Lumber For Liquor
Why It Matters
The proposal illustrates how ill‑conceived trade swaps can worsen deficits and distract from policies that genuinely revive domestic manufacturing and demand.
Key Takeaways
- •Proposed lumber‑for‑liquor trade would worsen U.S. trade deficit
- •U.S. lumber demand is currently low, making cheap imports unnecessary
- •Canadian lumber subsidies prompted existing U.S. tariffs to protect mills
- •Liquor market size is tiny compared to the $5 billion lumber sector
- •Forward‑guidance rhetoric masks impractical trade proposal with limited benefits
Summary
The video critiques a tongue‑in‑cheek proposal to lift Canadian lumber tariffs in exchange for allowing U.S. liquor exports into Canada. The commentator argues the idea is economically nonsensical and serves more as political posturing than a viable trade solution.
Key points include the current slump in U.S. lumber demand, which renders cheap Canadian imports unnecessary, and the existing tariffs that were designed to shield American mills from subsidized Canadian lumber. The speaker highlights a stark size mismatch: the lumber market is roughly $5 billion, while potential liquor exports to Canada amount to only a few hundred million dollars, making the trade balance unfavorable for the United States.
References to Finance Minister Bill Carney’s forward‑guidance strategy illustrate how the proposal is framed as a credible threat, yet the numbers don’t add up. The commentator notes that Canadian lumber is heavily subsidized, and allowing it in at lower prices would further depress U.S. mill activity rather than revive it.
Ultimately, the suggestion would likely expand the U.S. trade deficit without boosting domestic production. The real policy need is to stimulate internal demand for lumber, not to barter cheap imports for marginal liquor sales, underscoring the limited practical value of such trade gimmicks.
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...