Posted on 03/04/2003 1:09:04 PM PST by ContentiousObjector
WINNIPEG - The U.S. Commerce Department on Tuesday imposed a 3.94 per cent tariff against Canadian wheat exports, a much lower duty than Canadian trade officials expected.
The preliminary duties are the result of a U.S. Commerce Department trade law investigation into Canadian exports of durum wheat and hard red spring wheat into U.S. markets.
American trade officials and American farmers allege Canada unfairly subsidizes the exports by undercutting the price of U.S. wheat.
In its decision, the Commerce Department says a preliminary investigation shows material damage to farmers from the Canadian imports.
The Canadian Wheat Board controls the sale of all wheat and barley grown in the Canadian West destined for human consumption in Canada, or for export.
About 10 per cent of the Wheat Board's sales — $400 million a year in sales — go south of the border, making it a longtime target of American farmers.
Defenders of the CWB say it maintains a stable grain price for farmers.
But opponents call it an unfair monopoly, arguing it has become outdated. With new technologies, including the Internet, even some Canadian farmers say they can monitor wheat prices and negotiate better deals on their own.
The CWB has long been a sore point for American trade officials; it's been investigated by the U.S nine times in the past 10 years. They complain the board's single desk marketing system is an unfair trade advantage.
It is bad enough that George “Rhino” Bush didn’t veto the farm bill, which is in it’s own right the worst economic legislation in history, that is going to turn American farms into virtual Soviet enterprises... unprofitable, unproductive and uncompetitive
And now, the commerce department has the sheer audacity to actually put tariffs on Canadian wheat?, if anyone should be leveling tariffs it should be the Canadians!
Most ironic about this whole affair is that if nothing else the Canadian Wheat Board actually defends American farmers from direct competition with Canadian producers in the US market!, $400,000,000 CND is NOTHING
And naturally, the Canadians are going to take this to the WTO where we are going to be laughed out of the room, just like on softwood lumber. Another crusade the commerce department has had going for a while now. That they have lost on at last count 102,400,435,234,407 times.
FIRE THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
What country in their right mind would negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States these days, when we pull crap like this?
I am disgusted, if Bush is so strongly in favor of free trade, it is time he takes some action. However given how he has sold out to the communists in the steal industry I am not optimistic
The correct answer? ZERO.
Tarriffs are simply taxes. Taxes always hurt both producer and consumer. Taxes always feed bigger government.
KISS: Tax=bad. Work=good. Save=good.
They have no business meddling in our taxation policies anyway, and Dubya is a fool for getting involved in this kind of micromanagement of economics.
Tariffs should imposed solely for the purpose of raising federal revenue. In that capacity, they help finance the federal government while relaxing the burden of other forms of taxation placed on our domestic economy, and thus promote domestic production. To that end, a revenue tariff should be a uniform flat-rate and placed on ALL imported goods. There should be absolutely NO EXCEPTIONS made to favor and/or punish any particular nation or industry.
Anyone who supports the farm bill would fall into that group,
The situation that exists today is already better for us than it is for the Canadians, and we are bitching about it.
Despite its imperfections, warts and blemishes, our system of agriculture subsidies has evolved based on sound economic principles in order to address the inherent limitations of laisezz-faire agriculture production. Our nation has had first-hand experience with such total lack of intervention with food production. The result in a true natural cycle of feast or famine, highly dependent on the whims of nature. It is best, for the general welfare of the nation, that the government intervene with a system of price supports, to assure that we have a sufficiently abundant and stable food supply.
Politicians would give subsidies to the american pornography industry if some politician thought it would help them keep their job.
The farm bill might be beneficial in the short run to the agricultural producers, but as this country continues the drunken spending orgy that has been going on the past 20 years, a point will come that the government can no longer afford the obscene farm subsidies, and at that point the farms will have become totally dysfunctional and unable to opperate without government assistance - and when the subsidies are withdrawn at that point, they will be in worse shape then they ever were before.
And in Canada that is exactly what the CWB has done for almost 70 years. The tariff on hard wheat is a tax on American consumers, same as it was for softwood. Special interest groups prevail. Canadian wheat, like softwood , will continue to find new markets. Not as convenient , but new markets none the less.
And in the long run to consumers, who benefit from having a stable and abundant food supply.
Those who would jeopardize the stability of our national food supply with convoluted nonsense about "free markets" should be given a one-way ticket to visit Saddam Hussein.
The best way to relax the burden of taxation is to lower the cost of government. The best way to boost domestic production is to lower the cost of domestic production. Tariffs don't do that, but lowering the cost of government, and sharply reducing regulations will.
Even at minimal levels of government necessary to provide constitutionally necessary services, some revenue source is necessary to provide funding. As proposed by James Madison in the very first revenue bill submitted to Congress, the revenue tariff is the least intrusive mode of taxation available.
Can you please explain what those sound economic princples are? And how come we had to send all that wheat to the Soviet Union, and now we are doing the same for North Korea, two countries I'd presume to have avoided laisezz-faire agriculture production?
America is blessed with abundant natural resource and a favorable climate for agricultural production. Combined with the American Farmer's industrious creativity and use of technology, American Agriculture is more productive than any other system on the face of the planet. However, the problem arises that the American Farmer suffers the curse of being TOO productive under such ideal conditions. Production surpluses lead to depressed market prices below the cost of production. In a laisezz-faire market, this would force some farmers out of production to bring supply capacity into balance with demand. However, when this occurs, and is followed by a season of unfavorable growing conditions (drought, frost, floods, pestilence, crop disease, etc.) insufficient supply is produced to meet demand, resulting in spiking prices and widespread hunger. Pointy-headed market theorists will assert that the elevated prices will draw more farmers back into production. However, this neglects the fact that additional production cannot take place until the next growing season, and in the meantime, people still have to eat. It is a true "feast or famine" cycle.
U.S. Agricultural policy breaks this cycle though a system of price supports and subsidies. These subsidies assure that too many farmers do NOT go out of business due to overproductivity. And the American consumer is assured of an abundant and stable food supply that will always be available.
And how come we had to send all that wheat to the Soviet Union, and now we are doing the same for North Korea, two countries I'd presume to have avoided laisezz-faire agriculture production?
American intervention in the agriculture market merely offers incentives for farmers to remain in business. This is vastly different than the command economies of communist nations where production quotas are dictated regardless of the forces of supply and demand.
Coupled with the same type of idiotic tarrifs on lumber (which has caused massive job losses in Canada) is it any wonder Canada opposes us on Iraq?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.