Tell A Friend   Advertising Information  Contact Us  

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   DR1 Dominican Republic Forums > Business > Business Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 03-21-2002, 11:25 PM
Gold
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,861
bob saunders Level 2 (60)
Default free trade with the Americans

Are you sure the DR SHOULD GO FOR A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE AMERICANS. This is how the US Government treat their free trade parteners. The DR would be better off bargaining the the Europeans, other than isolationists like the states.


Another Bush Tax Hike
_____What's Your Opinion?_____

• Share Your Views About Editorials and Opinion Pieces on Our Message Boards
• About Message Boards





E-Mail This Article

Printer-Friendly Version

Subscribe to The Post





Thursday, March 21, 2002; Page A34


TWO WEEKS ago the Bush administration slapped tariffs on imported steel, a decision that raises costs to American consumers and amounts to a tax increase. Today the administration may do something considerably more original: It may force Canada's government to tax American consumers. Given its claims to hate taxes, the administration is putting on an impressive show of flexibility.

In negotiations that might end today, the Bush team is reportedly telling Canada to impose a 37 percent tax on lumber exports to the United States. Since a third of the lumber used in this country comes from Canada, that kind of tax would push up home prices considerably. The home-builders' association claims the export tax would add $1,000 to the price of the average home, which would mean in turn that 300,000 families that would otherwise qualify for mortgages would now not do so. Of course, more expensive homes also mean that fewer new ones will be built and jobs will be lost. The home-building industry employs 30 times more people than the domestic lumber industry that is lobbying for the export-tax protection.

The administration says that the tax increase will be in place only until Canada does away with alleged subsidies to its lumber industry. How should it eliminate those supposed subsidies? The administration is proposing a remedy so complicated that you'll wish you hadn't asked that question. Quebec is expected to bring its forest management practices in line with those used in Maine, Vermont and other Northeastern states; Ontario is supposed to come into line with a basket of Northwestern states; British Columbia is supposed to set its prices by holding auctions. Aligning management practices involves comparing road systems and environmental rules and other complex factors. The export taxes could be around for ages.

The administration could perfectly well drop its negotiations with Canada, and allow the supposed subsidies to be addressed in unfair-trade suits filed by American lumber producers. But the administration apparently fears that Canada would appeal those suits successfully at the World Trade Organization. Doesn't that suggest that Canada's supposed subsidies may be debatable? Is a tax on home ownership the best response to a problem whose existence is disputed?


© 2002 The Washington Post Company
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-23-2002, 01:54 AM
DR1 Expert
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 85
frederic Level 1 (10)
Exclamation free trade, etc.

The Dominican exports to Europe account for less than 8 % of the Dominican exports; while Dominican exports to the US Market account for almost 80%. Most of these exports.

Most of the DR exports to the US enter duty free under the Caribbean Basin Iniciative program, a non-negotiable unilateral act of congress; while a Central American Free Trade Agreement with the US, would be a negotiated international treaty that responds to the interests of both parts
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-23-2002, 10:24 PM
Bronze
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 39
Alain Level 1 (10)
Default Canada-USA free trade feuds

Problem with doing business with the USA is the following: If you do business with them you gotta do it THEIR way. Their economy is too strong. Actually the USA holds 50% of the entire world's economy.

Yes, DR can work out a free trade deal with the USA, but they'll have to do it according to the rules of the US. They'll never be in a position of dictating anything.

As for Canada, well we're used to it. Last I heard, I think the US administration had agreed on a 29% tax (what a bargain!).... We'll appeal and we'll win, as we always have in the past every time the US argued about something in the Free Trade Agreement !! But in the meantime, many Canadian jobs are lost...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-24-2002, 12:41 AM
Gold
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,861
bob saunders Level 2 (60)
Default free trade with conditions set up by one country

Here is just a small sample of the way American Forest Service and the American goverment subsidize thier logging companies, then they turn around and accuse Canada of doing the same. Logging Companies in Canada pay for all their own roads, reforestation, engineering costs. Right now there are more than 200 agricultural products in the states that are protected by tariffs. The only way Dominicans are going to get any kind of free (ha) trade with the Americans is if the Companies in the DR are all owned and controlled by Americans.
Environment



U.S. Timber Program Posts Record Losses

By Cat Lazaroff

WASHINGTON, DC, June 12, 2001 (ENS) * Waste in the federal timber sale program is at an all time high, even as logging levels have hit a record low, according to a new report by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a national budget watchdog group. The report found that the federal timber program cost taxpayers $407 million dollars more than it received for its timber sales in 1998.


