6 ms·

> This was totally the right move, if for no other reason than it's the only thing that this US admin will respect in the long run. Unfortunately, Canada (wher

> This was totally the right move, if for no other reason than it's the only thing that this US admin will respect in the long run. Unfortunately, Canada (where I live) will feel way more pain from this than the US. I am not sure Trump will have respect for this at all, but the alternative was to put in a permanent trade deal that significant disadvantaged Canada.

dsr_ 2mo ago
You can't respect someone who doesn't respect their self. It's a mistake to attribute personality features to countries, but not to their leaders. Similarly, people who don't have self-respect don't respect others.
LeBit 2mo ago
As a Canadian, I am willing to suffer if it means long term benefits. Carney is very popular for a reason.
- poncho_romero 2mo ago
  No deal is better than a bad deal.
  - koolba 2mo ago
    No deal is a bad deal. Just for an indefinite term.
    - ceejayoz 2mo ago
      Trump’s deals also are of indefinite terms. Ask the Saudis - their big nuclear deal fell apart within a day as Trump added new conditions out of thin air.
    - kannanvijayan 2mo ago
      Is anyone else getting that feeling about hearing the world "deal" so much that it's losing any meaning whatsoever? What exactly does this word mean? It definitely doesn't mean a stable set of agreements that can be relied upon to ensure a stable future business environment. That's not in the cards. What I suspect Carney is doing, and fully support as a Canadian, is running down the clock. An agreement is America isn't worth anything without leverage to back it. The main goal is to stall to delay the damage as much as possible while diversifying away our economic dependence on the US. There is no other long-term goal - everything else is just appearances and showmanship.
    - THX1137 2mo ago
      I'm sure many Canadians are fine with a "bad no deal" if it means not negotiating with an unreliable partner that consistently engages in threatening Canada's national sovereignty.
    - pebbly_bread 2mo ago
      This implies that the US respects the agreements it signs
- refurb 2mo ago
  You sure? Canada's economy is struggling as is. The healthcare system is holding on by a thread. You ready for unemployment to double? If there is a significant recession, tax reciepts go down and healthcare spending gets further cut.
  - timbit42 2mo ago
    Such exaggeration.
microtonal 2mo ago
I know that this is insanely complex with everybody protecting their own economies, but I think this is where middle powers working together more strongly could help. Imagine that Canada, the EU, and Britain worked together as an economic NATO, where a tariff attack on one is a tariff attack on all. It would hurt the US much more to bully one of these economies.
- ricardobeat 2mo ago
  Canada and the EU already have a trade agreement since 2016. The UK economy is about 1/5th that of the EU, not enough to move the dial, and they kind of went off in the opposite direction around that same time...
- ajsnigrutin 2mo ago
  You'd need n^2 "NATO"'s then, because EU has implemented many really shitty policies too and someone would want to fight back against that too. UK may do the same. And we already have an actual NATO example, where one member attacks countries around the world, one of those countries fights back, threathening to attack american bases even in europe if needed... and now other nato members might get involved in a war that was started by one of it's own members, that no one else really wanted, and side on the side of the agressor ( https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/nato-chief-reaffirms-alliance-s-support-for-bulgaria-amid-iran-threat-concerns/4033057 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/nato-chief-reaffirms-allianc... ). To turn back into economics, what happens when EU declares an "economic war" against china, china retalites (by eg. banning exports of something we really need)... does canada go along and threathen it's own economy? Or do they form a new "NATO" with "everyone-else except EU"?
- fifilura 2mo ago
  UK used to have that kind of protection up until a few years ago, but they decided it was not worth it.
  - timbit42 2mo ago
    They were tricked into throwing it away.
LaurensBER 2mo ago
> Unfortunately, Canada (where I live) will feel way more pain from this than the US. I am not sure Trump will have respect for this at all, but the alternative was to put in a permanent trade deal that significant disadvantaged Canada. It's unfortunate and in some ways unfair. I hope the Canadian economy will move towards more open trade partners and will proposer. The thing that I really struggle to understand is what the grand vision behind this is. A logical consequence of the tariffs is that Canada, Europe and other American allies focus more on those who are willing to trade with them, including China. If I put a 2/3y contract in place with an American supplier, there's a fair chance that I might have to deal with 10-50% tariffs at some point during the contract. This does make (long)-term business deals with the US risky.
- exceptione 2mo ago
  > The thing that I really struggle to understand is what the grand vision behind this is. Religious zealots and the new barons want to go back to the Gilded age. If that means the house needs to burn down first, the house will burn down first. In the mean time, there is lots to gain from crises. This is something so far removed from the way normal, constructive way people (have to) think and behave with each other as a prereq to participate in society that they will inevitably fail to see this parasitical dynamic, because there is no way they can relate to that from their own frames. Even when we learn about this we will instinctively dismiss it. It doesn't fit our frame of reference, so we decide this can't be true.
- sanderjd 2mo ago
  There is no grand vision. Trump has an irrational love of tariffs. He just likes them, they feel right to him. It is entirely that we have a presidential system with an executive that is capable of too much unilateral action, and we elected someone to that office who is unfit for it.
  - lebuffon 2mo ago
    When you are forbidden to expand taxation on the people with money, because "ideology" and your country is accruing debt at historic levels, tariffs are about the only revenue source that you have that won't make the oligarchs angry.
fidotron 2mo ago
There is also the factor that Canada has been propping up unsustainable dead end industries on a massive scale for years, and that this will make any pain from such a situation, deal or no deal, that much worse. Most obviously Southern Ontario is living in a dreamland where inexplicably ICE autos remain a viable industry ad infinitum. Some forced reality, by any means, will in the long run prove to be welcome.
- ipaddr 2mo ago
  That will continue with only cars made in Canada not having Canadian tariffs. You make 100,000 cars in Canada everything above that amount is subject to tariffs.
  - halostatue 2mo ago
    The last ~60 years have been a process by which the North American auto industry has been so heavily integrated that there is no such thing as a car made entirely in one country or another, especially in the Detroit–Windsor corridor. Canada has manufacturers that the US doesn't (and won't for at least 5 years) and vice-versa.
- win311fwg 2mo ago
  Autos are more obvious than the dairy industry, even though Trump claimed a couple of days ago that the reason there was an imminent deal is because Canada allegedly agreed to eliminate dairy tariffs? Trade negotiations have stalled almost certainly because Canada isn't actually willing to give up dairy tariffs.
  - bethekidyouwant 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - 2mo ago
sanderjd 2mo ago
I think you're right that this will be more painful for Canada, economically, but I'm not so sure about "way more". But politically, it will be much more painful for the US side of the negotiation than for the Canadian side. The Carney administration is on much firmer political ground than the Trump administration. Time is on Carney's side.
- qball 2mo ago
  >The Carney administration is on much firmer political ground I don't think so. Time really isn't on Carney's side either. Carney's new tariffs fall on those who, in aggregate, did not vote for him. The average Carney voter has been very vocal about wanting to pursue this tactic- that's why they elected him. (That average voter is an Eastern retiree whose holdings are generally in real estate, so they don't care about any other economic sector beyond that which keeps their property values high, especially compared to the feel-good Elbows Up stuff.) But Carney's currently having trouble just keeping the country together at this point. That's why he's approving projects he really doesn't want to approve out West, like those oil pipelines, because the West has credibly signaled that that they might just ban Carney and his Eastern voting block from making law and collecting tax from them if development of their part of the country is hindered any further. But if it's not hindered, they'll grow in political power, which is also an inherent threat to Ottawa's power (just not immediately). And yet here Carney is- for the second time now- imposing more economic roadblocks that drive up consumer prices and put more people out of work for no reason other than his voting block wanting it that way. "Just retaliate" might be the least bad option for Carney to pander to that voting block, but every concession to them drives the country closer to separation, and that has time pressure too.
  - sanderjd 2mo ago
    It's all relative. I'm sure you're right that Carney will lose some support because of this, but he'll also gain and solidify some other support. And he has lots of room to give. We haven't had leadership in the US as popular as the current Canadian leadership for over 15 years. Whereas the Trump administration's approval is so low that the only question is whether there is even any room lower to go.
Spooky23 2mo ago
Perhaps, but Canada will emerge stronger. The US doing to flip Congress by a margin of 2 and just lock in Trump insanity until something really bad pops.

dsr_ 2mo ago

You can't respect someone who doesn't respect their self. It's a mistake to attribute personality features to countries, but not to their leaders. Similarly, people who don't have self-respect don't respect others.

LeBit 2mo ago

As a Canadian, I am willing to suffer if it means long term benefits. Carney is very popular for a reason.

poncho_romero 2mo ago
No deal is better than a bad deal.
- koolba 2mo ago
  No deal is a bad deal. Just for an indefinite term.
  - ceejayoz 2mo ago
    Trump’s deals also are of indefinite terms. Ask the Saudis - their big nuclear deal fell apart within a day as Trump added new conditions out of thin air.
  - kannanvijayan 2mo ago
    Is anyone else getting that feeling about hearing the world "deal" so much that it's losing any meaning whatsoever? What exactly does this word mean? It definitely doesn't mean a stable set of agreements that can be relied upon to ensure a stable future business environment. That's not in the cards. What I suspect Carney is doing, and fully support as a Canadian, is running down the clock. An agreement is America isn't worth anything without leverage to back it. The main goal is to stall to delay the damage as much as possible while diversifying away our economic dependence on the US. There is no other long-term goal - everything else is just appearances and showmanship.
  - THX1137 2mo ago
    I'm sure many Canadians are fine with a "bad no deal" if it means not negotiating with an unreliable partner that consistently engages in threatening Canada's national sovereignty.
  - pebbly_bread 2mo ago
    This implies that the US respects the agreements it signs
refurb 2mo ago
You sure? Canada's economy is struggling as is. The healthcare system is holding on by a thread. You ready for unemployment to double? If there is a significant recession, tax reciepts go down and healthcare spending gets further cut.
- timbit42 2mo ago
  Such exaggeration.

microtonal 2mo ago

I know that this is insanely complex with everybody protecting their own economies, but I think this is where middle powers working together more strongly could help. Imagine that Canada, the EU, and Britain worked together as an economic NATO, where a tariff attack on one is a tariff attack on all. It would hurt the US much more to bully one of these economies.

ricardobeat 2mo ago
Canada and the EU already have a trade agreement since 2016. The UK economy is about 1/5th that of the EU, not enough to move the dial, and they kind of went off in the opposite direction around that same time...
ajsnigrutin 2mo ago
You'd need n^2 "NATO"'s then, because EU has implemented many really shitty policies too and someone would want to fight back against that too. UK may do the same. And we already have an actual NATO example, where one member attacks countries around the world, one of those countries fights back, threathening to attack american bases even in europe if needed... and now other nato members might get involved in a war that was started by one of it's own members, that no one else really wanted, and side on the side of the agressor ( https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/nato-chief-reaffirms-alliance-s-support-for-bulgaria-amid-iran-threat-concerns/4033057 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/nato-chief-reaffirms-allianc... ). To turn back into economics, what happens when EU declares an "economic war" against china, china retalites (by eg. banning exports of something we really need)... does canada go along and threathen it's own economy? Or do they form a new "NATO" with "everyone-else except EU"?
fifilura 2mo ago
UK used to have that kind of protection up until a few years ago, but they decided it was not worth it.
- timbit42 2mo ago
  They were tricked into throwing it away.

LaurensBER 2mo ago

> Unfortunately, Canada (where I live) will feel way more pain from this than the US. I am not sure Trump will have respect for this at all, but the alternative was to put in a permanent trade deal that significant disadvantaged Canada. It's unfortunate and in some ways unfair. I hope the Canadian economy will move towards more open trade partners and will proposer. The thing that I really struggle to understand is what the grand vision behind this is. A logical consequence of the tariffs is that Canada, Europe and other American allies focus more on those who are willing to trade with them, including China. If I put a 2/3y contract in place with an American supplier, there's a fair chance that I might have to deal with 10-50% tariffs at some point during the contract. This does make (long)-term business deals with the US risky.

exceptione 2mo ago
> The thing that I really struggle to understand is what the grand vision behind this is. Religious zealots and the new barons want to go back to the Gilded age. If that means the house needs to burn down first, the house will burn down first. In the mean time, there is lots to gain from crises. This is something so far removed from the way normal, constructive way people (have to) think and behave with each other as a prereq to participate in society that they will inevitably fail to see this parasitical dynamic, because there is no way they can relate to that from their own frames. Even when we learn about this we will instinctively dismiss it. It doesn't fit our frame of reference, so we decide this can't be true.
sanderjd 2mo ago
There is no grand vision. Trump has an irrational love of tariffs. He just likes them, they feel right to him. It is entirely that we have a presidential system with an executive that is capable of too much unilateral action, and we elected someone to that office who is unfit for it.
- lebuffon 2mo ago
  When you are forbidden to expand taxation on the people with money, because "ideology" and your country is accruing debt at historic levels, tariffs are about the only revenue source that you have that won't make the oligarchs angry.

fidotron 2mo ago

There is also the factor that Canada has been propping up unsustainable dead end industries on a massive scale for years, and that this will make any pain from such a situation, deal or no deal, that much worse. Most obviously Southern Ontario is living in a dreamland where inexplicably ICE autos remain a viable industry ad infinitum. Some forced reality, by any means, will in the long run prove to be welcome.

ipaddr 2mo ago
That will continue with only cars made in Canada not having Canadian tariffs. You make 100,000 cars in Canada everything above that amount is subject to tariffs.
- halostatue 2mo ago
  The last ~60 years have been a process by which the North American auto industry has been so heavily integrated that there is no such thing as a car made entirely in one country or another, especially in the Detroit–Windsor corridor. Canada has manufacturers that the US doesn't (and won't for at least 5 years) and vice-versa.
win311fwg 2mo ago
Autos are more obvious than the dairy industry, even though Trump claimed a couple of days ago that the reason there was an imminent deal is because Canada allegedly agreed to eliminate dairy tariffs? Trade negotiations have stalled almost certainly because Canada isn't actually willing to give up dairy tariffs.
- bethekidyouwant 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - 2mo ago

sanderjd 2mo ago

I think you're right that this will be more painful for Canada, economically, but I'm not so sure about "way more". But politically, it will be much more painful for the US side of the negotiation than for the Canadian side. The Carney administration is on much firmer political ground than the Trump administration. Time is on Carney's side.

qball 2mo ago
>The Carney administration is on much firmer political ground I don't think so. Time really isn't on Carney's side either. Carney's new tariffs fall on those who, in aggregate, did not vote for him. The average Carney voter has been very vocal about wanting to pursue this tactic- that's why they elected him. (That average voter is an Eastern retiree whose holdings are generally in real estate, so they don't care about any other economic sector beyond that which keeps their property values high, especially compared to the feel-good Elbows Up stuff.) But Carney's currently having trouble just keeping the country together at this point. That's why he's approving projects he really doesn't want to approve out West, like those oil pipelines, because the West has credibly signaled that that they might just ban Carney and his Eastern voting block from making law and collecting tax from them if development of their part of the country is hindered any further. But if it's not hindered, they'll grow in political power, which is also an inherent threat to Ottawa's power (just not immediately). And yet here Carney is- for the second time now- imposing more economic roadblocks that drive up consumer prices and put more people out of work for no reason other than his voting block wanting it that way. "Just retaliate" might be the least bad option for Carney to pander to that voting block, but every concession to them drives the country closer to separation, and that has time pressure too.
- sanderjd 2mo ago
  It's all relative. I'm sure you're right that Carney will lose some support because of this, but he'll also gain and solidify some other support. And he has lots of room to give. We haven't had leadership in the US as popular as the current Canadian leadership for over 15 years. Whereas the Trump administration's approval is so low that the only question is whether there is even any room lower to go.

Spooky23 2mo ago

Perhaps, but Canada will emerge stronger. The US doing to flip Congress by a margin of 2 and just lock in Trump insanity until something really bad pops.