8 ms·
Canada's deal with China signals it is serious about shift from US
- JKolios 9mo agoCasual threats of invasion don't build solid and lasting partnerships? Who knew.
- 3eb7988a1663 9mo agoNearly every day, I wonder what the top Republican leaders honestly think about these foreseeable outcomes. They made a deal with the devil -power at any cost. It is going to be a rough ride as America re-calibrates to a world which no longer relies on it. We took enormous amounts of benefits for granted.
- xracy 9mo ago>power at any cost. I mean, but they're not feeding into the US's power. So they're like, buying into a depreciating asset. This actively signals the US is losing power to China given that it's _formerly top ally_ is making trading partnerships with one of it's nominal "enemies". Anyone who can think more than a month out, can see this will result in the US losing power in the long run.
- Insanity 9mo agoThinking more than a week out is already a challenge for the current administration. A month would be a Herculean task.
- ehsankia 9mo ago> So they're like, buying into a depreciating asset Part of the issue is that the average age of the House is ~55 and for the senate it's above 60. So they have a lot less incentive to care about that, or about climate change.
- lumost 9mo agoI wonder how much this makes them resistant to understanding global change. Even in my own short lifetime, China went from a place of villages and cheap factories for low end products to the plausibly dominant center of technology and manufacturing. Those in congress may still imagine a world where China’s strength is no more than an illusion.
- andrewflnr 9mo agoPersonal power. Specifically winning elections at any cost, including the cost of more important forms of power.
- fakedang 9mo agoReminds me of Russia post-Soviet collapse when all of the SSRs rushed to form their own blocs or align with the West, while the Russians thought they would continue to align with their former overlords in Moscow. USA will definitely turn into the new Russia if it continues to go on this path. It has already exhausted most of its cultural and moral capital, and its tech sector is already under threat in its major allies. It will continue to stay relevant for maybe a generation or two but it will turn largely irrelevant by the turn of the century, just like the British Empire or Russia today. Assuming, of course, that it doesn't correct course.
- pupppet 9mo agoFunny how those throwing fuel on the fire are the same ones building bunkers.
- jbm 9mo agoMy Chinese friends refer to Trump as the "Builder of the Nation" (the nation being China) I wonder how wide spread drug abuse is among the moneyed elite and how paranoia and other related factors are affecting their decisions
- cudgy 9mo agoWhen in reality Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon presidencies were the true “builders”.
- linkage 9mo ago> I wonder what the top Republican leaders honestly think about these foreseeable outcomes It doesn't matter what they think. Trump's message resonates with the electorate much more effectively than theirs, partly because of his political brand and partly because he has a network of social media acolytes who broadcast his messaging to each segment and demographic. It's a positive feedback loop wherein anyone who dares to go off-message or criticize his decisions gets instantaneous blowback from the MAGA audience themselves, so they quickly recalibrate. At this point, Trump has built a metaphorical tower of skulls of political foes within the party (e.g. Marjorie Taylor Greene).
- sho_hn 9mo agoDespite everything that has happened over the past year, the Democrats only have a few percentage points lead over the Republicans in current midterm polling. As an outside observer: Absolutely wild. I know a lot about the reasons, but it still feels completely surreal.
- NicoJuicy 9mo agoThere's a vox video about it: the firehose of falsehoods It will explain a lot Ps. Yes, insane
- galangalalgol 9mo agoTrump is not unique. You can find similar parties and figures in most of Europe. Usually the would-be autocrat populist is even more popular than in the US in two party systems. Multi party systems dilute it which just leads to paralysis until eventually >40% of your population is ok with abandoning democracy because the impacts of paralysis are stacking up (France).
- giarc 9mo agoAnd just wait until all the stimulus Trump is going to drop on Americans before the midterms to make everything look good and gain back some voters.
- 9mo ago
- MattDaEskimo 9mo agoThey'll have cannibalized enough money for themselves to leave and retire
- wrs 9mo agoAre there any top Republican leaders left? In what way are they leading?
- giarc 9mo agoI wonder how many will simply become "Trump Republicans" and follow some other leader when he's gone? Or will some simply pretend to wake up and have realized they had Trump Derangement Syndrome the whole time and are ready to come back to reality?
