moment, but if you wipe out the more efficient US manufactures, you'll have nothing left but foreign manufacturers. At that point, foreigners have no incentive to subsidize their mills, and you just got yourself a $10 2x4 instead of a $2.50 2x4, and you'll have no one to thank but yourself.
That IS the long term reality of this particular issue FWIW.
Wiping out US mills is akin to asking Iran if they'll consider lowering the price of oil when they've got it all and you have not one drop.
Free trade should mean fair trade, and Canada is not accomplishing fair trade when it rapes its taxpayers to keep uncompetitive mills open when THEY should be the ones closing.
Socialism rewards inefficiency and rewards non-competitiveness.
For a time you may get a cheaper 2x4, but when Socialism wins, you get the most expensive widget money can buy with the worst quality you can imagine at the greatest cost to the consumer- Just ask the Swedish, the Finish, and hell- go ahead and ask the French- their farmers are better at protesting than they are at growing food and you can take that to the bank- They do- while the consumer pays higher prices.
By the way, US farm subsidies have US taxpayers paying US farmers to keep their fields idle under the CRP's. that's great for the US farmer wintering in the Caribbean, but it has bred exactly what you suggest should continue- you pay for that loaf of bread at the grocery store, or you pay for it through your taxes.
If Americans knew how, frankly said, corrupt and unnecessary farm subsidies are in the US, a whole boatload of people in and around Sidney MT would be out of a vacation for agreeing not to plant wheat.
Now either they are going to be farmers or they are going to be leeches off the rest of us. That IS the question now facing Canada- Is their timber industry going to leech off their taxpayers and hurt honest, competitive US companies, or are they going to be required to get 'er done?