6 ms·

Canada hits back at 'punitive' U.S. tariffs in 'turning point' in relations

107 points by trumped 8y ago

mozumder 8y ago
Tariffs, and protectionism, are such an extreme measure. It should only be used against countries that you're going to war with. They should never be used in the course of normal trade. America is like 50 countries with open border & free trade policy between them. Can you imagine what would happen if states decided to impose tariffs on each other?
- petermcneeley 8y ago
  Canada's dairy industry has had a long history of protection. It is likely that this industry would not exist without this protection.
  - aldoushuxley001 8y ago
    It's true, the dairy farmers here in Canada act like an full fledged mafia
    - john00088876 8y ago
      I don’t know enough about them to comment but situations like that is why trade agreements have tribunals and things go through the WTO etc etc. It’s a very complex balance with complex systems. Canada also imports more than four times the dairy than it exports: http://www.cdc-ccl.gc.ca/CDC/index-eng.php?id=3803 http://www.cdc-ccl.gc.ca/CDC/index-eng.php?id=3803 (poutine 2-3 times per day adds up I guess). Trump’s only direct authority for imposing steel tariffs is a narrow national security clause which is absurd and insulting to use against Canada and demonstrates that America can’t be trusted. Even if a future president tries to rebuild international relationships I would be hesitant to waste years of effort working out any international agreement with America when the next TV populist president can easily tear it up. Unfortunately it takes a lot more effort to build things than tear them down.
      - orf 8y ago
        > Unfortunately it takes a lot more effort to build things than tear them down I think it will take many, many years to rebuild the positive reputation that the US had among it's allies. At least from the people I've interacted with there is a universal hate for Trump at a level that I have never seen before, across a wide cross section of society. The man is reprehensible. It takes a while to get over that, and he will forever be there. Also if he is the new normal then God help us all.
    - Amygaz 8y ago
      So does the US. The vast majority of dairy farmers receive subsidies or they would not be "profitable", averaging $280 million per year over the past 20 years (some year it's $10M, while another its $1B). Everyday we dump over 250,000 gallons of milk. There is a reason why milk is cheaper in the US than Canada.
  - pscnv 8y ago
    It’s a horrible idea to get rid of your local industry of basic, vital needs. A country could squeeze your balls by cutting off exports to you.
    - AlexCoventry 8y ago
      In what sense is milk a vital need, though? Millions of people live without it.
      - pritambaral 8y ago
        > Millions of people live without it [milk]. Many more depend on dairy.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Not quite. When 2 nations are each protective, it's bad for both. If they are both open, it's generally good for both. But - if one protects in a sneaky way, and the other is open - the it's amazing for the protectionist country. So nations strive to be 'open' but then to sneak in stuff, or rather, sometimes they are open, but really are not. It's impossible for American companies to sell into Japan for many reasons, arguably quality, but the way Japanese business syndicates work, they'll keep America out, irrespective of what the government says. This was a huge thing in the 1980's and is the 'memory' that gripes Trump. As for China - we don't have open trade with them. America is considerably more open than China. + China has massive state-owned agencies, the subsidized markets + They have a 100% politically controlled currency + They have political capital controls + They require foreign entities to hand over key IP + They have any number of barriers (some on purpose, some not so much) to foreign participation. + China does not pursue those breaking IP rules. China has had these advantages for some time, it's just that when they were poor, nobody really cared, but as they get powerful, it becomes an issue. So the only choice is to play 'hardball' with such nations - because these nations won't react to anything else, and they'll only react to threats that are credible. As for Europe, it's a different bag, but America has some decent beefs with Germany in particular. As for NAFTA - that's a tough one. I don't think America has such a huge advantage, but wages are weaker in Cana/Mex which gives big opportunities in some ways ... but it also keeps Can/Mex standard of living lower in many ways. So the NAFTA gripe is more difficult to understand. Put another way - the US has been having a 'trade war' with China for 30 years, it just wasn't ever a big deal. And there are some issues (cars) that America has a reasonable beef with on Germany, for example. I think Trump is a douche but he's not 'all wrong' on these things.
  - simonebrunozzi 8y ago
    And the US Dollar is NOT a 100% politically controlled currency, in your view?