- yummypaint 9mo agoThese people aren't temporarily insane, they have always been this way. The same hatred and stupidity have been prevalent in US dinnertable discussions for decades, but much less in the actual halls of power because we used to have more collective sense to not grant people like that authority over others in general. If the rest of American society regains its agency, the toxic %25 will just go back to corroding the country as they were before. They are secure in knowing they will not be treated in the way they would treat others if given the opportunity.
- Yoric 9mo agoAt least the second hypothesis relies on the assumption that there will be a return to some kind of normalcy. Watching this from the other side of the ocean, I'm not convinced that it's the most likely outcome.
- jrs235 9mo agoWe're on our way to making Idiocracy (the movie) a prophetic documentary.
- nullocator 9mo agoMy guess is politics are so divisive and social media so effective that until something significant breaks/Trump succeeds in complete Putin-esque capture of the government that we will see the president flip parties every 4 years indefinitely. People will continue to vote for whoever the current leader of their "team" is no matter their actual politics or values or even how they were chosen as leader for that matter because the perceived cost of the other side winning is always greater. As soon as Trump dies there will be an increasing avalanche of "always never-trumpers", until 40 years from now it will be almost impossible to find anyone who admits to having voted for him. I already have anecdotal experiences of having conversations with people (on tape) in early 2017 celebrating/defending their vote of Trump who now claim to have never voted for him and say that anything on video was just a joke or sarcasm.
- twv1237213812 9mo ago[flagged]
- celsoazevedo 9mo ago> To that end, the US provoked a war in Ukraine. I wonder why these alternative points of view always try very hard to deflect blame away from Russia when it comes to Russia's invasion of Ukraine (which Russia began in 2014).
- yte12325 9mo ago[flagged]
- celsoazevedo 9mo agoRussia wasn't governed by a bunch of easily to bait and inexperienced morons. They saw an opportunity and went for it, no different from their involvement in Belarus or Georgia. And it worked. They took Crimea, started crap in the east, Ukraine's government was weak, etc. Before 2022, the US even sent the CIA director to Russia to warn them not to go ahead with the full scale invasion[0]. Multiple warnings were made[1]. If it was bait, then it was pretty bad bait or some pretty advanced "4D chess" moves. I'm not saying that there wasn't any US and EU meddling in Ukraine (alongside Russia's own meddling), but you don't just bait Russia like that. Regarding your comment, I'm sure you can understand why I raise my eyebrow when I see someone blaming a 3rd party for the war in Ukraine and nothing about the country who actually invaded Ukraine. Russia, not the US, is responsible for Russia's own actions. --- [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/02/politics/cia-director-russia-trip/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/02/politics/cia-director-rus... [1] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/24/russia-ukraine-war-oral-history-00083757 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/24/russia-ukr...
- bluebarbet 9mo agoLots of unsourced speculation and indeed conspiracism here. It would be so nice if this forum could be a haven from those things. There's all but nowhere else to go.
- deadbabe 9mo agoDon’t know how to tell people this, but the world doesn’t really need America to be the country everyone relies on. We may be better off with diversity. Increase your international exposure.
- dig1 9mo agoTrue. But the US want to remain the country everyone relies on if it wants to preserve the dollar as the world's primary trade, reserve and settlement currency. Dollar dominance gives the US disproportionate leverage over global finance and allows it to shape the rules of the system. Absent this asymmetry, it is difficult to imagine US tariffs or financial pressure (or any kind of pressure) would carry comparable global impact.
- mtzaldo 9mo agoWhat are you talking about? The US navy protects the commercial shipment routes around the world.
- cjs_ac 9mo agoBefore the US Navy did that, the Royal Navy did. The work needs to be done, but it doesn't have to be the US doing it.
- bluebarbet 9mo agoThe gratuitous hostility undermines your point.
- nullocator 9mo agoLikely soon corporate owned drones will protect commercial shipping routes I would think. Not sure if bad actors (pirates?!) will have their own drones.
