CAN-USA 2025 Tariff Strife (split from various pol threads)

[ArmyRick]

Screw you all. I have 17 bottles of Rick and Lisa's driveway wine from 2023 still in y wine rack so i am good to go. My wife and I harvested a bunch of wild grapes from our 500m driveway and made some low quality wine in 2023. Its 5-9% alcohol and watch for grape skins and the occasional seeds.

And the best part, unpaid forced youth labour was involved in the making and processing of said wine/swill. You can taste the complaints from my sons in each cup.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Some random thoughts;
Let’s make a few assumptions.

1. Canada will try to use diplomacy and targeted import tariffs to create US domestic pressure to lift the tariffs.
2.Canada won’t succeed in convincing the Trump administration to lift its tariffs.
3. The tariffs will continue as is for a minimum of four years

Given those assumptions what does Canada need to start doing now to ensure that the Canadian economy is best positioned to withstand and grow?

How do we best encourage businesses, that could relocate to avoid tariffs, to stay in Canada?

What does the Cdn federal government need to do fiscally to avoid an even larger deficit given a probable decrease in tax revenue in the next 1-4 years?

(2) So what? We need to enlist the support of someone who Trump does listen to. Who does he listen to? He listens to "ordinary" Americans. Therefore, we should help Americans to understand the impacts of tariffs on retail prices paid by American consumers. Maintaining and improving good will of Americans towards Canada is a sine qua non of this line of operation. Therefore, we should avoid undertaking actions which will aggravate Americans and uptake actions which will tend to improve relations.

(3) So what? Canada must execute on objectives entirely under Canadian control, in time to make a difference. Identify and remove barriers to trade and investment. Identify and remove impediments to decision/execution cycles.

The obvious facial aim is to have tariffs lifted, but the underlying real aim is to offset the probable recessionary effect of tariffs with anti-recessionary effects. The latter is the aim we should select and maintain, because it is entirely under our control and does not require influencing Trump. All we really have to do to solve the "crisis" is offset approximately 2% of contraction with 2% of growth. Back-of-the-envelope calculations that have been available for years suggest there are more than enough opportunities to do so within our own country; we just need to choose and execute on enough of them.

We are currently led by donkies - Trudeau, Ford, Eby.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I am going to go on a bit of a rant here, so I apologize in advance.

Other than the fact that the Wall Street Journal just called trump's tariffs "the stupidest trade move in history" (which earned them a Trump tirade on social media), he does seem to have a complete lack of understanding of what the words he uses mean.

"We subsidize Canada $200B a year". I will admit to not reviewing the US government budget in extensive details, but I am reasonably sure there is no line item in there called "subsidies to Canada". While governmental organizations do tally up trade figures to follow trends in the economy, the US - a country - does not buy from Canada - another country, or at least very little. Individuals and individual companies from one country buys from individuals and individual companies from the other country. In countries like Canada and the US, all of these purchases are made freely and without duress by these individuals. They do so because they find the price right, or because it's the only place they can buy such or such product, or because they are buying from a friend to help, or any other multitude of reason that is personal to them - but they do not, repeat, not buy because they are forced to subsidize the other nation.

"We don't need their cars, or wood, or steel, ..." Obviously, you do since you buy them freely.

" We defend Canada". No you don't. Canada defends Canada. Period. (I know most of us here think we should defend it more, but that is an internal decision). The US has the largest military budget on earth, not because it defends anyone else, but because it wishes to have a global presence and be the only superpower in the world. It enters freely into various defense agreements with other countries in order to achieve that global presence, but it does so for its own interests and its own interests alone.

"Canada has to do better at its border to stop illegal immigrants and fentanyl from coming into the US". The border services responsible for stopping immigrants and products from coming over a border are the services of the country the immigrants or product tries to enter - not the one they are coming from. It is the US border services job to stop immigrants and fentanyl from entering the US. This simple fact is plainly evident to anyone who has ever crossed a land border by car: there is no border check point of the country you are leaving to stop you from going over the border, only a check point from the country you are about to enter. The above may come as a surprise to Trump, but I suspect he has never crossed a land border (or maybe even seen one) since border services would have come to his jet wherever he flew. Trump is simply trying to get Canada and Mexico to pay for and do the US government work, fentanyl and illegal immigrants just being an excuse.