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      It would be wild to claim that USD is a politically controlled currency, to the point of conspiratorial, and the onus would be on you to provide proof that Trump et. al. are controlling interest rates or Fed programs. He most definitely is not. There is no direct link between the executive/legislative and the Fed. The Fed does what's roughly best for American economy, which disproportionately favours those with assets, banks etc. - but they are fairly independent in normal times. In times of crises, you could start to point to some things like all those homes right now sitting on the Fed balance sheet, surely. But regular operations are not politically controlled. But in China, the currency is literally worth whatever the government wants it to be at any time. They can literally press a button and 'poof'. Because of the amazing control and power of the Chinese government, the RMB might be the most tightly politically controlled currency in all of history: at least all of the fiat money that failed in the past ... leaders had to water it down or print money behind the scenes over time. Not to say that's entirely bad - one could make the claim that 'it's better for China' to have this, there'd be some good points there. But in terms of 'free trade' it's not good. In any event, the US does not have open trade with China really, so there's constant trade tensions, there probably always will be. I don't thin anything I'm saying is controversial or new, it just might be new data for the folks here on HN who I find are generally more tech than finance oriented.
- akhatri_aus 8y ago
  I think you mean sanctions, not tariffs or quotas. There is not a single country that does not apply tariffs or quotas.
  - Karishma1234 8y ago
    You call them sanctions when you talk about your enemies, you call them tariffs when you do it to your friends. The difference is nearly 0.
    - akhatri_aus 8y ago
      Sanctions involve a total ban on trade. tariffs involve a tax on imports, quota impose a limit on imports. If only 0 was an asymptote it would fit your description.
      - Karishma1234 8y ago
        Think of ban as a variable between 0 - 1. Sanctions = 1.0 and Tarrifs < 1.0. Tarrifs are sanctions. (Increasing taxes on something is a partial ban).
  - toomanybeersies 8y ago
    Singapore doesn't. Not in the trade protectionist sense anyway.
    - akhatri_aus 8y ago
      Not really, even Singapore has its duties. It's only 0% for everything if you're going for re-export. https://www.customs.gov.sg/businesses/valuation-duties-taxes--fees/duties-and-dutiable-goods https://www.customs.gov.sg/businesses/valuation-duties-taxes...
      - toomanybeersies 8y ago
        Excise is a bit different to tariffs though. Even if you produced those items in Singapore you pay the same excise. The 20% on cars isn't to protect the (non-existent) car manufacturing industry of Singapore, but to reduce demand for cars.
rednerrus 8y ago
Can you imagine trying to negotiate with this administration?
- jonhendry18 8y ago
  The way to "negotiate" with the Trump administration involves contributing to the Trump businesses.
  - Amygaz 8y ago
    The rule should be:"We don't negotiate with narcissists."
  - dominotw 8y ago
    Is this true? Do you have an example?
    - martincmartin 8y ago
      "Beijing granted Ivanka trademarks, Qatar invested in one of Jared’s office towers, and Ukraine, with Slavic candor, simply wired half a million dollars to the President’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen." From the Maclean's article in the top comment.
      - lurquer 8y ago
        HN shouldn't regurgitate political hit pieces. Ivanka Trump's business has trademarks registered throughout the world... it is no great honor to get a trademark registered in China. Qatar did not invest in Kushener's office tower. And, a payment to Cohen by Ukrsine has been denied. (And, in any case, would be perfectly legal so long as the appropriate lobbying paperwork was filled out.)
    - Gustomaximus 8y ago
      "As I’ve pointed out before, the President can be successfully engaged, and countries like Ukraine, China, and Qatar have demonstrated this. When they want something from the United States, they skip the State Department, and even the White House staff. Instead of approaching their problem state-to-state, they go state-to-man. These countries focus on what Trump wants on a personal level – to enrich his family. So Beijing granted Ivanka trademarks, Qatar invested in one of Jared’s office towers, and Ukraine, with Slavic candor, simply wired half a million dollars to the President’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen." From this article: https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-america-wont-work-sanctioning-trump-himself-might/ https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-amer... Also China's loan for Trumps indonesian project and the rumoured Russian financing/laundering and Trumps positive behaviour toward Russia/Putin. While possibly coincidence, there certainly seems correlation between countries that are treated favourable and helping Trump family business interests.
huangc10 8y ago
Even though this decision may potentially affect my TN status in the states and more importantly will result in negative consequences for both countries, I am 100% behind Trudeau on this.
- mabbo 8y ago
  If NAFTA talks don't work out, folks like you and me with our TNs are actually going to start worrying about how we're going to keep our jobs. And here I thought Canada wasn't one of Trump's "shithole countries".
  - make3 8y ago
    anyone who can't or definitely won't vote for him is likely part of the shithole
  - dguaraglia 8y ago
    I'm not exactly sure how the United States trying to walk back an agreement (NAFTA) and slapping tariffs on our allies makes Canada a "shithole country". If anything, it makes us the shitty neighbor.
    - messick 8y ago
      It was a sarcastic reference to Trump’s “shithole countries” remarks about African nations last year.