- cudgy 9mo agoBecause pirates would never steal shipments of drones …
- 9mo ago
- rediguanayum 9mo agoAgreed completely. Part of this deal is that the Canadian auto market is no longer protected against Chinese EVs which substantially undercut the legacies. There is also news that the Europeans are making about to make a similar deal with China. Imagine what the United States economy will be like if Stellantis, Ford, or GM or all of them go bankrupt. 3-4 million in lost jobs alone. Trump wants to tariff countries that support Denmark and Greenland. That's like all of the other NATO countries. What happens if NATO doesn't exist? No more bases to support Middle East operations and no more intelligence sharing. It will mean more support from the Canadians and Europeans for moving trade to be denominated by Renminbi. I don't think the Republican leadership has thought through the implications to the US with their deal with the devil.
- trhway 9mo ago>Imagine what the United States economy will be like if Stellantis, Ford, or GM or all of them go bankrupt. 3-4 million in lost jobs alone. They wouldn't go bankrupt. They will be saved and protected by government bailouts and tariffs, and the situation will become similar to say Russia car industry. Though, naturally, the situation with Russian cars has become so bad that even they are forced to massively open market to Chinese cars (and even "Russian cars" become more and more just simple rebadge of Chinese cars). In short - if you don't compete by increasing productivity, efficiency, quality, you will be overtaken by the ones who do. The government actions may prolong your complacency time, yet ultimately such prolongation is just the time you actually lose falling more and more behind. The whole world by now, 20 years after Tesla roadster, should have been driving American EVs, yet instead we have classic paradigm shift there US is Sun Microsystems and EVs/solar/wind/batteries is Linux/x86.
- arjie 9mo agoThis is a negative-sum choice being made by everyone but China. Chinese cars will decimate the European motor industry. Volvo is already gone. BMW, Porsche, Volkswagen will follow. This will hurt Europe a lot more than it will hurt America. The pressures of a democratic society will force Western governments to extract money from their productive sectors and redirect them to their comparatively unproductive auto sectors. Watching an increasingly aging Europe try to sustain its expensive welfare state while losing its biggest industries and facing a war citizens don't have the heart to prosecute is going to be interesting. Already French retirees make more than the average working man there. They won't fight. They won't work. They won't provide children. To retirees, replacing local industry with Chinese manufacturing is a no-brainer: everything gets cheaper. With the resulting loss of well-paying jobs, healthcare for the elderly and wait staff will get even cheaper. A bonanza for a generation soon to disappear leaving the bits to be picked up by their most ardent fans.
- SecretDreams 9mo ago> Nearly every day, I wonder what the top Republican leaders honestly think about these foreseeable outcomes. Do you think anyone in charge has any long term vision capability to be thinking about such foreseeable outcomes?
- jszymborski 9mo ago"Fuck you, I've got mine" I think is the only thought any US politician with a modicum of power is thinking at this moment.
- SecretDreams 9mo agoAgree mostly, but there's a couple outliers. I think this mentality is also shared across the isle, but the right just says the "fuck you" part wayyyy louder.
- SecretDreams 9mo agoAisle*, but I kind of like isle here too lol.
- oaiey 9mo agoI do not believe that. Project 2025 was a documented plan and is executed. Someone is profiting of that. So the outcomes are what was the plan. Question is: will it suck for the general population. Answer is yes
- dyauspitr 9mo agoThey are laser focused on making this a whiter nation with lesser rights for women and no ambiguous LGBTQ. From all the literature it seems like they believe that this demographic reversion will over the long term solve all their problems. They are not looking to optimize for anything else now including the loss of hegemony and influence. This is going to be completely and irreversibly devastating for the United States.
- cmxch 9mo agoMaybe next time, don’t make a quota system that generationally and professionally excludes those who don’t fit well in DEI metrics? Or if you do, at least have the dignity to pay them handsomely for the privilege of enduring demographic exclusion from academia and the workplace?
- CodingJeebus 9mo ago> Nearly every day, I wonder what the top Republican leaders honestly think about these foreseeable outcomes. Simple. They see opportunities to blame the opposition for the failure of their economic policy. They've been doing it for decades with great success.
- oaiey 9mo agoThat will not be that easy this time. Too direct is the elemination of any international collaboration a result of the Trump / Project 2025 leadership.
