Playing effective hardball with the U.S.

[shoop]

Fighting the U.S. bully.

Effective retaliation in this case would involve slapping import duties on American goods coming into Canada.

Derek Burney recommends California wine and Florida orange juice. This would be a far shrewder move than imposing export duties on Canadian oil going to the US.

The costs borne by Canadians would be much wider spread out throughout the Canadian population and it would help crete pressure on Congress to free up the funds held in the softwood lumber dispute.

[August1991]

Let's make sure this is clear.

The US government is hitting its own head with a hammer. The Canadian government is about to "retaliate" by hitting its own head with a hammer.

To call it a trade "war" is to abuse the language: "I will stop hitting my head with my hammer when you stop hitting your head with your hammer."

[err]

Let's make sure this is clear.

The US government is hitting its own head with a hammer.  The Canadian government is about to "retaliate" by hitting its own head with a hammer.

To call it a trade "war" is to abuse the language: "I will stop hitting my head with my hammer when you stop hitting your head with your hammer."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you should hit yourself it the head with a hammer.... It might knock some sense into you...... If you got the jist of the article, it would appear that even the guys who negotiated the free trade agreement and US senators all think that Canada should retaliate... Now, maybe you're smarter than all of them, but somehow I don't see it... Would you like a hammer...

[err]

Derek Burney recommends California wine and Florida orange juice. This would be a far shrewder move than imposing export duties on Canadian oil going to the US.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I say, tax the wine... big time... and promote our Ontario wine at the same time... Taxing the price of orange juice just raises the price for all Canadians...

That is, unless you're scared of what "The Governator" of California might do....

Taxing the oil would surely get their attention though...

[Hawk]

The states have such an enormously more powerful economy than we do it would barely phase them, and a trade war with the USA would most certainly hurt Canada more than the States. I think Canada should consider exploring other markets for exportation, I mean heck we got a whole world to check out right.. I am sure there are alot of countries willing to pay a pretty penny for softwood

[shoop]

The states have such an enormously more powerful economy than we do it would barely phase them, and a trade war with the USA would most certainly hurt Canada more than the States.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Totally right. Alas, they did start it and we have to do something to stand up for ourselves.

Slapping duties on goods imported from the U.S. is much smarter than adding tariffs to anything we export.

[err]

Totally right. Alas, they did start it and we have to do something to stand up for ourselves.

I must be overtired, because I'm finding that I'm in agreement with shoop for once...

[shoop]

[ I must be overtired, because I'm finding that I'm in agreement with shoop for once...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude, I'm rational and make fair comments when not repeatedly attacked and put down by childish, unnamed, individuals.

The tone on this boards would improve tremendously if people would actually take the time to read posts instead of just jumping in and trying to put people down.

Take a look at my posting history. There are many posts where I concede people have valid points.

Of course things sink to the schoolyard level when people are bullied, insulted and put down.

[August1991]

Maybe you should hit yourself it the head with a hammer.... It might knock some sense into you...... If you got the jist of the article, it would appear that even the guys who negotiated the free trade agreement and US senators all think that Canada should retaliate... Now, maybe you're smarter than all of them, but somehow I don't see it... Would you like a hammer...

*sigh*

In general, when a country imposes a barrier to trade, it merely hurts itself. Hence, any barrier we would impose in "retaliation" would be hurting ourselves.

If the US government really wants to impose a barrier on our softwood lumber, then I have suggested a solution that would give Canadian producers more than they're getting now, and even more than they would get if there were no barrier at all.

Canadian suppliers should voluntarily agree to export quotas; that is, voluntarily agree to restrict their sales to the US market. The American producers would be happy with this, the Canadian producers would be happy and the only loser would be American consumers - primarily, new home buyers. The issue would entirely disappear from newspapers. (Incidentally, Japanese car producers, no fools, did exactly this in the 1980s for car exports to the US.)

I don't know the Canadian softwood lumber industry well but it seems that the solution is feasible, since Canada has quotas for many agricultural products.

Since this quota solution has not been negotiated, I suspect that some Canadian politicians (ie. the Liberal Party) does not want to solve this issue. By keeping it in the newspapers, they can appear to be defending Canadian interests against the US Goliath.

Adam Smith argued these points over 200 years ago. There's nothing original in what I have written.