The above does not mean that countries like Canada and the US shouldn't collaborate in combating crimes that will occur at the border, such as drugs and human smuggling, but while the actual act of smuggling occurs at the border, fighting the criminal operation behind them does not occur there and thus, are not a border issue but a policing issue on which to collaborate. You don't get your neighbour to collaborate with you with threats, especially when you are unwilling to reciprocate by addressing our border issues such as not dealing with refugee claimants but passing them on to us illegally or not stopping the flow of illegal guns. Besides, our police forces already collaborate on these various issues and there was no need to go ballistic on us.

"They don't respect us". Sorry, you don't get a pass on that one: You keep saying it but have yet to provide a single instance. Trump not liking our PM, or perhaps having been bested by a Canadian company in the past (unsurprising since he is such a lousy businessman or negotiator), or not liking that we were tougher negotiators than he thought does not equate to Canada as a nation not respecting the US as a nation. I, and most Canadians I know of, have great respect for the USA, the American people generally, and, at least until Trump in my personal case, great respect for the office of the President of the United States. That doesn't mean that on an individual basis, some Canadians have no respect for some Americans, and I am sure, vice-versa.

Anyway, that's now off my chest.

/RANT OFF

 

[GR66]

Supply chains will find a way...


"Supply chains will find a way" means that despite disruptions or challenges, the network of companies and processes involved in getting a product from its raw materials to the consumer will adapt and find alternative methods to continue delivering goods, even if it means adjusting routes, sourcing different suppliers, or implementing new strategies to overcome obstacles.

Key points about this phrase:

• Resilience:
  It emphasizes the inherent flexibility and adaptability of supply chains, allowing them to weather unexpected events like natural disasters, political instability, or sudden demand shifts.
  
  
• Innovation:
  When faced with disruptions, companies within a supply chain will often innovate to find new solutions, such as utilizing different transportation methods, exploring alternative sourcing options, or leveraging technology to optimize logistics.
  
  
• Market forces:
  The basic economic principle that businesses will strive to meet consumer demand, even if it requires finding new ways to source and deliver products.

Example situations where "supply chains will find a way" might be used:

• A major port is temporarily closed due to weather, but companies within the supply chain can reroute shipments through different ports or utilize air freight to minimize delays.
  
  
• A key component becomes scarce due to a production issue, prompting companies to explore alternative suppliers or redesign products to use different materials.
  
  
• A geopolitical conflict disrupts trade routes, leading businesses to identify new trade partners or adjust shipping lanes to navigate around affected regions.

Supply Chain Disruption isn’t Going Anywhere

How can supply chain leaders succeed amid constant disruption? By following the four new rules of global supply chain management.

www.troutcpa.com

A major problem for Canada is that when the US supply chains "find a way" to avoid the problems of cross border trade with Canada they may not revert back. Canada implementing retaliatory tariffs only make this potential greater. There is a cost for US companies to permanently adjust their supply chains but if they see the US tariffs as a temporary phenomenon to be endured while the Trump administration and Canada work out their issues at the border they may choose to put up with higher costs (in either tariffs or more expensive alternate supply chains).

However, if this turns into a protracted tit-for-tat trade war and Canada is no longer seen as a safe and secure supplier in the long term then US companies may make the investments to permanently cut Canada out of their supply chains. The problem for Canada then is Geography. We've been both blessed and cursed by our relative physical isolation from the rest of the World except the United States. Blessed by being next to the largest economy in the World which acts as a natural market for our products and resources so long as there are limited barriers to trade. Cursed in that our physical distance from other World markets makes our products more expensive to export due to the high cost of transportation.

If adversaries taking advantage of the situation is a worry, we shouldn't take a second step (Trump took the first) which escalates and militates that situation.

People are too easily goaded into following one mistake with another because they can't control their tempers and think rationally. That their emotions are not in check is visible on the faces they present to cameras. For once it would be useful to consider and follow the contrarian "anti-war" path, instead of the bleating of the sheep who suddenly want to be wolves.