- CodingJeebus 9mo agoThey've literally been doing it for over 50 years at this point while winning races, respectfully I think you overestimate the intelligence of the average voter. There's a significant percentage of voters who will believe, no matter what, that what's going on right now is the fault of the Democrats. Hell, Federal agents are killing people in the streets on camera and a significant percentage of the population is OK with it.
- flyinglizard 9mo agoNo, they haven't. There's a complete shift in US foreign policy and things are happening which are unprecedented. There's no continuation of anything of the past 50 years, Republican or Democrat.
- CodingJeebus 9mo agoWrecking the economy and blaming the Democrats are exactly what the GOP has done the last 50 years. I'm not saying that their current foreign policy has precedence, but their plan to deal with whatever fallout is coming is going to be to blame the dems, because that's what they've always done.
- _DeadFred_ 9mo agoReagan destroyed the pre-existing political system, racked up the debt, and cut taxes on the rich, and Republicans have ran and won on that ever since.
- shahbaby 9mo agoDoes it impact you that much?
- dh2022 9mo agoThe high prices due to Donnie's policies absolutely impact me. I paid $5 for a piece of plastic that before used to cost $2. I paid $55 / fire alarm - this used to be under $30. I paid $55 for 2 dishes at a "cheap" Chinese take-out. At these prices I balked at buying some Chinese food for myself - I only bought these dishes for my son to eat. So yeah, it's bad.
- cudgy 9mo agoAnd yet most of the inflation occurred during Biden adminstration.
- ceejayoz 9mo agoMost of the damage comes after the arson, yes.
- cudgy 9mo agoThanks for agreeing.
- dh2022 9mo agoStill blaming Biden for the economy? This reminds me of this joke: How many MAGAs does it take to screw in a light bulb? None - they all sit in the dark clapping while Donnie tells them the light is on.
- bronson 9mo agoA few weeks before the tariff idiocy, I paid $320 including shipping for an ebike battery from the EU. When it arrived, it included a bill for an additional $350 from US Customs. That's insane, I refused. When returning to sender, the package disappeared, presumably into Customs. I'm out $320 and still no battery.
- layer8 9mo agoThe Greenland topic has the potential to disrupt the relations with Europe (and the NATO, by association) even more than the Ukraine/Russia one. Today he announced new 10% tariffs, to be increased to 25% in June if Greenland isn’t sold to the US.
- Animats 9mo agoWe find out on Tuesday if the Supreme Court will enforce those tariffs.
- _DeadFred_ 9mo agoI wonder if Trump's newly announced tariffs and reasons over Greenland throw a wrench in the Supreme Court's currently written opinion.
- 1over137 9mo agoEnforce is not the right word. The court can't enforce anything really, they don't control and police or army, they rely on the Executive to enforce anything. Really they only have moral suasion.
- 827a 9mo agoI think the game is a lot bigger than even Trump recognizes, but some individuals in his circle see it. The only other country that matters is China, and the timeline is decades.
- foogazi 9mo agoThey know they will die rich and soon
- pegasus 9mo agoThis agreement was reached at almost the same time as Mercosur, the huge EU - South America trade deal. Hopefully the American electorate is paying attention.
- usrnm 9mo agoMercosur has been under construction for more than two decades, it has little to do with Trump
- hvb2 9mo agoIt passing does
- mantas 9mo agoI don’t think so. This is not first time euro bureaucrats pull off shit like this. Apply cutthroat regulations locally and push through cheap imports. Then cry about local industries struggling. Rinse and repeat.
- fakedang 9mo agoTo be fair, Europe is tired of its farmers rioting and the general public welcomes the trade deal. If the farmers are crying about struggling against competition, I have a tiny violin to play for them.
- mantas 9mo agoMaybe lift all the green deal stuff on our own farmers while at it? Let’s make it a fair competition. What’s next, let in shitty US food? I don’t see general public welcoming it. Most people don’t seem to even know about it. Out of those who do know, many don't seem to be happy about it. Also, fucking over our farmers in unstable world does not seem like a smart thing to do. It’s time to do opposite and double-down on sovereignty on all fronts. And food sovereignty was one of very few sectors where EU got it right. Our food is not cheap, but we got plenty locally and quality is pretty good.