[Riverwind]

I don't know the Canadian softwood lumber industry well but it seems that the solution is feasible, since Canada has quotas for many agricultural products.

I have a good friend who works in the softwood industry and I do know quite a bit about it. The fact is it is that only the Quebec industry believes that quotas are the solution - probably because they already need to reduce their annual cut by 20% for conservation reasons so quotas won't hurt the Quebec industry at all. BC, on the other hand, is very close to meeting the 'free log market' criteria set by the Americans so they would only agree to a short term deal that would allow BC to complete its market reforms. In other words, a long term quota deal would only benefit Quebec at the expense of the rest of the country.

Beyond, the issue of softwood, it really does not make any sense for Canadians to ignore this issue. We cannot afford to be part of a trade agreement where the rules only apply to the smaller members. Even if it does cause some grief we must retailiate just to prove a point. If that means Canadians can't buy cheap orange juice and wine this winter then so be it.

Your jibe at the federal liberals on this issue grossly unfair since they are in difficult situation where different regions have different needs. As I said, caving in would hurt BC's interests. I am sure you would be quite indignant if the roles were reversed and the Liberals decided to cave into the US on an issue that hurt Quebec's interests.

[August1991]

BC, on the other hand, is very close to meeting the 'free log market' criteria set by the Americans so they would only agree to a short term deal that would allow BC to complete its market reforms. In other words, a long term quota deal would only benefit Quebec at the expense of the rest of the country.

If you mean the "rest of the country" as in "Canadian buyers of softwood lumber", then you may be right. But a quota system would be to the advantage of BC producers too.

I am suggesting that Canadian producers form a cartel, restrict supply and make the price higher. This is not easy to do but if the government organizes it, then it's usually possible. There are already lumbermen associations in both parts of the country. BC lumber producers would make greater profits and salaries would be higher.

In practical terms, I am suggesting a way for Canadian lumber producers to recuperate legally and officially, at least in the future, the value of American duties (now at $5 billion).

Your jibe at the federal liberals on this issue grossly unfair since they are in difficult situation where different regions have different needs. As I said, caving in would hurt BC's interests. I am sure you would be quite indignant if the roles were reversed and the Liberals decided to cave into the US on an issue that hurt Quebec's interests.

The Liberals have set up a whole series of quota systems in agricultural production. I would be surprised that they wouldn't do it in lumber. This would be very much in the interest of BC.

So, if the Liberals haven't adopted this solution, I suspect they want to keep this issue burning. You must agree - it's a vote-winner for them.

If you are curious about this, I suggest you read this article.

In May 1981, with the American auto industry mired in recession, Japanese car makers agreed to limit exports of passenger cars to the United States. This "voluntary export restraint" (VER) program, initially supported by the Reagan administration, allowed only 1.68 million Japanese cars into the U.S. each year.

...

The higher prices for Japanese cars caused some consumers to defer purchases altogether and others to switch to American autos. In fact, the negative impact on sales of the Japanese automakers completely offset the profit-enhancing effects of higher prices. Hence, Japanese firms were no better off than if unrestrained trade had prevailed.

...

Since the restraints failed to raise Japanese profits, why were the Japanese manufacturers so anxious to agree to them? The authors suggest that the likely alternative to the program was a U.S.-imposed tariff on Japanese cars--which would have cost Japanese makers more than $11 billion over the 1986-90 period.

I have seen other studies that show that this policy was profitable for Japanese car producers. Since they were so willing to agree to the quotas, I suspect they know more about this than these researchers. Because the Liberals did not solve this as the Japanese did, our lumber producers (BC producers included) have foregone $5 billion over the past few years.

[Guest eureka]

"Oh for a muse of Fire" to try to get some into your bellies.

It is imperative that we retaliate and retaliate seriously. That does not mean negotiaiting quotas or taxes on a few imports that will have very little effect.

We can impose taxes on export of oil. That will hurt the Americans but we do not need to do that. We can, and, in my opinion, should, cancel NAFTA. The agreement is now a joke as the Americans ignore every provision that is fair to both countries. The effects of cancellation will not be very harmful to either Canada or the US and we will be on an equal footing with the rest of the world in our dispute resolution mecannisms.