This is an economic dispute, and there is ample empirical evidence that favours maintaining unilateral free-trading practices even in the face of protectionism. Repeat that as long as necessary for the implications to sink in.

I'm with those that feel that our first response should be restrained and laser focused on targeting the concerns that have been publicly (and privately) raised by the Trump administration regarding issues at our border. Showing the US that we are taking decisive and substantive measures to address these issues will give those Americans economically impacted by the US tariffs leverage to push the Trump administration to remove/relax the tariffs which will allow the traditional North-South flow of trade to resume.

Alternately, if the Trump administration does NOT respond positively to resolutions to the highlighted border issues it will force them to admit that the tariffs are for something different...either a global policy to repatriate supply chains domestically across the board regardless of the trade partners being friend or foe...or a serious attempt to use economic force to try and achieve the annexation of Canada. Either may result in a backlash from more moderate American voters but should also then force Canada to reassess our long term plans.

The US as a friend that we're having a temporary argument with is different than a US that is actively trying to dominate us. At that point we need a much different approach. In the meantime I think it's in our best long term interest to try to make sure the relationship remains as generally friendly as possible because geographically and economically we're in a pretty lonely position if the US is no longer our friend.

 

[Kirkhill]

The UK now imports £41bn of energy from Norway every year, according to the Office for National Statistics, up from £19bn as recently as 2019.

I am putting this article in this thread for the same reason that the Donald only put a 10% tariff on oil and gas and not 25%.

Energy is the real currency and least cost wins.

You want to beat Trump then join him in delivering least cost energy. We can not only power least cost industries we can sell least cost fuel.

Britain cannot depend on Norway for electricity – we need our own power​

Labour must roll back its pursuit of net zero and prioritise energy self-sufficiency

Matthew Lynn
Related Topics

• Net Zero,
• Norway,
• Gas,
• Oil,
• North Sea oil

02 February 2025 1:00pm GMT

The government is on the brink of collapse. Coalition partners have walked out. And a row over energy exports and green rules is shaking the political system.

With so much else going on in the world, we don’t usually pay much attention to Norwegian politics. But perhaps we should. After all, we rely on the country to keep our lights switched on.

We have allowed ourselves to become dangerously dependent on imported power, and no matter how much we may think it is reliable, in a crisis you can only depend on yourself. We need to restore our own oil and gas industry – before it is too late.

If anyone reading this can name a single post-war prime minister from Norway, I would be very surprised. True, Jens Stoltenberg ran Nato for a decade, but he is hardly a household name even in Oslo.

Most of the time, no one pays much attention. It is perfectly understandable that the crisis of last week didn’t capture much attention. Even so, it was dramatic stuff, at least by the standards of Norway.

The Eurosceptic Centre Party – they do things differently in Scandinavia, where the anti-EU campaigners describe themselves as centrists – walked out of its coalition with the ruling Labour party.

Behind the row was a decision about whether to adopt EU standards on green energy and regulation, or whether that was an intolerable infringement of its sovereignty, especially for a country that is not a member. The Labour government may stagger on alone for the next eight months until a general election is held, or it could collapse at any time.

We will find out in the next few days or weeks. The problem for Britain, however, is that without quite realising it, the country has become dangerously dependent on what happens in Norway. We depend on it to keep the lights turned on, and to keep our factories running.

The UK now imports £41bn of energy from Norway every year, according to the Office for National Statistics, up from £19bn as recently as 2019.

It provides 41pc of our gas, without which the power stations would not be able to keep running.

We import another $1bn (£800m) of electricity directly from Norway, the largest single supplier, ahead of the Netherlands (on $980m) and France (on $865m). A map of the UK should probably say in the small print somewhere: “Powered by Norway.”

We can’t do without it. It is not as if we are suddenly going to be able to replace the abundant supply of Norwegian energy from somewhere else. Another 14pc of our gas comes from Qatar, and we would hardly want to increase that given the potential for turmoil always looming in the Gulf and the Middle East. Nor can we afford to suddenly start paying more for our imports.

The UK already has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, with energy costs crippling what little remains of our industry, and triggering a wave of factory closures especially in industries such as chemicals.

