4 ms·
> According to Deepseek, the tariffs could shave as “little” as 1.7% or as much as 8% off of Canada’s GDP, with the baseline estimate around 4%. That’s roughly
by voisin 2y ago
> According to Deepseek, the tariffs could shave as “little” as 1.7% or as much as 8% off of Canada’s GDP, with the baseline estimate around 4%. That’s roughly in line with the Bank of Canada’s projection.
The BoC estimates 6%. I guess it is accurate to say the 1.7% - 8% estimated by Deepseek is “roughly in line”, but it is such a large range as to be pretty useless. Though, if you look at the BoC’s ToTEM model for GDP, it is pretty useless as well, relying on shaky assumptions like a regression to the mean over 6 quarters, which isn’t accurate when it matters most.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y agoAnything more precise is likely wrong. A 25% tariff from your largest trading partner (and world superpower) is an extremely impactful event.
- margorczynski 2y agoAside from the tariff effect itself it could cause a panic and market run ending up in a recession.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Spooky23 2y agoThe interesting thing to analyze is the impact of the deal. The retaliatory tariffs from Canada would be really painful and impactful to the US. The auto industry would implode. The dopey magas in the Midwest would be all laid off in weeks. Unless we’re going full fascist and rolling tanks, this is positioning for some sort of deal. They cowed Columbia with this stuff, there’s a limited time to play the playbook.
- abirch 2y agoGDP numbers with decimal points need to be taken with a grain of salt. The US economy will be hurt as well. Housing costs without Canadian lumber are going to skyrocket, especially with the different natural disasters and home building.
- XorNot 2y agoThe "is that a big number?" issue basically. At the scale of a national economy it's just about impossible to comprehend what a small digit % even means (I have some luck reimagining everything as 1 in X, which tends to feel more relatable at least for human centric topics).
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> shaky assumptions like a regression to the mean over 6 quarters, which isn’t accurate when it matters most For most second- or third-order effects, this isn’t a bad assumption. When you’re putting a 25% tariff on your largest trading partner into an economic model, you’re already in EVT territory—the central tendency is less relevant than the ranges.