- _diyar 9mo agoVery curious if this will result in US tariffs for car imports from Canada. Also curious how those tariffs would be justified (they‘re always using Terrence Howard math but at least pretending to be analytical). „Canada has to pay because China bad“?
- 8note 9mo agoThe US has been signalling an end to free trade in north america, so that would be coming in 2026/2027 regardless.
- foogazi 9mo agoBaked in ?
- clscott 9mo agoTrump could increase the tariffs he already set in April 2025 for new cars manufactured in Canada. Depending on the car model the increases vary between 2500 and 15000 USD.
- tzs 9mo agoTrump said, “Well, that's OK, that's what you should be doing. I mean, it's a good thing for him to sign a trade deal. If you can get a deal with China, you should do that, right?”, so he doesn't seem annoyed by it so why would he impose tariffs?
- matthewaveryusa 9mo agoFAFO* goes both ways. US is in an interesting spot. We have a 1 one-time reset button: Since we’re the reserve currency we can inflate out debt away at the cost of inflation. If and when we do that the world will pivot away, maybe, to another currency. At that point the great American tailwind will be over and we’ll have to be competitive at the global stage — interesting to see what that means, if anything. As an analogy, imagine you’ve accumulated enough debt and bought yourself a house, a car, and invested in enough productive unseizable assets (very important), like a farm and whatnot, to sustain yourself. what’s the point in servicing your debt? If the only consequence is no one will lend you again, you already have everything so whatever, right? I can poke a million flaws in this logic, but I _think_ that’s the megasupersmart move the current administration is gunning for. Hell do I know how it will pan out, but I have a hunch. FAFO I guess. *fuck around, find out (◔_◔)
- skybrian 9mo agoForeigners don't need to own fixed-interest securities. They can also invest in other US assets, such as the stock market. That's quite a good inflation hedge, so long as the US remains a good place to invest.
- fakedang 9mo agoExcept, apart from tech, there is no good place to invest in the US, especially given the headwinds in the current macro environment. And tech is super overvalued now. There's a lot of investor capital moving to traditional industries in China, India, Brazil, Korea and Europe, simply because there's better returns to be made with more resilience to American problems.
- Insanity 9mo agoGood. People are sometimes negative or worried about China, with how they spy on people etc. But for most of the western world, the real danger is US and not China. Just think - Canadian, Europeans etc are more likely to go on business travel to the States than China. You can get your phone checked at the border and if you’re not too keen about the US dear leader, that won’t be good for your US admission. Being negative about Xi might have similar results, but less likely in practice.
- jumpman_miya 9mo ago[dead]
- NicoJuicy 9mo agoBoth are equally bad. The US is just less trustworthy at this point, at least we know china's goal better. Note: both under the current administration
- SpicyLemonZest 9mo agoDo we know China’s goal better? They seemed quite willing to punt on Hong Kong democracy until 2049, as they originally agreed to, until one day they decided that it was time for democracy to be over.
- Insanity 9mo agoBoth are equally bad in theory. But my point is that (currently) the US would, in practice, negatively impact Canadians and EU more.
- lumost 9mo agoThe US has had two faces for the last generation. Bush jr. dragged the British into Iraq and generally angered the EU. That the next republican president was overtly hostile to the EU is a continuation of the theme. It’s hard to build an alliance when one of the partners flips their fundamental goals every 4 years.
- 9mo ago
- martythemaniak 9mo agoMark Carney wrote a buzzwordy, but still informative article on his approach: https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2025/11/12/the-world-is-in-a-new-age-of-variable-geometry-says-mark-carney https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2025/11/12/the-wor... TLDR: Developed countries will come together to cooperate on matters they agree without the US, or US-dominated forums like the UN. Whether it's a group to support Ukraine, tackle climate change, increase trade etc it'll be faster and looser. We will indeed trade a lot more with China and allow chinese EVs, but there's also lots of pressure to bring down domestic trade barriers, automatically recognize European-approved products etc. Over time this will help us decouple from the US. I'm looking forward to a less US-reliant Canada. We used to have a more vibrant and distinctive culture in the 80s, 90s so it's nice to see people travel less to the US, consume fewer US products. Like the pandemic, it is a painful external event you have to deal with, but what else are you gonna do other than deal with it head on.