      - dguaraglia 8y ago
        Oh, I know what it was about. I was just pointing out that Canada is clearly not a "shithole country" and that the current US attitude towards our long-time allies everywhere makes us the shithole country.
- dharness 8y ago
  I'm in the same situation, and I agree. On some level it could be good for Canada to have all the TN folks back. Maybe bad for us in the short term, but the effects could ripple.
wwweston 8y ago
Opinion: Trade sanctions against America won’t work. Sanctioning Trump himself might. https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-america-wont-work-sanctioning-trump-himself-might/ https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-amer...
- ttul 8y ago
  What a fantastic idea.
- stevenwoo 8y ago
  Retaliatory trade sanctions have worked against America but it took almost a year for the reprecussions to bubble up and make the President change his mind after the 2002 steel tariffs were enacted by the Bush administration. The Trump specific sanctions do seem like a ripe target for a more immediate response this time.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- s2g 8y ago
  That sounds a whole lot more like a national security issue than the tariffs. Could also use tariffs to try and hit the states that voted for Trump the hardest.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    Well, not so much states that voted for Trump, but small-population states that rack up lots of Senate votes. Put punitive tariffs on corn, soybean, and pork exports, and you'll have a dozen senators imploring Trump to back off.
    - toomanybeersies 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
parvenu74 8y ago
Can anyone point to an historical case study where protective tariffs resulted in a better economic or social outcome? I can’t help but recall the saying: “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers soon will.” Not that I think the United States is going to war with Canada, but the (German-dominated) EU and China are less certain.
- hugh4life 8y ago
  The US when it was industrializing? China now? Protectionism can be good for large nations/markets catching up to other nations/markets.
  - WhompingWindows 8y ago
    US was industrializing throughout the 1800's, there are empty/converted factories all up and down the East Coast from these. In New England, it was a lot of textiles, metalworking, shoes, parts, etc. What tariffs protected that growth? To me it seems to be a rising production due to rising demand for those products, as factories/mass production wasn't common prior to 1800.
    - hunter23 8y ago
      The US had protective tariffs and regulations (along with a lack of free trade agreements) which definitely protected foreign goods and companies from entering the country. Protective tariffs literally started with George Washington with the goal of "the encouragement and protection of manufactures".
- maxerickson 8y ago
  Why would Germany invade Canada? More seriously, I will be pretty surprised if this particular stupidity escalates to any kind of military action.
  - AlexCoventry 8y ago
    It probably won't directly escalate to military action, but the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 did make it a lot easier for the Nazis to take power in 1932. Edit: I'd be grateful for an explanation for why this might be getting downvoted.
jimmytucson 8y ago
Is Trump’s point that the prices of these goods abroad are artificially low, so he’s going to implement tariffs to correct for that? If so, do counter-tariffs strengthen this argument? This would seem to create an infinite protectionist feedback loop.
- john00088876 8y ago
  His stated goal seems to be related to “bringing back American jobs” but it’s really all marketing for himself as usual since while this action will cause more American job loses than it creates, that doesn’t actually matter because it’s just about optics. Also the authority he invokes is specifically for national security so increasing jobs or any other non national security reason shouldn’t even be a factor. His comments that it’s a negotiating tactic also prove there’s no actual national security rationale. “...the Trump administration promised its voters more big action on trade. Further WTO challenges could take years, so to make policy more quickly, Trump invoked section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which grants the US the ability to impose trade restrictions in the name of national security.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1221853/donald-trumps-tariffs-on-aluminum-and-steel-arent-about-national-security/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1221853/donald-trumps-ta...
- dominotw 8y ago
  There was an episode on planet money about precisely this with sugar tarrifs and how it had unintended consequences on the candy industy which had to move overseas. Very complicated topic.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  There is a general consensus that the world produces too much steel, with a large part of that being Chinese overproduction. I don't have the actual statistics in front of me, but the amount of new steel production that were brought online in China in the past 5 years is on the order of the entire world surplus of steel production. Which is why it's so confusing that Trump didn't just slap anti-dumping duties on China, which quite frankly everyone agrees with. The best guess is that Trump thought that he could use the steel tariffs as an easy way to wring concessions out of trade partners... and declaring the tariffs a matter of national security is the one way he can do that without having to get Congress's approval (as even many Republicans in Congress are horrified by this).
