4 ms·

In August (2024) the US increased the softwood tariff coming from Canada from 8% to 15% so I'd say US wood corp buyers are desperate for cheaper wood. It's a b

In August (2024) the US increased the softwood tariff coming from Canada from 8% to 15% so I'd say US wood corp buyers are desperate for cheaper wood. It's a big place here in Canada and the crown (aka the gov) owns all the land not owned by private owners, First Nations peoples, corporations do not. The US government hates that so they set a tariff. Funny there are no US tariffs on Canadian oil drilled for on crown land though. Even Trump said no to that. lol

dessimus 2y ago
We'd much rather give away our tax dollars to the military-industrial complex to go get the oil than risk consumers having to pay more at the pump on tariffs.
- kspacewalk2 2y ago
  >give away our tax dollars to the military-industrial complex to go get the oil Two problems with that line of thinking: 1) US is a net exporter of oil, so why engage in dastardly invasions to get it from elsewhere? 2) Talk of military industrial complex is often backed u by how much the US spends on defence. However, absolute dollar amounts are a really dumb way to compare defence budgets. They ignore country sizes, GDP sizes and purchasing power. Now, if you compare defence spending per person as a percentage of GDP, accounting for purchasing power parity, you get a much less flawed way to compare between countries. In other words, it's not enough to compare $100 of spending between US and Russia, for example, without accounting for the difference between what $100 buys in the US vs Russia, and how much of a person's annual output that $100 amounts to. US cracks the top 10 on that metric BTW, but just about.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    If you want to go into that level of detail to compare relative military spending, there are going to be other factors to consider. Its a huge rabit hole trying to normalize data between countries with entirely different currencies, economics, political structures, etc. For example, the US has the benefit of printing money in ways that other countries don't. I'm not even sure how you'd adjust military spending to account for the benefit of printing fiat as the world reserve currency, its more like you're playing a game that no other country is allowed to play.
- mlindner 2y ago
  This type of argument is frankly outdated. The US is net exporters of crude. We only import because of structural issues (for example for California it's cheaper to ship in oil as they refused to allow a pipeline to be built, or for example shipping in heavier crude that's cheaper and easier to make margin on in more advanced US refining plants).

dessimus 2y ago

We'd much rather give away our tax dollars to the military-industrial complex to go get the oil than risk consumers having to pay more at the pump on tariffs.

kspacewalk2 2y ago
>give away our tax dollars to the military-industrial complex to go get the oil Two problems with that line of thinking: 1) US is a net exporter of oil, so why engage in dastardly invasions to get it from elsewhere? 2) Talk of military industrial complex is often backed u by how much the US spends on defence. However, absolute dollar amounts are a really dumb way to compare defence budgets. They ignore country sizes, GDP sizes and purchasing power. Now, if you compare defence spending per person as a percentage of GDP, accounting for purchasing power parity, you get a much less flawed way to compare between countries. In other words, it's not enough to compare $100 of spending between US and Russia, for example, without accounting for the difference between what $100 buys in the US vs Russia, and how much of a person's annual output that $100 amounts to. US cracks the top 10 on that metric BTW, but just about.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  If you want to go into that level of detail to compare relative military spending, there are going to be other factors to consider. Its a huge rabit hole trying to normalize data between countries with entirely different currencies, economics, political structures, etc. For example, the US has the benefit of printing money in ways that other countries don't. I'm not even sure how you'd adjust military spending to account for the benefit of printing fiat as the world reserve currency, its more like you're playing a game that no other country is allowed to play.
mlindner 2y ago
This type of argument is frankly outdated. The US is net exporters of crude. We only import because of structural issues (for example for California it's cheaper to ship in oil as they refused to allow a pipeline to be built, or for example shipping in heavier crude that's cheaper and easier to make margin on in more advanced US refining plants).