- maxglute 9mo agoNature is healing (mild /s), not that there isn't high risk of pivot backfiring for CAN. Regardless people forget Canada under the British and post independence was fundamentally an anti-American project until WW1. Before that, it took multiple wars and (failed) US annexation effort before CAN/US realized jawjaw was better than warwar, really when Canada realized you can't be FOB for US adversaries, then British, and even that coexistence was under decadesof mutual suspicion. Of course the chance of PRC/CAN defense cooperation is nil, US will never allow that considering all the NORAD infra, but way things are going, even generic trade with PRC (something US already does - agriculture, energy, technology) is probably going to put another 51st state annexation attempt back on the menu.
- Torwald 9mo agoSo Canada found out it doesn't have any leverage over China in this so-called trade war, that is going on between North America and China? That is at least the logical conclusion based on the information the linked-to article provides. What I am asking myself now is, why did Canada join the US in the 2024 tariffs enactment the article is talking about in the first place? What was their motivation? The US president always said, that he deemed the existing contracts between China and the US as "unfair" for America, hence the tariffs and trade war. That is his official explanation at least. But why would Canada join that? That's what I want to know. Any takers?
- tadfisher 9mo agoTheir motivation was protectionism, because Canada hosts assembly plants and a broad parts manufacturing base. Same as the US. This regards the targeted EV tariffs from 2024 which is the only such tariff action mentioned in the article.
- llm_nerd 9mo ago>So Canada found out it doesn't have any leverage over China in this so-called trade war That's an astonishingly weird take-away. FWIW, Canada by almost any analysis "won" this trade negotiation. China was very eager to thaw relations. Every Chinese newspaper ran a front page of Carney visiting China. They all know this is yet another brick in the collapse of the American empire. Maybe if you just threaten military conquest more you'll reclaim something much better people built decades ago? Now the Joe Rogan generation foolishly eat up the most profoundly stupid nonsense and repeat it like clucking chickens. >why did Canada join the US in the 2024 tariffs enactment the article is talking about in the first place? What was their motivation? Because we foolishly engaged with a tightly integrated economy with the sort of country that casual floats conquering friendly democracies to loot their resources, and that repeatedly elects vile, unbelievably stupid criminal pedophiles? See, "America's" automakers are actually US/Mexico/Canada automakers, so we worked with the US to defend them. Then Trump decided, in his incredibly, profoundly shortsighted foolishness (being unchecked by anyone) that he would start a trade war with neighbours. I think the most astonishing part was seeing how willing the incredibly poorly educated American public bought the silly fentanyl lie, all so that clown could claim national security grounds. This cult of personality -- one of the most vile, unbecoming liars in human history, and basically the personification of the deadly sins -- somehow convinces millions of the most outrageously stupid thing. It's astonishing, and historians must study this to prevent it in the future. Idiocracy is not a goal.
- UI_at_80x24 9mo agoCanada should re-enact the AutoPact [0] (tldr: I don't see this in the wiki article, but the real benefit was; for every 3 cars sold in Canada, 1 had to be 'made' in Canada). This was ruled as unfair under NAFTA and thus terminated. It also had the effect of incredible auto-industry cutbacks. BUT, with a new contender (China); we could re-enact it, rebuild our diminished blue-collar manufacturing base; and hasten the rollout of EV vehicles. Which is the real objective here. IMHO, that would be a solid win for everybody. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_Automotive_Products_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_A...
- giarc 9mo agoBut are Chinese EVs attractive to consumers if they are built in Canada with union wages? At that point people will just keep buying Toyotas/Hondas that are also built in Canada.
- oaiey 9mo agoOr you just setup lower price limits for cars like Europe did with China. So that state support is not affecting the market. Because guess what: producing a car in far far away land and then ship it around the world and pay some 10% tariff is also not that cheap.