pluc 8y ago
Notice of intent to impose countermeasures action against the United States in response to tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum products: https://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/consult/cacsap-cmpcaa-eng.asp https://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/consult/cacsap-cmpcaa-eng.asp
throwaway5752 8y ago
Donald Trump is objectively (ranked by presidential historians of all political parties) as the worst president in the 242 year history of the US. It will be work to get back what we can of what we've lost.
- Larrikin 8y ago
  I believe it, but would like a source to see the criteria and who is rating.
  - throwaway5752 8y ago
    https://sps.boisestate.edu/politicalscience/files/2018/02/Greatness.pdf https://sps.boisestate.edu/politicalscience/files/2018/02/Gr... "The 2018 Presidents & Executive Politics Presidential Greatness Survey was conducted online via Qualtrics from December 22, 2017 to January 16, 2018. Respondents were current and recent members of the Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, which is the foremost organization of social science experts in presidential politics. 320 respondents were invited to participate, and 170 usable responses were received, yielding a 53.1% response rate" It's impossible to prove anything. But these people are scholars in the field, it's non-partisan, the survey methodology is transparent, the results are fairly consistent across partisan self-identification, and they are fairly consistent over time (2014 poll of same org, 2010 Siena College survey, et al). It's significant.
- ameister14 8y ago
  That implies an equal number of each party or general affiliation - it wasn't. 9 of the 166 respondents considered themselves conservative. Trump is not a good president, don't get me wrong, but that's just not good science.
  - throwaway5752 8y ago
    It's not science, it's a survey. And you know that about the respondents because they were transparent about their data. And the self-identified conservatives rated him in the bottom five, too.
andrewstuart 8y ago
Another option is not play tit-for-tat and instead appeal to the American people by refusing to impose tariffs in return. Make it about Trump, not America. There's a chance Trump will lose all his power within a few months anyway if the republicans do very badly in the midterm elections.
- darawk 8y ago
  That would sort of prove Trump's point though. "See, they knew their trade practices were unfair - they're not even fighting back".
  - andrewstuart 8y ago
    Trumps blather means nothing - the idea is to speak to the American people, not Trump.
    - chillwaves 8y ago
      The Americans who support him will argue that Trump is winning, that his way of doing business is a winning proposition. How can our allies, that Trump is hurting for political gain, abide by that?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bobosha 8y ago
  They also have to play to domestic audience - where it likely won't fly. Lying passive in response to what many perceive as bullying, won't get any politician far.
Karishma1234 8y ago
What is the point of political discussion on HN ? Isn't HN meant for quality technical discussions ? Nothing good can come out of these sort of flame wars here.
- joering2 8y ago
  So don't participate. Besides: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Well, HN is meant for quality discussions of things we find interesting. Sometimes politics is relevant to us (or at least to enough of us to qualify). The trick is to keep it a quality discussion, rather than letting it degenerate into a flame war. That's not easy. But if it can't happen here, where can it? (And if the answer is "nowhere", well, I'm not sure that the answer is wrong, but that's one of the most cynical statements possible about the current state of politics.)
jimjimjim 8y ago
how do market liberalists reconcile this with their everlasting love of trump?
imleft 8y ago
Prisoners dilemma.
itissid 8y ago
The 1900's called they want their trade policies back. Throughout the history of countries when has this pattern not repeated itself. People suffer->People elect a person with an ability to corrupt social discourse and/or the legislative body -> Time passes -> System breaks down. The undermining and corruption can be subtle at first and likely takes time, but it spreads eventually to every corner. Trade suffering is just a symptom of a bigger problem: A lack of healthier political discourse. Take India for example, where strong men and goons in the 20th century figured why just play second fiddle to politicians, lets become them. Today roughly 2/3rd or more members of the upper and lower houses of Parliament have criminal cases against them. It is somewhat democratic(ish) and free market(ishhh). If people don't make the hard choices who will? If they don't care about the system of checks and balance in the name of "fairness" and no more "PC" who will? A lot of this has to do with education and a understanding of why the system of checks and balances is worth fighting for. Addendum to what Ben Franklin said, "Those who give up their voices to forgo democratic norms over short term gains, might just end up loosing all those things (voices, democracy and gains)"
dmode 8y ago
All Canada has to do is to engage the services of world's #1 consulting firm Essential Consultants LLC and voila, suddenly Trump will be making Canada great again