And with the energy price cap, and households already struggling with both their power bills and all the green levies at a time when living standards are stagnant extra costs can hardly be passed on to consumers. The blunt reality is this. We need the Norwegian power.

The trouble is, that is completely crazy. With a negligence that borders on the insane the UK has run down its own energy resources. Output has been declining steadily for the last decade, and yet last year gas production fell by another 13pc, and oil by 10pc.

We have refused to license new fields, we have imposed windfall taxes to punish production of the few companies that are still brave enough to try and generate any energy in the UK, and we have a blanket ban in place on fracking, even though there are abundant resources of shale oil and gas in the UK, and the technology has proven itself completely safe in the United States and Canada where output has been booming for years.

Only this week, we made the situation even worse with the decision by a Scottish court to block any further production at two of the North Sea’s largest fields, Jackdaw, which could produce 7m cubic metres of gas a day, or enough for 1.4m homes, and Rosebank, which is estimated to contain up to 500m barrels of oil.

Sure, we are trying to build up wind and solar power to replace it, and slowly building at least one more nuclear reactor, but the alternatives to oil and gas remain unreliable, expensive, and will take many more years to finally come fully on stream. Until then, we still need fossil fuels, and it does not make any difference to the environment whether they come from this country or from somewhere else.

The net result is clear. By running down our own resources, and harrying companies out of existence, we have become dangerously reliant on a handful of other countries for our energy. True, no one expects the Norwegian power supplies to the UK to be closed down any time soon.

In fairness, they need the money as much as we need their gas (although of course Norway has a $1.7 trillion sovereign wealth fund to fall back on). And yet, the political turmoil triggered by energy regulation is a stark reminder of a simple fact.

We may think the supply of electricity from Norway is very stable. But in the end, you can only rely on yourself, and the resources you control directly.

The political turmoil in the country, especially over the rules governing its energy industry and exports, should be a warning that we cannot carry on like this. The UK needs to start becoming self-sufficient in energy once again – before it is too late.

Britain cannot depend on Norway for electricity – we need our own power

Labour must roll back its pursuit of net zero and prioritise energy self-sufficiency

www.telegraph.co.uk

....

PS we can also make a fortune out of carbon capture - not just pumping it back into the ground but turning it into plastics, tomatoes and spooge for animals.

https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Duckweed_Factsheet.pdf

Thermolysis of microalgae and duckweed in a CO2-swept fixed-bed reactor: Bio-oil yield and compositional effects

Microalgae and duckweed were grown and harvested over a three-month period in CO2-sparged helioreactors and open earthen ponds, respectively. The biom…

www.sciencedirect.com

Duckweed, for example, grow fast in warm, CO2 saturated ponds and can be consumed as cattle food.

 

[Kirkhill]

Turning carbon emissions into plastic​

Not only would this reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use, it would have an impact on climate change, lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

https://www.bbcearth.com/news/turning-carbon-emissions-into-plastic

Plastic from CO2​

“Instead of using fossil fuel as the feedstock [raw material], you can turn the industry on its head by using waste carbon dioxide by using chemical tricks – this will revolutionise the petrochemical sector,” says Prof Styring, who is also the Director of the UK Centre for Carbon Dioxide Utilization, has been working on this solution for over a dozen years. Currently most of the carbon dioxide is from hydrogen production, but researchers are working towards capturing industrial emissions as well.

Not only would this reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use, it would have an impact on climate change, lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

At the CDUUK, researchers have figured out how to make polyacrylamide from carbon dioxide, for example. “It’s genuinely crazy to think you can make Nylon from carbon dioxide, but we’ve done it,” says Prof Styring.

....

Interesting prospect

Package everything in plastic. Build from plastic.
Burn waste plastic.
Create heat, power and CO2.
Make plastic from CO2
Package everything in plastic. Build from plastic.

Alternately make animal feed from CO2.

...

Why am I heading off on this tangent? Because I believe that these tangents have a greater chance of effectively responding to Trump's tariffs than deciding if Maker's Mark or Jack is worth the sacrifice.

