Well, use American lumber then.
-
-
-
Seems like a simple fix.
-
The US should conserve what forests we have left. Give them a chance to grow back. Canada has an abundance. Trees help get rid of Co2
-
I agree whatever happens should be sustainable. I think the answer lies in the middle. More comp from
wood may lower costs from 
-
By the way, it's nice to have a discussion without name calling. Thanks for being mature! Sometimes these discussions devolve quickly.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That is thanks for stupid Trump! Hahaha!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wouldn't it have made more sense to invest in soft wood farms first, then add tariffs as needed? Wouldn't that have created farming jobs?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Great for the US lumber industry!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Must U.S. homes use foreign lumber?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Please do these things swiftly & accurately if they must be done, but with no motive of protectionism. It's global economy & US doing well.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is a new tax for american families thanks donald duck
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So Canada is paying for the wall? :)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I get this, but don't at the same time argue against a corporate income tax cut as the the effect is the same to the consumer.
-
Corporate income tax is a tariff on domestic production, whereas the lumber tariff is a tax on foreign production. Not the same animal IMHO.
-
Both of them are wealth transfers from the citizens to government through an intermediary
-
The current system discourages consumption of domestic production while encouraging consumption of imports. That's a perverse distortion IMO
-
The same can be said for water subsidies. It discourages production in the water surplus east, while supporting it in the water short west.
-
But that subsidy actually makes sense. The current corporate tax system is more like if they subsidized water in the east but not the west.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is a flawed premise as labour is usually the most expensive portion of a home's cost.
-
Any of price increase of inputs will raise the cost of the entire system. Builders will not absorb that cost -- consumers will eat it.
-
The point is you can't blame the cost of a product solely on the cost of input. The mark-up & labour can be controlled for affordability.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.