2 ms·

Canada'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

• bruce511 1mo ago
  I 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.
  • refurb 1mo ago
    I think your handwaving away the impact isn't all that convincing and some don't make all that much sense. > 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. American alcohol is "very expensive" and Canada is the only viable market? That makes no sense. It's not like Canada is a bastion of cheap labor. DJT is bringing up the alcohol sales most likely because business leaders are bringing it up. The overall impact to US GDP is miniscule. > 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. If there are lots of markets for Canadian goods then why aren't they selling into them now? And the US is the biggest consumer market in the world (2x bigger than the EU which is the next biggest). Losing the biggest market in the world can't be argued to be "minor".
    • bruce511 1mo ago
      I don't think Canada loses the US market. The implication is that if the product gets more expensive then the US simply stops using it, or sources elsewhere. Take hockey sticks. Does this mean Minnesota stops playing hockey? Or they play without sticks? Or maybe they'll buy their sticks from...? Where I live there was much doom and gloom. Then our exports went up.... Of course small exporters are predicting calamity. It's a good sound bite, and it's definitely the obvious prediction. I'm just not convinced it'll have that effect.
  • badc0ffee 1mo ago
    > About 30% (of that 25% above) is oil & gas etc. That's easilly sellable on the global market. No, it's not. The bulk of Canada's oil sells at a discount (the WCS price), because most of it can only be bought by the US. In order to change this, Canada would need to dramatically ramp up pipeline capacity to its coasts, and Canadian domestic politics stand in the way of that more than anything else.
    • defrost 1mo ago
      There's always flogging LNG from coastal floating platforms at (IIRC) global third place by volume (after Australia's Gorgon and Karratha basins): * https://www.gem.wiki/Ksi_Lisims_FLNG_Terminal https://www.gem.wiki/Ksi_Lisims_FLNG_Terminal * https://www.ksilisimslng.com/ https://www.ksilisimslng.com/ * Juice media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt6Hmp9ndkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt6Hmp9ndkI ( note: thanks to a savage sinus blockage my energy terminal capacity-fu is sketchy ATM, feel free to correct and rank global LNG and contrast against oil edit: Sabine Pass Liquefaction (Gulf of the Americas) is larger than the three I've mentioned: https://www.cheniere.com/about/where-we-work/sabine-pass https://www.cheniere.com/about/where-we-work/sabine-pass)
• hluska 1mo ago
  1.) The word you’re looking for is tariffs. Tariff’s would be possessive. 2.) The casual way that you talk about the collapse of my country is offensive. But we’ll be good - thanks for your concern.
• drunkan 1mo ago
  You completely missed the point - these retaliatory tariffs are being rolled out strategically to protect vulnerable industries from one way tariffs not with the primary goal of hurting the us. You notice one is defensive and one is aggressive - different goals.
  • brazukadev 1mo ago
    This doesn't matter much for a bully. In fact, it makes them angrier. I think Canada is doing the right thing tho.