 

[Kirkhill]

Global trade war will be worth the pain to make America great again, says Trump

Results of sweeping tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China will be ‘spectacular’, says US President

www.telegraph.co.uk

Britain beware – Trump’s trade war will choke growth across Europe

Sir Keir Starmer must decide whether it’s worth cosying up to Brussels amid the looming threat of tariffs

www.telegraph.co.uk

Trump tariffs latest: EU vows to ‘respond firmly’

The European Union has vowed to “respond firmly” if Donald Trump imposes “unfair” tariffs on the bloc amid threats that the US President will expand his trade war.

www.telegraph.co.uk

There may indeed be Canada-specific, and even Liberal- and Trudeau-specific aspects to the tariffs. But tariffs are in play. And will stay in play.

The EU has reason to be concerned because the EU already imposes tariff and non-tariff barriers on all imports, including, if not especially, US ones.
They have little basis for arguing against them.

We may be able to alter the amount of tariffs, or even their scope, but, I believe, Trump is dedicated to turning tariffs into a reliable revenue stream that can fund government.

 

[Kirkhill]

Canadian tariffs

Canada Trade | WITS Data

Merchandise Trade statistics data for Canada (CAN) including exports and imports, applied tariffs, top exporting and importing countries, effectively applied and MFN tariff along with most exported and imported product groups, along with development indicators such as GDP, GNI per capita, trade...

wits.worldbank.org

Tariffs​

Tariffs imposed by Canada in 2022 are below.

• The maximum rate of tariff in percentage on any product is 522.26.
• The simple average tariff across all products is 1.84.
• The trade weighted average tariff is 1.43.
• The total duty free imports in thousands of US dollars are 428,655,358.26 and duty free tariff line items share is 82.38.

​

 

[YZT580]

For one, even the Chinese aren't threatening to annex us.

yes they are, they are just more subtle

 

[YZT580]

From what I'm reading the feelers have been out for a while for diversification. One of the oil rumours for example is the Germans looking to invest heavily in refining capacity here.

except Trudeau told them to bugger off

 

[brihard]

For those who have lost the plot and are trying to bury this problem in the pages of an economics textbook, here’s Trump’s latest as of this morning:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1886052836661932298

I will keep saying this: this is not a conventional problem of economics between rational actors. This is a facade sitting in front of the ‘will to power’ psychology of an 1800s style robber baron who unfortunately leads the most powerful country in the world and who would see it as a feather in his cap if he were to succesfully annex us during his time in power.

Are people getting it yet?

 

[YZT580]

Glenora Inn & Distillery- North America's Oldest Single Malt Whisky Distillery

Home of Canada's Oldest Single Malt Whisky, Glen Breton Rare

www.glenoradistillery.com

Bourbon vs Tennessee Whiskey. A lot of their liquor laws are more internally protected than ours.


Now that's good stuff (a friend lives in The Valley). I prefer the Night Owl Coffee.

if Glenora were distilled on Islay it would be called Scotch, or so I have heard

 

[OldSolduer]

For those who have lost the plot and are trying to bury this problem in the pages of an economics textbook, here’s Trump’s latest as of this morning:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1886052836661932298

I will keep saying this: this is not a conventional problem of economics between rational actors. This is a facade sitting in front of the ‘will to power’ psychology of an 1800s style robber baron who unfortunately leads the most powerful country in the world and who would see it as a feather in his cap if he were to succesfully annex us during his time in power.

Are people getting it yet?

Teddy Roosevelt on steroids.

 

[Kirkhill]

Don't play his game.
Do the other thing.
Act independently.

 

[The Bread Guy]

And the best part, unpaid forced youth labour was involved in the making and processing of said wine/swill. You can taste the complaints from my sons in each cup.

Is that what they call terroir in your part of the world?

 

[dapaterson]

For those who have lost the plot and are trying to bury this problem in the pages of an economics textbook, here’s Trump’s latest as of this morning:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1886052836661932298

I will keep saying this: this is not a conventional problem of economics between rational actors. This is a facade sitting in front of the ‘will to power’ psychology of an 1800s style robber baron who unfortunately leads the most powerful country in the world and who would see it as a feather in his cap if he were to succesfully annex us during his time in power.