107 points by trumped 8y ago

Tariffs, and protectionism, are such an extreme measure. It should only be used against countries that you're going to war with. They should never be used in the course of normal trade. America is like 50 countries with open border & free trade policy between them. Can you imagine what would happen if states decided to impose tariffs on each other?

petermcneeley 8y ago
Canada's dairy industry has had a long history of protection. It is likely that this industry would not exist without this protection.
- aldoushuxley001 8y ago
  It's true, the dairy farmers here in Canada act like an full fledged mafia
  - john00088876 8y ago
    I don’t know enough about them to comment but situations like that is why trade agreements have tribunals and things go through the WTO etc etc. It’s a very complex balance with complex systems. Canada also imports more than four times the dairy than it exports: http://www.cdc-ccl.gc.ca/CDC/index-eng.php?id=3803 http://www.cdc-ccl.gc.ca/CDC/index-eng.php?id=3803 (poutine 2-3 times per day adds up I guess). Trump’s only direct authority for imposing steel tariffs is a narrow national security clause which is absurd and insulting to use against Canada and demonstrates that America can’t be trusted. Even if a future president tries to rebuild international relationships I would be hesitant to waste years of effort working out any international agreement with America when the next TV populist president can easily tear it up. Unfortunately it takes a lot more effort to build things than tear them down.
    - orf 8y ago
      > Unfortunately it takes a lot more effort to build things than tear them down I think it will take many, many years to rebuild the positive reputation that the US had among it's allies. At least from the people I've interacted with there is a universal hate for Trump at a level that I have never seen before, across a wide cross section of society. The man is reprehensible. It takes a while to get over that, and he will forever be there. Also if he is the new normal then God help us all.
  - Amygaz 8y ago
    So does the US. The vast majority of dairy farmers receive subsidies or they would not be "profitable", averaging $280 million per year over the past 20 years (some year it's $10M, while another its $1B). Everyday we dump over 250,000 gallons of milk. There is a reason why milk is cheaper in the US than Canada.
- pscnv 8y ago
  It’s a horrible idea to get rid of your local industry of basic, vital needs. A country could squeeze your balls by cutting off exports to you.
  - AlexCoventry 8y ago
    In what sense is milk a vital need, though? Millions of people live without it.
    - pritambaral 8y ago
      > Millions of people live without it [milk]. Many more depend on dairy.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Not quite. When 2 nations are each protective, it's bad for both. If they are both open, it's generally good for both. But - if one protects in a sneaky way, and the other is open - the it's amazing for the protectionist country. So nations strive to be 'open' but then to sneak in stuff, or rather, sometimes they are open, but really are not. It's impossible for American companies to sell into Japan for many reasons, arguably quality, but the way Japanese business syndicates work, they'll keep America out, irrespective of what the government says. This was a huge thing in the 1980's and is the 'memory' that gripes Trump. As for China - we don't have open trade with them. America is considerably more open than China. + China has massive state-owned agencies, the subsidized markets + They have a 100% politically controlled currency + They have political capital controls + They require foreign entities to hand over key IP + They have any number of barriers (some on purpose, some not so much) to foreign participation. + China does not pursue those breaking IP rules. China has had these advantages for some time, it's just that when they were poor, nobody really cared, but as they get powerful, it becomes an issue. So the only choice is to play 'hardball' with such nations - because these nations won't react to anything else, and they'll only react to threats that are credible. As for Europe, it's a different bag, but America has some decent beefs with Germany in particular. As for NAFTA - that's a tough one. I don't think America has such a huge advantage, but wages are weaker in Cana/Mex which gives big opportunities in some ways ... but it also keeps Can/Mex standard of living lower in many ways. So the NAFTA gripe is more difficult to understand. Put another way - the US has been having a 'trade war' with China for 30 years, it just wasn't ever a big deal. And there are some issues (cars) that America has a reasonable beef with on Germany, for example. I think Trump is a douche but he's not 'all wrong' on these things.
- simonebrunozzi 8y ago
  And the US Dollar is NOT a 100% politically controlled currency, in your view?
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    It would be wild to claim that USD is a politically controlled currency, to the point of conspiratorial, and the onus would be on you to provide proof that Trump et. al. are controlling interest rates or Fed programs. He most definitely is not. There is no direct link between the executive/legislative and the Fed. The Fed does what's roughly best for American economy, which disproportionately favours those with assets, banks etc. - but they are fairly independent in normal times. In times of crises, you could start to point to some things like all those homes right now sitting on the Fed balance sheet, surely. But regular operations are not politically controlled. But in China, the currency is literally worth whatever the government wants it to be at any time. They can literally press a button and 'poof'. Because of the amazing control and power of the Chinese government, the RMB might be the most tightly politically controlled currency in all of history: at least all of the fiat money that failed in the past ... leaders had to water it down or print money behind the scenes over time. Not to say that's entirely bad - one could make the claim that 'it's better for China' to have this, there'd be some good points there. But in terms of 'free trade' it's not good. In any event, the US does not have open trade with China really, so there's constant trade tensions, there probably always will be. I don't thin anything I'm saying is controversial or new, it just might be new data for the folks here on HN who I find are generally more tech than finance oriented.
akhatri_aus 8y ago
I think you mean sanctions, not tariffs or quotas. There is not a single country that does not apply tariffs or quotas.
- Karishma1234 8y ago
  You call them sanctions when you talk about your enemies, you call them tariffs when you do it to your friends. The difference is nearly 0.
  - akhatri_aus 8y ago
    Sanctions involve a total ban on trade. tariffs involve a tax on imports, quota impose a limit on imports. If only 0 was an asymptote it would fit your description.
    - Karishma1234 8y ago
      Think of ban as a variable between 0 - 1. Sanctions = 1.0 and Tarrifs < 1.0. Tarrifs are sanctions. (Increasing taxes on something is a partial ban).
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  Singapore doesn't. Not in the trade protectionist sense anyway.
  - akhatri_aus 8y ago
    Not really, even Singapore has its duties. It's only 0% for everything if you're going for re-export. https://www.customs.gov.sg/businesses/valuation-duties-taxes--fees/duties-and-dutiable-goods https://www.customs.gov.sg/businesses/valuation-duties-taxes...
    - toomanybeersies 8y ago
      Excise is a bit different to tariffs though. Even if you produced those items in Singapore you pay the same excise. The 20% on cars isn't to protect the (non-existent) car manufacturing industry of Singapore, but to reduce demand for cars.