- tzs 9mo agoI'd expect quite a few consumers would still want them. Canada has cheap electricity and expensive gasoline. For those who don't live in some part of Canada so cold that the efficiency of an EV drops massively due to heating an EV can save quite a bit on energy costs. Around 65-75% of Canadians live in parts of Canada that have winter temperatures similar to those of Norway's major cities and EVs perform fine in Norway so will probably also be fine in Canada. The US and Japanese and Korean car companies are putting most of their EV effort, at least in the US and Canada, into the more expensive models. They don't have much that is the EV equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or a Honda Civic for non-SUVs, or the equivalent of a RAV4 or CR-V for EVs. Honda for example only has the Prologue, which is built on top of GM's Equinox EV platform and starts at about $15k more than an Equinox EV. The Chinese EV companies seem more willing to address that segment. Even if they have to pay union wages to build them there will be demand because it will still be cheaper than the EVs that are aimed at a more upscale market the other companies are mostly making.
- daft_pink 9mo agoGood luck with that
- theptip 9mo agoThis is a sound tactical move to provide a hedge against future US economic threats. Strategically, I do think you want to be coming up with a plan to shield core industries like auto, shipping, energy, and some parts of manufacturing (eg “factories for factories” rather than “factories for consumer goods”) from dumping / state subsidies. It might be OK to let the PRC subsidize your solar cells, assuming you can build wind instead if they try to squeeze you. It’s probably not wise to depend on PRC for your batteries, drones, and cars, where these are key to strategic autonomy and you don’t have an alternative.
- ActionHank 9mo agoThe world already relies on them for drones and batteries, often cars.
- theptip 9mo agoYes, of course, that is what I’m saying you need to change.
- bigbadfeline 9mo agoYou change that by developing a competitive industry. You can use China to help with that, and don't blame them, subsidizing everything is impossible, that's not the reason for their success. Instead, try to explain your own failure - like high barriers of entry, meager competition, etc.
- engineer_22 9mo agoCanada total trade with USA in 2024: $917 billion Canada total trade with China in 2024: $119 billion
- baka367 9mo agototal trade right now. This move is obviously an attempt to decouple themselves from the States
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- PlanksVariable 9mo agoThe percentage of Canadians of Asian descent shifted from 1.4% to 23% in the past fifty years. While Trump’s policies are a factor here, there’s a demographic factor as well. Many Canadians, especially younger Canadians, have stronger cultural and familial ties to Asia than America or Europe, and this trend will continue to play out in the years ahead.
- mitthrowaway2 9mo agoThis is true, but many of those Asians moved to Canada specifically to get away from the CCP. Others of course have a more favourable view. There are various diasporas, and they don't all see things the same way.
- hxorr 9mo agoYes, and not all Asians are chinese
- amunozo 9mo agoWhat is considered Asian in Canada? Are Indians for example also included, or just East Asians?
- throwpoaster 9mo agoCanadian reporting in. The expanded police cooperation with the CCP is not playing well here. Plus, this is a canola-for-cars deal. 90+% of our trade is structurally American, forever. IMO we did this deal to front run the renegotiation of USMCA this years. However, we are only 5% of America’s trade, and last I heard Trump had already walked from the table (and perhaps we signed with China because of this). The two sides of the debate between our major parties are whether we should sell canola or LNG to China while we wait for America to come back to the table.
- fencepost 9mo agoThere's certainly no reason for Canada to consider significant EV imports from the US - I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla was tainted based on Musk's association with Trump and there aren't really other major US EV producers. For international manufacturers it probably makes more sense to have direct trade agreements with Canada vs possible significant tariffs in response to whatever Cheetolini decides to do on any given day.
- theturtle 9mo ago[dead]
- Ninjarat 9mo agoCanada better pay attention to the one factor they probably already know about but they're just discounting. They live right next door to the United States of America. China's halfway around the world. They need to pay attention to that fact.
- willhslade 9mo agoWe're wildly aware. Currently 80+% of our trade is with the good old USA. We're basically an economic colony. But when the ambassador to Canada and Trump himself note that they don't need Canada (both statements happened in the last 2 weeks) we don't really have a choice but to attempt to diversify. We don't want to do it, we were reasonably happy with the existing arrangement, but it's not up to us to decide what the US does. It's up to us to decide what we do.
- cmxch 9mo agoChina won’t be able to save them, but they might just get more Hongkouver properties out of the deal.