Are people getting it yet?

"Rational" is doing a lot of heavy lifting...

 

[Brad Sallows]

For those who have lost the plot and are trying to bury this problem in the pages of an economics textbook, here’s Trump’s latest as of this morning:

I will keep saying this: this is not a conventional problem of economics between rational actors. This is a facade sitting in front of the ‘will to power’ psychology of an 1800s style robber baron who unfortunately leads the most powerful country in the world and who would see it as a feather in his cap if he were to succesfully annex us during his time in power.

Annexation isn't a serious concern. People talking about it are wasting their time and unnecessarily aggravating their blood pressure.

If we do almost nothing right now and take the forecasted recession ("2% of GDP") on the chin, we'll still be OK. If one aspect that seems to be overlooked here - that Trump might increase tariff rates, and "Red States" might add their own in response to Canadian state-targeted tariffs/embargoes - transpires, the recessionary hit will be larger, but we'll still be OK.

If we avoid antagonizing irrational people into even worse (for us) actions and instead take other pro-growth measures to offset the anticipated recession, our outcome is better than either the CoAs "do nothing" or "escalate and antagonize". Meanwhile, the impact of tariffs on US consumers will work in our favour. On that last, a point of economics:

"To better understand the full extent of a tariff’s cost, we need to realize that it leads competing US producers to raise their own prices. As the quantity demanded for the domestic product increases, its price is bid up by consumers until the domestic price reaches the taxed price of the foreign good. Imports will have decreased, domestic production increased, and domestic purchasers will be paying the same price for both the imported good and its domestically produced equivalent - for example, two cars of the same brand or quality produced in Germany and in the United States. This is what “protection” means: Domestic producers are protected from the lower prices of foreign competitors; the tariff is a discriminatory tax that allows them - and even pushes them - to increase their own prices to the level of the now-tariffed imported goods." (Article here)

US consumers will feel pain without us doing anything which adds harm to both countries. Eventually they will act on that pain. All we need to do is empower political leadership that isn't reflexively anti-American in its party roots, can keep calm in the face of adversity, is economically rational, and isn't ideologically committed to maintaining irrational policies in Canada to favour small selected interest groups over the general interests of Canadian entrepreneurs and consumers.

 

[Cloud Cover]

For those who hold these things of import near and dear to our hearts:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1886010942158254125

 

[Navy_Pete]

"They don't respect us". Sorry, you don't get a pass on that one: You keep saying it but have yet to provide a single instance. Trump not liking our PM, or perhaps having been bested by a Canadian company in the past (unsurprising since he is such a lousy businessman or negotiator), or not liking that we were tougher negotiators than he thought does not equate to Canada as a nation not respecting the US as a nation. I, and most Canadians I know of, have great respect for the USA, the American people generally, and, at least until Trump in my personal case, great respect for the office of the President of the United States. That doesn't mean that on an individual basis, some Canadians have no respect for some Americans, and I am sure, vice-versa.

Anyway, that's now off my chest.

/RANT OFF

I honestly think it's an ego thing with Trudeau, where he felt showed up by him at one of the G7s where Trump tried to do his stupid power move handshake and got outmuscled. And then with the memes going around of Ivanka thirsting for Trudeau it probably didn't help, as he has a way too weird relationship with her.

Who knows though, he could have maybe tried building one of his ugly ass buildings here in the 80s and wasn't able to just bulldoze an old growth forest or something and still holds a grudge.

He's a man child and a narcissist, who is also acting like he has early dimensia, so could just be he doesn't like red and white together or thinks we're going to take over Alaska or something. Even Southpark gave up trying to satirize him as he was stupider than they could ever be.

 

[brihard]

Annexation isn't a serious concern. People talking about it are wasting their time and unnecessarily aggravating their blood pressure.

If we do almost nothing right now and take the forecasted recession ("2% of GDP") on the chin, we'll still be OK. If one aspect that seems to be overlooked here - that Trump might increase tariff rates, and "Red States" might add their own in response to Canadian state-targeted tariffs/embargoes - transpires, the recessionary hit will be larger, but we'll still be OK.

