3 ms·

You also wouldn't go out of your way to piss off America's two biggest export markets: Canada and Mexico. As it stands, not only are there significant counter

by beloch 2y ago

You also wouldn't go out of your way to piss off America's two biggest export markets: Canada and Mexico. As it stands, not only are there significant counter-tariffs that would make U.S. manufacturers even less competitive in Canada[1], there is significant consumer backlash to anything American-made where, just a couple months ago, products "Made in the U.S.A." would have been viewed favourably[2]. The way Trump has done things, any company that manufactures in the U.S. had better be able to get by with just the domestic U.S. market, because exports to Canada and Mexico aren't likely to be significant for quite some time, even if Trump backs off quickly. Lasting damage has already been done. ________________________ [1]It remains to be seen if Mexico will eventually retaliate. [2]Perhaps not favourably in terms of price/quality competitiveness, but certainly in a geopolitical "support your neighbour instead of China" sense.

cmrdporcupine 2y ago
My experience is this: The majority of Americans have a hard time believing we (Canada) are their biggest export market and trading partner generally. Because they barely think about Canada, and when they do it's as a quaint and cold place of no real importance to them. And this perception has worked in Trump's favour. "Those weak irrelevant people up there are taking advantage of us, time to teach them a lesson" works well when the people you're telling it to don't realize "those people" are their single biggest customer and a source of wealth for them. American business people aren't generally accustomed to treating their customers this way. I hope they come to their senses.
- verteu 2y ago
  I'm guessing a few weeks of higher prices will change consumers' minds.
  - sightbroke 2y ago
    Will that even matter though? There's a while before another election and longer while before the person imposing tariffs would expectedly leave.
    - Goronmon 2y ago
      There is a non-zero chance he have at least one more term.
      - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
        Non-zero in the sense that there is a non-zero chance of an outright coup. There is absolutely, unambiguously no Constitutional method by which this will ever be true.
        sightbroke 2y ago
        It is unfortunately not as unambiguous as one may like: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/31/nx-s1-5191889/is-trump-running-for-a-third-term https://www.npr.org/2025/03/31/nx-s1-5191889/is-trump-runnin...
        sorcerer-mar 2y ago
        No, it really is. 22nd Amendment: > No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. 12th Amendment: > no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. You can produce the same bullshit arguments for literally any law in existence because language is inherently ambiguous. If someone starts wiggling into, "well technically it's a bit ambiguous whether we're allowed to mow down peaceful protestors with machine guns," it is incumbent upon all of us to say "no, actually that's not ambiguous." Courts will look to the public attitude to assess these arguments, and the public attitude should be that blatant accounting tricks like the VP switcheroo are incompatible with both the language and intent of the law.
        sightbroke 2y ago
        Or you could try and read the link I provided: > But winning an election is not the only way a person can become president. And there are hypothetical situations involving presidential succession, Baude adds, that are "not addressed as fully" by the Constitution's text. They reveal ways in which the common understanding of the 22nd Amendment's presidential term limits could be challenged in court. One theory: Trump could become vice president and then president in 2029 > Still, in court, a lawyer could try to argue that being a "natural born" citizen, at least 35 years old and a resident within the U.S. for at least 14 years are the only presidential eligibility requirements specified in the Constitution, says Stephen Gillers, a professor emeritus at New York University School of Law, who proposed in 2004 that Clinton run for vice president. I'm unconvinced that the Supreme Court will look towards public sentiment.
yibg 2y ago
It also breaks a lot of the way businesses make and sell stuff today. For example, several car makers makes cars in Canada, Mexico and the US but sells them across the borders (and globally). Honda makes Civics and CRVs in Canada but sells them in the US, but the Accord is made in the US and sold in Canada. So now if there are tariffs on car imports and especially if there is also a reciprocal tariff, Honda gets hit both ways. What would they do? Make some civics in the US and some in Canada? Seems very inefficient.
cavisne 2y ago
Factually despite all the noise there are no significant tariffs in either direction at this point in time, 98% of trade is tariff free under the free trade agreement. Mexico and to a lesser degree Canada are in a more favorable position than they were before the tariffs as they are the only countries in this position [1] [1] https://semianalysis.com/2025/04/10/tariff-armageddon-gpu-loopholes/ https://semianalysis.com/2025/04/10/tariff-armageddon-gpu-lo...