Conservation groups say logging roads, like this one on the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia, break up wildlife habitat and can lead to erosion and other problems (Two photos by Steve Holmer, courtesy American Lands)
Using the most recent government data and agency figures obtained though Freedom of Information requests, the report found that the U.S. Forest Service is significantly underestimating the timber program's financial losses.
"This agency has become the perennial financial black hole here in Washington," said Jonathan Oppenheimer, director of the Forest Campaign at Taxpayers for Common Sense. "The less they do, the more they waste. This financial abuse is starting to spiral out of control."

Key findings of the report include:


105 of the 111 national forests failed to return as much money as they spent managing the timber program

Earlier this year, the Forest Service underreported its financial losses by more than two thirds

$779 taxpayer dollars were wasted on every acre logged and $7,730 was lost on every job created

The national forest that does the most restoration and cuts the fewest old growth trees made the most money in 1998: the Siuslaw National Forest in Oregon, which made $11.5 million

The forest that proposed the most old growth logging lost the most money: Oregon's Willamette National Forest, which lost almost $30 million
"Accountants at the Forest Service ignore large expenses included in typical accounting procedures," continued Oppenheimer. He cited road construction and maintenance costs as expenses that the Forest Service attempts to downplay in their accounting practices.


Roads and logging can fragment forests, like this area of the Willamette National Forest in Oregon
The timber program lost $407 million in 1998, making it the worst financial year ever for the program. The new figures represent a 23 percent jump from the program's $330 million average loss from 1992-1997, which the General Accounting Office had previously reported.
The Forest Service's timber sale program loses money because revenue from timber sales does not cover the costs of timber sale preparation, administration, road building and other overhead costs. The Forest Service also siphons millions of dollars each year into timber trust funds, which do not receive adequate oversight by Congress or American taxpayers, charges Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The biggest money losing forests were in the western states, including Alaska, Idaho, California, Montana and Washington. Oregon topped the list, losing more than $100 million in 1998.

The states with the worst performing national forests are also the states with congressional delegations that are the most supportive of the timber industry, Oppenheimer charged.


Many logging roads must be maintained at taxpayer expense to avoid stream clogging washouts like this one in the Starrigavan watershed of Alaska's Tongass National Forest (Photo courtesy Tongass National Forest)
"The Forest Service wastes hundreds of millions of dollars each year, and Congress doesn't seem to care," said Oppenheimer. "They drink martinis on K Street with timber industry lobbyists, instead of trying to eliminate this outrageous waste of taxpayer money."
While this is not the first report to highlight the costs - both financial and environmental - of federal timber subsidies, it is the first under the new White House administration. The Bush administration and new Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth are expected to be far more favorable to timber interests than were former President George W. Bush and Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck.

Just last week, in a blow to supporters of roadless forest protection, Chief Bosworth gave himself sole authority over all decisions about timber harvest and road construction in roadless areas of national forests. And President George W. Bush's first federal budget would increase the timber sale program by more than $11 million.


Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth will have the authority to authorize logging in roadless areas of national forests (Photo courtesy U.S. Forest Service)
In contrast, according to the Congressional Budget Office, if money losing timber sales were eliminated from the Northern, Rocky Mountain, Southwestern, Intermountain and Alaska regions of the Forest Service, taxpayers would save about $1.6 billion over the next 10 years.
Taxpayers for Common Sense also proposes that Congress do the following:


Expedite the release of financial records for the National Forests: The latest numbers were released almost three years after the close of fiscal year 1998.
Eliminate timber slush funds: The absence of congressional or public oversight for these funds leads to abuse. These funds are often used to pay for overhead costs.
Eliminate commercial timber subsidies and reform the budget structure: A disproportionate share of the Forest Service's budget flows through the timber sale program, even though the program has declined in size.
"Congressional inaction sets a terrible precedent that the more you rip off the taxpayer, the bigger your budget will be," concluded Oppenheimer.

More information is available at: http://www.taxpayer.net/forest











Enter your email to receive the Environment News Service daily.
















G
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-24-2002, 07:46 PM
*** Sin Bin ***
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,455
Escott Level 1 (11)
Default Re: Canada-USA free trade feuds

Quote:
Originally posted by Alain
Problem with doing business with the USA is the following: If you do business with them you gotta do it THEIR way. Their economy is too strong. Actually the USA holds 50% of the entire world's economy.

Yes, DR can work out a free trade deal with the USA, but they'll have to do it according to the rules of the US. They'll never be in a position of dictating anything.

As for Canada, well we're used to it. Last I heard, I think the US administration had agreed on a 29% tax (what a bargain!).... We'll appeal and we'll win, as we always have in the past every time the US argued about something in the Free Trade Agreement !! But in the meantime, many Canadian jobs are lost...
Wow, I guess being top banana has its rewards...

Funny YOU would think it wouldn't.