If we avoid antagonizing irrational people into even worse (for us) actions and instead take other pro-growth measures to offset the anticipated recession, our outcome is better than either the CoAs "do nothing" or "escalate and antagonize". Meanwhile, the impact of tariffs on US consumers will work in our favour. On that last, a point of economics:

"To better understand the full extent of a tariff’s cost, we need to realize that it leads competing US producers to raise their own prices. As the quantity demanded for the domestic product increases, its price is bid up by consumers until the domestic price reaches the taxed price of the foreign good. Imports will have decreased, domestic production increased, and domestic purchasers will be paying the same price for both the imported good and its domestically produced equivalent - for example, two cars of the same brand or quality produced in Germany and in the United States. This is what “protection” means: Domestic producers are protected from the lower prices of foreign competitors; the tariff is a discriminatory tax that allows them - and even pushes them - to increase their own prices to the level of the now-tariffed imported goods." (Article here)

US consumers will feel pain without us doing anything which adds harm to both countries. Eventually they will act on that pain. All we need to do is empower political leadership that isn't reflexively anti-American in its party roots, can keep calm in the face of adversity, is economically rational, and isn't ideologically committed to maintaining irrational policies in Canada to favour small selected interest groups over the general interests of Canadian entrepreneurs and consumers.

Annexation as a result isn’t a serious concern because Canadians will utterly reject it. But, Trump’s explicit and repeatedly expressed desire for annexation is a serious concern becuse it tells us why he‘a actually doing this, and why playing the role of Neville Chamberlain with an orange stain on his chin isn’t going to make this go away. There are already a modest number of shameless Canadians lining up to do that.

Trump is a belligerent bully who sees something through the shop window that he wants but can’t have. He’s used to being able to bully and buy what he wants. He wants but cannot buy or have Canada, but he will not take that gracefully. We’re already seeing the tantrum.

This is not in isolation! Thisnis happening as he levies tariffs at the world. It’s happening as he shifts towards mercantilism and isolationism. It’s happening as he is purging not only the senior ranks but the government executive across all levels to cement his power. It’s happening as a group of hard right manifestations destiny types asrmble around him, and they will live and wield influence much longer than he will.

He wants a more isolationist America that he has more personal control over. He looks at a map and sees a big island called “North America”, 60% of which isn’t the same name or colour as his chunk. He’s eyeballing that map with all the subtelty of a kid on his computer playing Civilization.

This is not a nice neat acedemic economics problem pulled off a shelf in an ivory tower and placed in some frictionless vacuum. This is Canada facing four years of a very belligerent president to the south, and we have to stand up for ourselves. We need to set an example for other counties to do the same because we REALLY need other friendly nations and trading blocs to have our backs on this.

Trump thinks he can economically coerce us to join his country. He thinks he can do that by killing Canadian jobs, by reducing Canadian incomes, by collapsing Canadian businesses. He cares about his image and his legacy. He cares about what people think of him and he ties that to inflation and the cost of gas and eggs.

Well fuck that and fuck him. Hit back in ways that cause the most harm to American business for the least harm to Canadian consumers, and let constituencies he’s politically dependent on feel pain from it. Let his pet congressmen and senators hear from constituents who lost their job and no longer have healthcare or prescription coverage for their sick wife or kid. Let them hear from the guy living paycheck to paycheck whose car just broke and now it’s gonna cost him a lot more for replacement parts so he can drive to work and feed his family. Let them hear from people who’be scraped to pay for a house but now the cost for a new build has gone up. Let him hear from assemblers, distillers, and manufacturers who have to cancel shifts or close planes because their export customers are drying up. Some of this he’s going to do to them himself, and some of it we can give a good hard nudge to with proportionate and reasonable trade measures. Show them that it won’t work so that the pressure from within forces a policy change. Remember that we’re less than two years from the midterms.

Yeah, we’ll have to take some of it on the chin. I’d rather our chin be bruised by an economic punch than moistened from Donald Trump’s ball sweat. We make a lot of noise on this website about needing to assert our sovereignty. Well let’s assert our sovereignty. It will hurt, but appeasing him and letting him think he can absorb Canada this way would hurt a lot more.