rednerrus 8y ago

Can you imagine trying to negotiate with this administration?

jonhendry18 8y ago
The way to "negotiate" with the Trump administration involves contributing to the Trump businesses.
- Amygaz 8y ago
  The rule should be:"We don't negotiate with narcissists."
- dominotw 8y ago
  Is this true? Do you have an example?
  - martincmartin 8y ago
    "Beijing granted Ivanka trademarks, Qatar invested in one of Jared’s office towers, and Ukraine, with Slavic candor, simply wired half a million dollars to the President’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen." From the Maclean's article in the top comment.
    - lurquer 8y ago
      HN shouldn't regurgitate political hit pieces. Ivanka Trump's business has trademarks registered throughout the world... it is no great honor to get a trademark registered in China. Qatar did not invest in Kushener's office tower. And, a payment to Cohen by Ukrsine has been denied. (And, in any case, would be perfectly legal so long as the appropriate lobbying paperwork was filled out.)
  - Gustomaximus 8y ago
    "As I’ve pointed out before, the President can be successfully engaged, and countries like Ukraine, China, and Qatar have demonstrated this. When they want something from the United States, they skip the State Department, and even the White House staff. Instead of approaching their problem state-to-state, they go state-to-man. These countries focus on what Trump wants on a personal level – to enrich his family. So Beijing granted Ivanka trademarks, Qatar invested in one of Jared’s office towers, and Ukraine, with Slavic candor, simply wired half a million dollars to the President’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen." From this article: https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-america-wont-work-sanctioning-trump-himself-might/ https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-amer... Also China's loan for Trumps indonesian project and the rumoured Russian financing/laundering and Trumps positive behaviour toward Russia/Putin. While possibly coincidence, there certainly seems correlation between countries that are treated favourable and helping Trump family business interests.

huangc10 8y ago

Even though this decision may potentially affect my TN status in the states and more importantly will result in negative consequences for both countries, I am 100% behind Trudeau on this.

mabbo 8y ago
If NAFTA talks don't work out, folks like you and me with our TNs are actually going to start worrying about how we're going to keep our jobs. And here I thought Canada wasn't one of Trump's "shithole countries".
- make3 8y ago
  anyone who can't or definitely won't vote for him is likely part of the shithole
- dguaraglia 8y ago
  I'm not exactly sure how the United States trying to walk back an agreement (NAFTA) and slapping tariffs on our allies makes Canada a "shithole country". If anything, it makes us the shitty neighbor.
  - messick 8y ago
    It was a sarcastic reference to Trump’s “shithole countries” remarks about African nations last year.
    - dguaraglia 8y ago
      Oh, I know what it was about. I was just pointing out that Canada is clearly not a "shithole country" and that the current US attitude towards our long-time allies everywhere makes us the shithole country.
dharness 8y ago
I'm in the same situation, and I agree. On some level it could be good for Canada to have all the TN folks back. Maybe bad for us in the short term, but the effects could ripple.

wwweston 8y ago

Opinion: Trade sanctions against America won’t work. Sanctioning Trump himself might. https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-america-wont-work-sanctioning-trump-himself-might/ https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-amer...

ttul 8y ago
What a fantastic idea.
stevenwoo 8y ago
Retaliatory trade sanctions have worked against America but it took almost a year for the reprecussions to bubble up and make the President change his mind after the 2002 steel tariffs were enacted by the Bush administration. The Trump specific sanctions do seem like a ripe target for a more immediate response this time.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
s2g 8y ago
That sounds a whole lot more like a national security issue than the tariffs. Could also use tariffs to try and hit the states that voted for Trump the hardest.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  Well, not so much states that voted for Trump, but small-population states that rack up lots of Senate votes. Put punitive tariffs on corn, soybean, and pork exports, and you'll have a dozen senators imploring Trump to back off.
  - toomanybeersies 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

parvenu74 8y ago

Can anyone point to an historical case study where protective tariffs resulted in a better economic or social outcome? I can’t help but recall the saying: “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers soon will.” Not that I think the United States is going to war with Canada, but the (German-dominated) EU and China are less certain.

hugh4life 8y ago
The US when it was industrializing? China now? Protectionism can be good for large nations/markets catching up to other nations/markets.
- WhompingWindows 8y ago
  US was industrializing throughout the 1800's, there are empty/converted factories all up and down the East Coast from these. In New England, it was a lot of textiles, metalworking, shoes, parts, etc. What tariffs protected that growth? To me it seems to be a rising production due to rising demand for those products, as factories/mass production wasn't common prior to 1800.
  - hunter23 8y ago
    The US had protective tariffs and regulations (along with a lack of free trade agreements) which definitely protected foreign goods and companies from entering the country. Protective tariffs literally started with George Washington with the goal of "the encouragement and protection of manufactures".
maxerickson 8y ago
Why would Germany invade Canada? More seriously, I will be pretty surprised if this particular stupidity escalates to any kind of military action.
- AlexCoventry 8y ago
  It probably won't directly escalate to military action, but the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 did make it a lot easier for the Nazis to take power in 1932. Edit: I'd be grateful for an explanation for why this might be getting downvoted.

jimmytucson 8y ago

Is Trump’s point that the prices of these goods abroad are artificially low, so he’s going to implement tariffs to correct for that? If so, do counter-tariffs strengthen this argument? This would seem to create an infinite protectionist feedback loop.

john00088876 8y ago
His stated goal seems to be related to “bringing back American jobs” but it’s really all marketing for himself as usual since while this action will cause more American job loses than it creates, that doesn’t actually matter because it’s just about optics. Also the authority he invokes is specifically for national security so increasing jobs or any other non national security reason shouldn’t even be a factor. His comments that it’s a negotiating tactic also prove there’s no actual national security rationale. “...the Trump administration promised its voters more big action on trade. Further WTO challenges could take years, so to make policy more quickly, Trump invoked section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which grants the US the ability to impose trade restrictions in the name of national security.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1221853/donald-trumps-tariffs-on-aluminum-and-steel-arent-about-national-security/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1221853/donald-trumps-ta...
dominotw 8y ago
There was an episode on planet money about precisely this with sugar tarrifs and how it had unintended consequences on the candy industy which had to move overseas. Very complicated topic.
jcranmer 8y ago
There is a general consensus that the world produces too much steel, with a large part of that being Chinese overproduction. I don't have the actual statistics in front of me, but the amount of new steel production that were brought online in China in the past 5 years is on the order of the entire world surplus of steel production. Which is why it's so confusing that Trump didn't just slap anti-dumping duties on China, which quite frankly everyone agrees with. The best guess is that Trump thought that he could use the steel tariffs as an easy way to wring concessions out of trade partners... and declaring the tariffs a matter of national security is the one way he can do that without having to get Congress's approval (as even many Republicans in Congress are horrified by this).

pluc 8y ago

Notice of intent to impose countermeasures action against the United States in response to tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum products: https://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/consult/cacsap-cmpcaa-eng.asp https://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/consult/cacsap-cmpcaa-eng.asp

throwaway5752 8y ago

Donald Trump is objectively (ranked by presidential historians of all political parties) as the worst president in the 242 year history of the US. It will be work to get back what we can of what we've lost.

