Let me try to be even more calm than beforeOriginally posted by [EMOBA]
[Bi'm sorry i don't see it. If you can calmly explain you point to me , i would listen.[/B]
First and foremost. Don't assume that simply because I don't share the point of view I'm anti-american. I'm as anti-american as any new yorker can be. Lived there for 12 years. Although as any good american knows, new yorkers are aliens or communist or work for the firm, or all of the above
As for my point-of-view, it is obvious that lack of canadian timber would not destroy US economy. I used it to constitute the fact that economics revolve around trade and without trade there's no economics, no matter what the country produces. But it's also a possibility... think about it. Timber is a prime substance for world economics. Surely as not important as it was in the past, but it still moves the world. If US buys timber from Canada, it's not because Canada has beatiful eyes or because is poor and US wants to help. It's because they need their timber. Countries have been built around tea (surely this rings a bell to you) and have been nearly destroyed around coffee, sugar, potatoes, rice, .... The idea here is: Oil may as well be the rich product, but it's the fundamental products that really move the world. Don't underestimate their importance.
If you read your original post carefully you will notice that words like crutch don't help you defend your position. It's an outright lie (no pun intended). There's no world crutch when it comes to economy. There may as well be a political one, though.
Also, ask those same question you did there to any economist and he will say to you, america would collapse. The world would follow of course (like if the Asian market collpased for instance). But the bottom line is, the world would keep their trade and emerge, while US would have to rebuild itself.
So, again... take care of the comparisons you make.