Cancellation of NAFTA will have a far more restraining influence on the cavalier methods of the US. It will also restore Canadian sovereignty over our important resources and financial industry.

[shoop]

Cancellation of NAFTA will have a far more restraining influence on the cavalier methods of the US. It will also restore Canadian sovereignty over our important resources and financial industry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmmm, tens of thousands of Canadians in the manufacturing sector thrown out of work.

Government open to billions of dollars in liability from litigation.

Cancelling NAFTA would be political suicide, thankfully NAFTA will not be abrogated.

[August1991]

Cancellation of NAFTA will have a far more restraining influence on the cavalier methods of the US. It will also restore Canadian sovereignty over our important resources and financial industry.

Cancelling NAFTA would lead to more barriers to trade between Canada and the USA - and that's what Canadian softwood lumber producers are angry about now, a barrier to trade in the form of a duty.

I don't understand this logic. It is like being upset because a bridge over a river collapsed and then going and destroying another bridge.

If you want Canadians to trade less with Americans and diversify to other markets, then say so and get on with it. If this is your belief, you should applaud the US government for imposing this duty and creating a barrier to trade between the two countries.

You can't have it both ways. Unless what you really mean is that you don't like Americans, whatever they do. You don't like them when they come and want to buy our oil and water, and you don't like them when they refuse to come and buy our lumber.

[Riverwind]

If you mean the "rest of the country" as in "Canadian buyers of softwood lumber", then you may be right.

No I am talking about the lumber producers in provinces other than BC and Quebec.

I have seen other studies that show that this policy was profitable for Japanese car producers. Since they were so willing to agree to the quotas, I suspect they know more about this than these researchers.

The are a number of reasons why a quota system is bad for lumber producers:

1) It was relatively easy to distribute quotas among a small number of Japanese manufacturers situated in Quebec and Ontario. Lumber producers are a much more diverse group and exist all across the country. In the past, quotas have been distributed in a way that satisfies political objectives in Quebec and the Maritimes at the expense of producers in the west. There is no reason to believe that any future quota system would be any more fair to BC producers.

2) Japanese automakers had a product that could not be purchased anywhere else. Lumber producers have no such brand advantage and therefore cannot expect as much of a benefit from the higher prices. Furthemore, higher US prices will bring in competition from places like Russia which would further prevent Canadian producers from making up losses due to quotas with higher prices.

3) BC has a surplus of timber available due to the pine beetle infestation. If this timber is not harvested as soon as possible then it will be lost. A quota system would cause BC to completely lose the economic benefits from this timber.

4) NAFTA and the WTO did not exist in 80s which meant export quotas were the best deal available. Canadian negotiators did not agree to quotas this tiem around because they believed (correctly) that Canada would win all cases at the NAFTA and WTO dispute boards. This means that the entire world rule-based trading system is at stake: Canada must pressure the US to live up to these agreements or establish a precident that completely undermines the WTO. You could argue that Canada should not have called the US bluff on this issue, however, it is too late now - we must follow through or become subject to many more similar trade actions.

[Guest eureka]

Tens of thousands of Canadian Manufacturing jobs were lost because of NAFTA. We should use the opportunity to get them back.

The litigation possibilities exist through the provisions of NAFTA (Chapter 11). We need to get rid of that inorder to take back our freedom of INTERNAL economic action.

Cancelling NAFTA will not significantly increase trade barriers between Canada and the US. NAFTA did very little to remove barriers. It mostly regulated how our economy would be organized and who would control it.

Sparhawk has raised the significant points regarding the WTO. Had there been no NAFTA, the US could not get away with this extortion scheme; nor with previous similar episodes on other commodities. The penalties of the WTO and the world behind it would have been severe.

Yes, August, we should be diversifying our trade and I have said this before. But I do not see this as an opportunity to merely correct that. We should demand our money back and demand that the US abides by the terms of the contract it has signed: a contract that has been entirely to its benefit at the expense of Canada, BTW.

This is an opportunity to do what the world should be doing with the Bush administration on many issues that are far more important in the Global scheme of things. The world should be demanding that the US abide by international agreements and that it should be forced to consider the harm it does to the rest of the world in its international actions.

That is, it should be made to reaffirm and abide by its committment to the Landmine Treaty; to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. It should be compelled to join in the International Court and to agree to Kyoto. It should be forced to stop undermining the United Nations.

But that is for the World. We should do our part by demanding the adherence to our Contracts.

We would not find ourselves alone: we are most certainly not powerless in our commercial relations.

[August1991]

For what it's worth, this is the US perspective:

The North American Free Trade Agreement committee had rejected a U.S. appeal of a ruling that said Washington had failed to justify imposing duties on imports of Canadian softwood, used in building and remodeling homes.

The United States, which has maintained Canada unfairly subsidizes softwood exports, said the decision referred only to a 2002 claim but had no bearing on a newer claim it made in November 2004.

--

Barry Cullen, executive director of the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, a U.S. industry lobby group that sought the duties on Canadian lumber in 2001, said he did not think Ottawa had closed the door to rescheduling negotiations.

He added that the disruption could be due, at least in part, to internal disagreements among Canadians on how talks should proceed. "I'm kind of reading it as if they've probably had some problems up there too," Cullen said.

Washington Post - Reuters

Canada contends that ruling removed the last justification for punishing U.S. tariffs on Canadian lumber. The U.S. government argued the panel's unanimous ruling was moot because of a U.S. decision last fall to comply with an earlier World Trade Organization ruling on threat of injury - a position the Canadians consider a legal fig leaf for U.S. noncompliance.

-

U.S. Customs has collected C$5 billion ($4.1 billion) in duties since May 2002, when American trade officials concluded Canadian softwood imports were subsidized.

Forbes AP

----

I note too in Ibbitson's article at the start of this thread:

The Bush administration has urged the Canadian government to return to the table in search of a negotiated settlement. Such a settlement would probably involve Canada accepting some sort of quota on its softwood exports, with tariffs on all sales above that quota, in exchange for which the Americans might give back some (though probably not all) of the illegally collected tariffs. For now, however, Canada refuses to negotiate: International Trade Minister Jim Peterson has cancelled talks scheduled for next week.

G & M - Ibbitson

This is a classic case of an international trade dispute. The irony is that the whole basis of the dispute, supposed subsidies to Canadian lumber producers, is completely irrelevant.

[err]

It is imperative that we retaliate and retaliate seriously. That does not mean negotiaiting quotas or taxes on a few imports that will have very little effect.

We can impose taxes on export of oil. That will hurt the Americans but we do not need to do that. We can, and, in my opinion, should, cancel NAFTA. The agreement is now a joke as the Americans ignore every provision that is fair to both countries. The effects of cancellation will not be very harmful to either Canada or the US and we will be on an equal footing with the rest of the world in our dispute resolution mecannisms.

Cancellation of NAFTA will have a far more restraining influence on the cavalier methods of the US. It will also restore Canadian sovereignty over our important resources and financial industry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I should buy you a beer mate... I agree with you 100%.

Recommended reading to help turn you off NAFTA: Linda McQuaig's "All You Can Eat: Greed, Lust, and the New Capitalism"

[August1991]

Sparhawk, I don't want to get sidetracked so I'll respond briefly:

No I am talking about the lumber producers in provinces other than BC and Quebec.

Presumably all Canadian producers would be subject to export quotas. I suspect they would readily agree once they saw the deal.

1) It was relatively easy to distribute quotas among a small number of Japanese manufacturers situated in Quebec and Ontario.

The 1980s quotas applied to the large manufacturers in Japan, not their plants in Canada. A non-issue.

2) Japanese automakers had a product that could not be purchased anywhere else.

Cars are made in Europe. As to lumber, Russia is not really a competitor for Canadian siftwood lumber. A non-issue too.

3) BC has a surplus of timber available due to the pine beetle infestation.

These lumber guys always have an excuse. Pine beetles? Gimme a break.

4) NAFTA and the WTO did not exist in 80s which meant export quotas were the best deal available. Canadian negotiators did not agree to quotas this tiem around because they believed (correctly) that Canada would win all cases at the NAFTA and WTO dispute boards.

GATT existed. To my knowledge, the WTO does not forbid voluntary export restaints (VERs or quotas). I think you make Canada look too innocent in that argument.

But Sparhawk, my quota idea was suggested partly tongue-in-cheek. The best for all is free trade and the biggest gainer would be ordinary Americans who just want to buy a new house, or do a reno.