Guess you need to face some sort of reality regarding negotiating from strength. Is this just another thread of bashing the US? If it is, how boring.

Regards
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-24-2002, 09:27 PM
Gold
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,861
bob saunders Level 2 (60)
Default bashing Americans

Actually most of the bashing in these articles was done by fellow Americans. American bashing isn't without merit. If your going to be a bully at least admit being a bully. It's the: we're doing this to help you, that is bothersome. A lot of countries, like mine( Canada) need to be more transparent with their subsidies, but our subsidies are miniture in comparison to the USA.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-25-2002, 12:27 PM
*** Sin Bin ***
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,455
Escott Level 1 (11)
Default Re: bashing Americans

Quote:
Originally posted by bob saunders
Actually most of the bashing in these articles was done by fellow Americans. American bashing isn't without merit. If your going to be a bully at least admit being a bully. It's the: we're doing this to help you, that is bothersome. A lot of countries, like mine( Canada) need to be more transparent with their subsidies, but our subsidies are miniture in comparison to the USA.
I think you need to admit you are just bashing instead of dressing it up as something else. May as well be upfront about it.

It is too bad that you are bothered and that is unfortunate. You need to know that in negotiations the person that has the most to offer sets the tone of the negotiations and therefore usually gets what they want. All Canada needs to do is to have more to offer in negotiations and then THEY can negotiate from the position of POWER instead of weakness.

When I buy real estate and I know that person is desparate to sell I usually get it at a more favorable price and terms. Reality of life I am affraid. I am looking to make my day and not theirs.

It is unfortunate that many of the Canadians on this board continually find the need to BASH the US.

Regards

Regards
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-25-2002, 09:46 PM
Bronze
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 39
Alain Level 1 (10)
Default Me, bashing the US?

Jazzcom,

Where did you see me bashing the US? I never bashed anyone, I just said the truth. Does it hurt?

Sure the US is the bigger power of the 2, but the FTA is NOT a unilateral agreement, but rather a bilateral one. That's the REALITY of the FTA.

Sometimes we in Canada get the feeling the US administration thinks it is unilateral and that they have the right to do whatever they want with it. Maybe it's not so, but that's what it looks like anyway.

Or else, why is it that almost everytime the US complains about something in the FTA the rulings go in favor of Canada? Who's trying to bully who? I'm not saying the US should not try to work out deals that are in its best interest, but if you sign a trade agreement, respect it. I don't think anyone forced the US into signing the FTA with Canada.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-26-2002, 04:19 PM
*** Sin Bin ***
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,455
Escott Level 1 (11)
Default Re: Me, bashing the US?

Quote:
Originally posted by Alain
Jazzcom,

Where did you see me bashing the US? I never bashed anyone, I just said the truth. Does it hurt?

Or else, why is it that almost everytime the US complains about something in the FTA the rulings go in favor of Canada? Who's trying to bully who? I'm not saying the US should not try to work out deals that are in its best interest, but if you sign a trade agreement, respect it. I don't think anyone forced the US into signing the FTA with Canada.
I don't take anything said on a message board personally. Why would I? What do you think could possibly hurt me about the truth? I just think that you aren't clear on some of the issues.

If the Canadians won every battle about the trade agreement why would you be whining and sniveling here and complaining about the big bad wolf?

Maybe you aren't winning every battle and that there may just be something in the US complaints?

I could care less personally, because I have nothing invested either way. Most of what I have left is in Real Estate and I am liquidating that daily. RE is up in the sky these days and hasn't suffered since 9-11 in my area which is 65 miles North of NYC because of the flight from NY after.

The original thread about whether to seek out free trade agreements with the US and look toward Europe instead is a ticket to HELL for the DR in my opinion. I plan on turning into a Dominican within the next couple of years. I will get my residency next month. I will live in the DR full time. Since I don't plan on "having to work" it won't actually affect me other than the way it affects the country in general. I would like to see it prosper. Prosperity is not "NOT TRADING WITH THE US" in my opinion but failure. Canada is not enough of an alternative. I think the economy of Canada is probably as depressed as it is in the DR.

Regards
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-26-2002, 08:35 PM
Gold
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,861
bob saunders Level 2 (60)
Default Canada's Economy

Obviously, like the majority of Americans( yes, many do know lots about Canada) you either haven't been to Canada or know nothing about the Canadian Economy. Canada has the world's 8th largest economy and considering we only have 30 million people, I would suggest that's a pretty good standard of living.
My original posting was not about winning or losing, it was about playing by the rules you agreed upon when you made an agreement. Basically if you are going to talk the talk, walk the walk. The Shrub is trying to talk Latin American into doing free trade, but who is interested in one way free trade.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

The contents of this webpage are copyright © 1996-2008.  DR1. All Rights Reserved.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO