4 ms·
This is the way. If the US imposes tariffs, impose tariffs on US goods. The US administration twists facts to suit their agenda. For example, they often compla
by bradley13 1mo ago
This is the way. If the US imposes tariffs, impose tariffs on US goods.
The US administration twists facts to suit their agenda. For example, they often complain about the trade deficit the US has with other countries. However, that deficit often (depends on the country) only exists if you exclude digital goods (Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc.).
If the rest of the world were to restrict the import of those digital goods, in the interest of fairness, the tech lobbyists would swarm D.C. in panic.
- peterbecich 1mo agoAgreeing with your larger point but on the other hand, Trump-voting districts with older industries probably have trade deficits, both with other American districts and especially internationally.
- angulardragon03 1mo agoYeah but this is the point, right? The guy thinks the US is still living in an era before it became a massive service economy
- peterbecich 1mo agoI agree it is the point, but it is not the end of the story. These districts will continue to vote for Trump-like candidates until their situation improves, I predict.
- luckyjajj 1mo agoIronically Canada’s trade deficit with the USA is largely due to our oil exports. Remove that the trade is fairly balanced.
- carefulfungi 1mo agoWhy is this ironic? I see this point a lot but don’t understand the underlying reasoning for why it is a meaningful rebuttal? It’s insane that the US administration (said as an American) doesn’t continue to treasure a values-aligned, peaceful, stable, independent neighbor along a massive unprotected border. But I don’t understand this energy carve-out argument.
- joshlemer 1mo agoTrue. And if you’re going to carve out oil sold to the us, shouldn’t you be carving out resources sold to Canada? Seems like a lopsided comparison
- luckyjajj 1mo agoExpectation is that Canada should have a balanced trade with the USA. The reality is that Canada will always have a trade deficit because of oil exports to the USA, especially now when the USA needs it the most. That is the ironic part.
- hylaride 1mo agoThere’s not a lot of irony in trade politics, but more ignorance. It’s perfectly fine to have a trade deficit with individual countries. The layman’s example is that most of us have a trade surplus with our employers, and deficits with retail outlets. It all balances out. The US trade deficit is mostly balanced out by service (often not counted) and investment flows. The US could theoretically end most of its trade deficits if it balanced its budget, thus reducing demand for treasuries. However, that would come with other pitfalls. It would either entail tax increases, spending cuts, or both at the government level and it would then bleed into the standard of living of most Americans as foreign investment slowed down. It doesn’t surprise me at all to see yields go up as foreigners invest less into the US as they get dinged sending goods here. So maybe that’s ironic…
- pnt12 1mo agoExactly. If I buy a new jacket from a store and it's durable, fashionable and warm, I'm not complaining - I exchangedml my money for a valuable product! Macroeconomics are a different beast but I think it still holds (and not that Trump knows a thing about them). A country with a productive economy may buy some valuable products from other countries. It becomes a problem if it's buying everything and not selling anything.
- pjc50 1mo agoMAGA meant the end of values alignment, because it implies subjugation of non Americans. Yes, this includes Canadians even though they're white.
- bad_haircut72 1mo agoEurope/Canada should ban chatgpt/anthropic and say "ok we will use chinese models for our vibe coding I guess" and watch the stock market implode overnight. Remenber when they tried to ban non-US citizens from using Fable? best to remove that sword of damocles now regardless
- 627467 1mo agoThis has always been an option pre-AI (block MS, block Google, etc). They never done that before why would they do that now?
- morkalork 1mo agoBecause they were allies and not in economic war before?
- notahacker 1mo agoThe US wasn't, for the most part, treating them as an adversary before
- consp 1mo agoThe examples you provide are way more integrated into governments and organizations. LLMs are not even in the same country let alone postal code.
- watutalkinbout 1mo agoThe US is not an ally.
- ericmay 1mo ago[flagged]
- bad_haircut72 1mo agothe advantage US labs have is that we use them. If chinese labs got 1 years worth of usage from everyone else as their daily driver, they would catchup if not overtake the US based firms - assuming you even think that they're truly behind anyway.
- refurb 1mo agoCanada's tariff's will be meaningless. Canada's GDP is 32% exports. Of that, 75% goes to the US, or ~25% of Canada's GDP or $1 out of every $4. US exports to Canada are 11% and 16% go to Canada or around 1.7% of US GDP. If both countries decide to start ramping up tariffs, one of them is going to collapse and one won't even notice a difference.
- bruce511 1mo agoI think there's a notion that the imposition of tarifs will ultimately affect the amount the country imports. However that stick only kinda-sorta works. As a reference - in the country I live in, exports to the US rose in the year after "liberation day". Because of 2 things; Americans like to buy stuff and tarifs imposed on everyone doesn't cause importers to source elsewhere - it's just business as usual. Take for example something as mundane as coffee. Do tarifs mean Americans drink less? (perhaps not). Do they grow more locally (well, no, not least because of ramp-up time to new production.) Tarifs are just a local tax on consumerism. So take your example above. 25% of the Canadian GDP goes to the US. The question then becomes how much of that is going to be sourced elsewhere instead? And can Canada find an alternative market to make up the difference? About 30% (of that 25% above) is oil & gas etc. That's easilly sellable on the global market. Not that they'll need to, the US customer will simply pay more. The next 21% is car parts, machinery etc. US Auto makers are already dependent on external parts - maybe they can get them from somewhere else? Somewhere without already higher tarifs? Other big chuncks are Consumer, Forestry and Industrial goos (15%), Metas (12%) and agriculture (10%). None of these are easily sourced (cheaper) elsewhere. In other words, tarifs make for good headlines. And there will inevitably be some winners and losers. But the effect on Canada's GDP will be minor. I'm not even sure that Canada needs to reciprocate - Canadian consumers are very good at simply not buying American products. No govt can force the Canadian people to buy Budwizer.... >> If both countries decide to start ramping up tariffs, one of them is going to collapse and one won't even notice a difference. I agree, but probably not the same way you think. It's US suppliers who depend on exports that very much will notice. American products are very expensive, and Canada is one of the few markets where they are viable. That's why DJT is so upset with alcohol bans in Canada. There are lots of markets for Canadian goods. And ultimately this whole process is encouraging Canadian producers to explore some of those markets, which in the long run is good for Canada.
- polski-g 1mo agoTrade deficits are good though. They are otherwise called capital surpluses. America gets to send worthless pieces of paper with dead presidents on them, and in return we get real, physical goods with finite supply.
- inigyou 1mo agoBut now the circulation of dead president paper is all fucked up, people are mad about it and they're tackling it via this (which won't work but it looks like it does something anyway).