[Scott S]

Originally Posted by Venamm

No one rebrands here i'm in the biz. Now I know you are a pro BS artist.

BUY NORTH AMERICAN LUMBER

Here is an examble of re branding as it crosses borders,

# BP (advertising tagline "Beyond Petroleum", initials once officially stood for British Petroleum, but with the merger of AMOCO in 1998, BP is the actual corporate name)

* BP
* Amoco — United States
* Aral — Czech Republic, Germany, Luxembourg
* ARCO — United States
* Burmah — Former gasoline brand used in the UK
* Standard Oil — United States
* Sohio — Former gasoline brand, now used as marine fuel brand in Ohio

More propaganda for you...

Coalition For Fair Lumber Imports

Canada's unfair lumber subsidies have for decades harmed the U.S. lumber industry, threatening its workers with mounting unemployment, and denying many tree farmers a market for their timber crops. The impact of these subsidies is apparent everywhere. To learn more about Canada's lumber subsidies, and how to restore fair and free lumber trade between the two countries, see the other pages of this website. You'll see why even many Canadians agree that Canada isn't playing fair in softwood lumber.

On October 12, 2006, the second U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) came into effect and terminated more than 20 different legal disputes surrounding Canada’s softwood lumber subsidies and below cost of production sales in the U.S. market. The U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, an alliance of large and small lumber producers from around the country, supports the SLA.

The agreement encourages Canadian provinces to abandon their long-standing practices of subsidizing Canadian lumber production. These unfair trade practices have caused hundreds of U.S. lumber mill closures, thousands of U.S. job losses, and have suppressed the market for thousands of private timberland owners. The Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports hopes that the SLA will provide the mechanism by which to find a permanent solution to this unfortunate dispute between two great trading partners.

And..

One effect of Canada's lumber subsidies on U.S. business.

Canadian provincial governments maintain timber-sale programs designed to sustain artificially high employment and production levels in their lumber industry. The provinces have been providing an estimated $3 to $3.5 billion U.S. dollars in annual subsidies to the Canadian lumber industry by under-pricing government timber (a Canadian taxpayer resource worth billions of dollars that virtually is being given away to a single industry), and have maintained policies which effectively prevent Canadian lumber companies from adjusting their production levels based on actual demand.

The subsidies programs are possible because the Canadian provinces own the vast bulk of merchantable timber in Canada. Managing these forests allows the provinces to set prices for public timber far below market value, thus lowering production costs for Canadian lumber companies. The government-set price of Canadian timber is only a fraction of the market-determined price of identical timber in U.S. border regions.

In addition to providing subsidies, Canadian provinces have instituted policies designed to maximize jobs and production in the Canadian industry – including minimum harvest requirements, domestic processing mandates, and log export restrictions – resulting in artificially high timber harvesting and lumber production even when the market is oversupplied.

Canadian companies unload their excess production into the U.S. market at a cost of thousands of good-paying American jobs. Through subsidies and policies that induce uneconomical manufacturing, the provinces export production cutbacks, mill closures and job losses to the United States. When demand falls and lumber prices decline, U.S. companies cut back on operations at a higher proportional rate than Canadian companies, because the provinces keep them at full production through low timber costs. The market share of unfairly traded Canadian imports has increased steadily for three decades, checked only when trade restraints offset the subsidies and dumping.

U.S. workers, industry, and landowners should not be forced to pay the enormous costs of this Canadian social policy. In short, Canada’s social programs must stop at the border.

I am in the biz and live it every day, no BS here.

Ron in a way this is about fences and borders, some boundaries are physical and some are treaties. Both are useless if they are crawled over or ignored.