----

Tens of thousands of Canadian Manufacturing jobs were lost because of NAFTA. We should use the opportunity to get them back.

Tens of thousands of Canadian manufacturing jobs were lost with the arrival of computers and the demise of the typewriter. For all intents, NAFTA and computers are the same thing. Do you want to bring back typewriters?

Cancelling NAFTA will not significantly increase trade barriers between Canada and the US. NAFTA did very little to remove barriers. It mostly regulated how our economy would be organized and who would control it.

What other reason would the Canadian government cancel NAFTA than to restrict sales between Canadians and Americans. Let's be clear here. The purpose would be to tell a Canadian that he or she can not deal with an American. IOW, create a barrier.

Yes, August, we should be diversifying our trade and I have said this before.

IOW, you think the government should force Canadians to diversify - it should force them to trade with non-Americans. I think individual Canadians are best placed to decide how to diversify their dealings in life.

This is an opportunity to do what the world should be doing with the Bush administration on many issues that are far more important in the Global scheme of things. The world should be demanding that the US abide by international agreements and that it should be forced to consider the harm it does to the rest of the world in its international actions.

That is, it should be made to reaffirm and abide by its committment to the Landmine Treaty; to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. It should be compelled to join in the International Court and to agree to Kyoto. It should be forced to stop undermining the United Nations.

eureka, you don't like Americans fine. No truck nor trade with the Yanquis. I get it. So you should be happy that the US government is making it difficult for Canadians to deal with Americans.

You wish ill of America? This current US government softwood duty is hurting the US economy.

eureka, you should wholeheartedly support the Bush Administration's softwood lumber policy and want it extended to other sectors. That is precisely what would happen if we abrogated NAFTA.

eureka, you can't have it both ways: You can't criticize free trade and also criticize a barrier to trade.

----

Recommended reading to help turn you off NAFTA: Linda McQuaig's... 

Recommended to help you turn off your brain and soothe you with platitudes...

[August1991]

The voice of reason? I think rather the Liberals are playing this controversy for the hometown crowd.

It could be well into 2007 before the federal government applies retaliatory tariffs in the softwood lumber dispute, Trade Minister Jim Peterson said Tuesday.

Despite heightened rhetoric earlier in the day by high-ranking cabinet officials, Mr. Peterson said Canada would wait until after it received WTO approval and performed extensive consultation with Canadians before retaliatory tariffs would be considered in the softwood lumber dispute.

--

Ottawa is intent on making its point that U.S. Customs has illegally collected $5-billion in tariffs on Canadian softwood since 2002, said Mr. Goodale.

“We want to make sure that whatever option we pursue is effective in making our point ... without at the same time shooting ourselves in the foot,” he said.

If the US lumber guys ever get their paws on that dough, the US government will never see the end of the requests.

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal last week took on the issue, arguing that the U.S.'s failure to drop the tariffs was negatively impacting construction costs.

“The trade panel's pro-consumer ruling allows the Administration a graceful exit from one of its more bone-headed economic policy decisions: the imposition of the lumber tariffs in 2002,” the editorial stated. “Its cave-in to the domestic timber industry — combined with the imposition of steel tariffs at about the same time — damaged U.S. trade credibility around the world.”

The editorial went on to say that, “if there were ever a time for Canada to raise its voice forcefully, it is now.”

So true. The Canadian government in effect is doing the job US politicians should be doing: protecting US consumers.

G & M

[Toro]

Recommended reading to help turn you off NAFTA: Linda McQuaig's... 

Recommended to help you turn off your brain and soothe you with platitudes...

Yes August. Throw in "It's the Crude, Dude" to that list as well.

[shoop]

Linda McQuaig presents some support for her political views. But she is blatantly pushing an agenda, and will readily admit so.

Citing her as a source is as valid as pointing to the work of Naomi Klein.

Either you buy what they are selling or you don't. Not attempt at objective analysis on the part of either.

[err]

Tens of thousands of Canadian Manufacturing jobs were lost because of NAFTA. We should use the opportunity to get them back.

Tens of thousands of Canadian manufacturing jobs were lost with the arrival of computers and the demise of the typewriter. For all intents, NAFTA and computers are the same thing. Do you want to bring back typewriters?

