We have done so much here in the United States to make sure trees, which are cut down or areas of our forest, which are thinned out are done so responsibly. Our Timber industries are regulated, even over regulated as they are made to replant trees, re-grow forests and adhere to so many rules and the Canadians have not appeared to even be close to the same page.

Indeed Canada does have more trees, but they do not have significantly faster growth, only slightly. If they do not have the same environmental rules and regulations and they sell their timber cheaper then out companies cannot compete. Meanwhile the Canadians wreak there environment. Now then from a home building standpoint cheaper lumber helps homebuyers and construction costs which is good. I find that the prices of increased lumber might cost first time homebuyers from qualifying if the prices of Canadian lumber were equal to US lumber. So there is definitely some room for argument here.

As many as a million homebuyers in the last housing boom just ended each year may not have been able to buy homes had we not had cheaper timber, as cited in the Professional Building Magazine in Sept. 2001. Now then it might have been even higher in the peak of the housing boom in 2004 and 2005. Some had said in 2003 it was only 200,000 who would have been unable to afford homes, but I disagree and see the number at about 200,000. Yet why should young couples with only five percent down be buying a home anyway? That is not fiscally responsible. And now as the housing boom is ended, we see the results with so many foreclosures.

Towards the end of the housing bubble, many of these buyers were upside down in these homes almost as before the ink was dry. They will not be able to sell due to the supply, so used home sales are not as good or have as good of chance of re-financing. It seems so often little issues affect bigger issues and that every thing is inter related and when you allow one misstep in one sector, it will affect another and thus we often see in hindsight the law of unintended consequences and that today is my main point. Consider all this in 2006.