Larrikin 8y ago
I believe it, but would like a source to see the criteria and who is rating.
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  https://sps.boisestate.edu/politicalscience/files/2018/02/Greatness.pdf https://sps.boisestate.edu/politicalscience/files/2018/02/Gr... "The 2018 Presidents & Executive Politics Presidential Greatness Survey was conducted online via Qualtrics from December 22, 2017 to January 16, 2018. Respondents were current and recent members of the Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, which is the foremost organization of social science experts in presidential politics. 320 respondents were invited to participate, and 170 usable responses were received, yielding a 53.1% response rate" It's impossible to prove anything. But these people are scholars in the field, it's non-partisan, the survey methodology is transparent, the results are fairly consistent across partisan self-identification, and they are fairly consistent over time (2014 poll of same org, 2010 Siena College survey, et al). It's significant.
ameister14 8y ago
That implies an equal number of each party or general affiliation - it wasn't. 9 of the 166 respondents considered themselves conservative. Trump is not a good president, don't get me wrong, but that's just not good science.
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  It's not science, it's a survey. And you know that about the respondents because they were transparent about their data. And the self-identified conservatives rated him in the bottom five, too.

andrewstuart 8y ago

Another option is not play tit-for-tat and instead appeal to the American people by refusing to impose tariffs in return. Make it about Trump, not America. There's a chance Trump will lose all his power within a few months anyway if the republicans do very badly in the midterm elections.

darawk 8y ago
That would sort of prove Trump's point though. "See, they knew their trade practices were unfair - they're not even fighting back".
- andrewstuart 8y ago
  Trumps blather means nothing - the idea is to speak to the American people, not Trump.
  - chillwaves 8y ago
    The Americans who support him will argue that Trump is winning, that his way of doing business is a winning proposition. How can our allies, that Trump is hurting for political gain, abide by that?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bobosha 8y ago
They also have to play to domestic audience - where it likely won't fly. Lying passive in response to what many perceive as bullying, won't get any politician far.

Karishma1234 8y ago

What is the point of political discussion on HN ? Isn't HN meant for quality technical discussions ? Nothing good can come out of these sort of flame wars here.

joering2 8y ago
So don't participate. Besides: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Well, HN is meant for quality discussions of things we find interesting. Sometimes politics is relevant to us (or at least to enough of us to qualify). The trick is to keep it a quality discussion, rather than letting it degenerate into a flame war. That's not easy. But if it can't happen here, where can it? (And if the answer is "nowhere", well, I'm not sure that the answer is wrong, but that's one of the most cynical statements possible about the current state of politics.)

jimjimjim 8y ago

how do market liberalists reconcile this with their everlasting love of trump?

imleft 8y ago

Prisoners dilemma.

itissid 8y ago

The 1900's called they want their trade policies back. Throughout the history of countries when has this pattern not repeated itself. People suffer->People elect a person with an ability to corrupt social discourse and/or the legislative body -> Time passes -> System breaks down. The undermining and corruption can be subtle at first and likely takes time, but it spreads eventually to every corner. Trade suffering is just a symptom of a bigger problem: A lack of healthier political discourse. Take India for example, where strong men and goons in the 20th century figured why just play second fiddle to politicians, lets become them. Today roughly 2/3rd or more members of the upper and lower houses of Parliament have criminal cases against them. It is somewhat democratic(ish) and free market(ishhh). If people don't make the hard choices who will? If they don't care about the system of checks and balance in the name of "fairness" and no more "PC" who will? A lot of this has to do with education and a understanding of why the system of checks and balances is worth fighting for. Addendum to what Ben Franklin said, "Those who give up their voices to forgo democratic norms over short term gains, might just end up loosing all those things (voices, democracy and gains)"

dmode 8y ago

All Canada has to do is to engage the services of world's #1 consulting firm Essential Consultants LLC and voila, suddenly Trump will be making Canada great again