And what Canadian company manufactured all these typewriters ???

Cancelling NAFTA will not significantly increase trade barriers between Canada and the US. NAFTA did very little to remove barriers. It mostly regulated how our economy would be organized and who would control it.

What other reason would the Canadian government cancel NAFTA than to restrict sales between Canadians and Americans. Let's be clear here. The purpose would be to tell a Canadian that he or she can not deal with an American. IOW, create a barrier.

Good fences make good neighbours. Letting NAFTA have control of Canadian internal affairs is not a good thing.

With NAFTA gone, we could make sure that laws designed to protect the health and safety of Canadians could not be superceded by clauses in the NAFTA agreement. (Ie. the chemicals we are forced to accept in our gasoline, banned in California, but we cannot ban them here because of NAFTA). The list of negatives is huge... but you have to be willing to look at both sides to see the negatives...

Yes, August, we should be diversifying our trade and I have said this before.

IOW, you think the government should force Canadians to diversify - it should force them to trade with non-Americans. I think individual Canadians are best placed to decide how to diversify their dealings in life.

And you think that we should have only one customer???

The world should be demanding that the US abide by international agreements and that it should be forced to consider the harm it does to the rest of the world in its international actions.

eureka, you don't like Americans fine. No truck nor trade with the Yanquis. I get it. So you should be happy that the US government is making it difficult for Canadians to deal with Americans.

When you always say "lets be clear" and then distort the opposing position, you lose a lot of credibility... I think that eureka has stated a position against the Bush administration... Yet you try to distort his position and state that he "doesn't like Americans".... it's a childish strategy...

You wish ill of America?  This current US government softwood duty is hurting the US economy.

eureka, you should wholeheartedly support the Bush Administration's softwood lumber policy and want it extended to other sectors.  That is precisely what would happen if we abrogated NAFTA.

I think that eureka has expressed a strong distaste for the Bush administrations's policies of unfair, uneven trade practices, breaking their deals, etc.... I cannot help but agree that this would be a good opportunity to tell them where to stick their NAFTA agreement....

NAFTA is an agreement that nearly exclusively benefits the USA... They want unrestricted access to our resources... We have something that they want...badly... and we will therefore have a solid bargaining position... which NAFTA has stripped from us...

eureka, you can't have it both ways: You can't criticize free trade and also criticize a barrier to trade.

Sometimes you should stop blabbing and read what he wrote... You criticize his position, but you really don't know what it is.... It's not that eureka's against there being barriers to trade... It has more to do with their hypocritical position, where they force Canada to adhere to the terms of the bad deal, but they do whatever the $%^& they feel like.... And don't respect the terms of the agreement when they don't feel like it...

----

[mirror]

PM to play rough on trade

But he said Canada will not be in a position to slap retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products until Ottawa is given the go-ahead by the World Trade Organization, a ruling not expected until next year. So it is too soon to speculate about a list of targeted American-made goods.

Martin is going to get tough with the US in retaliation for the softwood lumber duties. Unfortunately he has to wait until at least next year before Canada can do anything. Yup, that's real tough, I can see the Americans trembling in their boots.

[mcqueen625]

Is anyone really naive enough to believe that both the FTA, and NAFTA were really about trade? This whole deal is all about multinational corporate interests being able to export raw material to third world countries and shipping back the finished products duty-free into North America. This is all about corporate profits, and has really nothing to do with bing of benefit to you and I as individuals.

Free trade agreements have not brought down the prices on maunfactured goods that have been produced in some impoverished country in sweat-shops, by people, including children in slave-like conditions. This whole thing is about allowing corporations to maximize profits for shareholders. Prices for such things as Nike, Addidas, etc., has not come down, even though the manufacturing is being done for a fraction of previous costs, but instead the costs continue to escalate. This is all about corporate greed, and nothing more.

If people truly want to keep manufacturing jobs here in North America, we need only do one thing, stop purchasing goods made by manufacturers who have closed their North American factories, and moved off-shore. If we all did that these manufactures would have two choices, reinstate manufacturing plants in North America or go bankrupt. The only reason they continue to get away with this is because we let them. So wake up and start supporting our own manufacturing companies instead of lining the pocket's of corporate CEO's, other executives, their owners and shareholders.