by beloch 2y ago

cmrdporcupine 2y ago

My experience is this: The majority of Americans have a hard time believing we (Canada) are their biggest export market and trading partner generally. Because they barely think about Canada, and when they do it's as a quaint and cold place of no real importance to them. And this perception has worked in Trump's favour. "Those weak irrelevant people up there are taking advantage of us, time to teach them a lesson" works well when the people you're telling it to don't realize "those people" are their single biggest customer and a source of wealth for them. American business people aren't generally accustomed to treating their customers this way. I hope they come to their senses.

verteu 2y ago
I'm guessing a few weeks of higher prices will change consumers' minds.
- sightbroke 2y ago
  Will that even matter though? There's a while before another election and longer while before the person imposing tariffs would expectedly leave.
  - Goronmon 2y ago
    There is a non-zero chance he have at least one more term.
    - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
      Non-zero in the sense that there is a non-zero chance of an outright coup. There is absolutely, unambiguously no Constitutional method by which this will ever be true.
      - sightbroke 2y ago
        It is unfortunately not as unambiguous as one may like: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/31/nx-s1-5191889/is-trump-running-for-a-third-term https://www.npr.org/2025/03/31/nx-s1-5191889/is-trump-runnin...
        sorcerer-mar 2y ago
        No, it really is. 22nd Amendment: > No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. 12th Amendment: > no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. You can produce the same bullshit arguments for literally any law in existence because language is inherently ambiguous. If someone starts wiggling into, "well technically it's a bit ambiguous whether we're allowed to mow down peaceful protestors with machine guns," it is incumbent upon all of us to say "no, actually that's not ambiguous." Courts will look to the public attitude to assess these arguments, and the public attitude should be that blatant accounting tricks like the VP switcheroo are incompatible with both the language and intent of the law.
        sightbroke 2y ago
        Or you could try and read the link I provided: > But winning an election is not the only way a person can become president. And there are hypothetical situations involving presidential succession, Baude adds, that are "not addressed as fully" by the Constitution's text. They reveal ways in which the common understanding of the 22nd Amendment's presidential term limits could be challenged in court. One theory: Trump could become vice president and then president in 2029 > Still, in court, a lawyer could try to argue that being a "natural born" citizen, at least 35 years old and a resident within the U.S. for at least 14 years are the only presidential eligibility requirements specified in the Constitution, says Stephen Gillers, a professor emeritus at New York University School of Law, who proposed in 2004 that Clinton run for vice president. I'm unconvinced that the Supreme Court will look towards public sentiment.

yibg 2y ago

It also breaks a lot of the way businesses make and sell stuff today. For example, several car makers makes cars in Canada, Mexico and the US but sells them across the borders (and globally). Honda makes Civics and CRVs in Canada but sells them in the US, but the Accord is made in the US and sold in Canada. So now if there are tariffs on car imports and especially if there is also a reciprocal tariff, Honda gets hit both ways. What would they do? Make some civics in the US and some in Canada? Seems very inefficient.

cavisne 2y ago

Factually despite all the noise there are no significant tariffs in either direction at this point in time, 98% of trade is tariff free under the free trade agreement. Mexico and to a lesser degree Canada are in a more favorable position than they were before the tariffs as they are the only countries in this position [1] [1] https://semianalysis.com/2025/04/10/tariff-armageddon-gpu-loopholes/ https://semianalysis.com/2025/04/10/tariff-armageddon-gpu-lo...