US VS G7

[SeaKingTacco]

Macron,  Trudeau have both tried to get on the Americans good side.

Both have been hit by tariffs,  both might be hit with more tariffs,  and Trudeau has had the added privilage of being the target of a twitter blast.

The time for playing nice with america is over. If anything,  its time to start activity working against the USA if they ramp their protectionist agenda. How do you have a group where the member of six are working against one at the same time as the one is working against the other six?

No, its probably time to kick the USA out,  and then use the group to actively target American industries in swing states to make sure the average american feels the consequence of the decisions american leadership is taking.

Except that I know no quicker way to unify Americans than to put them under attack- perceived or real. Look how quickly Canadians rallied to Trudeaus defence when attacked by Trump and how quickly he wrapped himself in the flag. The average American is way more patriotic and you are going to give Trump the war that he is looking for?

Find another way. An indirect way. Don't directly attack US industry in a way that leaves fingerprints. Above all, keep calm and don't go bombastic.

Canada would be crushed in an all out trade war with the US. We have allies is the US. Dont go forcing them to pick another side because Canada has wounded pride.

 

[Altair]

Except that I know no quicker way to unify Americans than to put them under attack- perceived or real. Look how quickly Canadians rallied to Trudeaus defence when attacked by Trump and how quickly he wrapped himself in the flag. The average American is way more patriotic and you are going to give Trump the war that he is looking for?

Find another way. An indirect way. Don't directly attack US industry in a way that leaves fingerprints. Above all, keep calm and don't go bombastic.

Canada would be crushed in an all out trade war with the US. We have allies is the US. Dont go forcing them to pick another side because Canada has wounded pride.

Canada has allies internationally,  all similiarly hit with tariffs from America.

The USA would crush Canada one on one in a trade war.  Canada,  China, Europe,  Mexico would crush America in a coordinated trade war.

America is doing this now because they have yet to feel the repurcussions of their trade protectionism. But once Americans start losing jobs in Michigan,  Ohio, Wisconsin,  Florida,  expect American leadership to start taking notice.

I wonder what american resolve would be once trade wars are not so easy.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

America has among the highest tariffs in the G7. Canada among the lowest.

This isn't about free trade,  or balanced trade. This is about every trade relationship tilted in Americas favor.  And when other countries don't just roll over and take it,  they try to up the stakes. Case in point,  the american government is looking to slap tariffs on the canadian auto sector after canada tariffs on american good take place,  America is looking to slap tariffs on 200 billion dollars of Chinese good if they retaliate on the tariffs placed on 50 billion dollars of Chinese goods.

This is going into full protectionist mode,  a full global trade war in which america has no allies.

America can win a trade war versus Europe. It can win a trade war versus canada or Mexico. It can win a trade war against china. It cannot win a trade war against all of them at the same time,  although its the global economy that wil take the real beating.

That didn't answer my question, but thanks.

Trump proposed everyone drop all tariffs and trade barriers, while at the G7 summit. Why didn't everyone jump on board? Isn't that true free trade?  Isn't this where they want to be?

 

[Remius]

That didn't answer my question, but thanks.

Trump proposed everyone drop all tariffs and trade barriers, while at the G7 summit. Why didn't everyone jump on board? Isn't that true free trade?  Isn't this where they want to be?

Maybe because no one trusts what he says from day to day.  He drops a bunch of tariffs on his allies then tells them there should be no tariffs.  Huh?  Negotiating tactic? Maybe.  And maybe they’d aren’t buying it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-suggests-dropping-all-tariffs-trade-barriers-at-g7-summit-2018-6

And you don’t just jump into something without looking at it first. Especially with this president.

 

[Good2Golf]

Tariffs are one thing in free trade.  So too are subsidies. We don't see the US dropping all of its subsidies in the dairy and aerospace industries, amongst others. It's very easy to say "remove all tariffs" when tariffs are only a tactical tool, and you have the hammer of the 'harder to prove' strategic tool of subsidies to effect economic combat with other nations.

Separately from my take on answering Recceguy's fair question about all to in tariffs, vis-a-vis G7, nothing keeping a de facto G6 from working a solution on gat themselves to mutually support their own interests...although it might have to be a G5 as Italy seems a bit wavering at the moment. Key would be to not directly engage/confront the U.S., but follow those initiatives that mutually support each other... :2c:

Regards,
G2G

 

[Altair]

Tariffs are one thing in free trade.  So too are subsidies. We don't see the US dropping all of its subsidies in the dairy and aerospace industries, amongst others. It's very easy to say "remove all tariffs" when tariffs are only a tactical tool, and you have the hammer of the 'harder to prove' strategic tool of subsidies to effect economic combat with other nations.

Separately from my take on answering Recceguy's fair question about all to in tariffs, vis-a-vis G7, nothing keeping a de facto G6 from working a solution on gat themselves to mutually support their own interests...although it might have to be a G5 as Italy seems a bit wavering at the moment. Key would be to not directly engage/confront the U.S., but follow those initiatives that mutually support each other... :2c:

Regards,
G2G

De Facto as in the Americans still get invited? Because that doesn't seem to work.

 

[Good2Golf]

De Facto as in the Americans still get invited? Because that doesn't seem to work.

...no.  I mean CAN-DEU-FRA-ITA-JAP-GBR and the two EU observers.  To be less provocative (to the US), don't even call it a G6 (hence my de facto), but rather a multi-lateral economic cooperation group.

G2G

 

[Altair]

...no.  I mean CAN-DEU-FRA-ITA-JAP-GBR and the two EU observers.  To be less provocative (to the US), don't even call it a G6 (hence my de facto), but rather a multi-lateral economic cooperation group.

G2G

Makes sense. I could get behind that for sure, up until the point that the US is ready to re assume the position of leader of the free world.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>If anything,  its time to start activity working against the USA if they ramp their protectionist agenda.

Basic economics: even when a trading partner pursues protectionism, we're still better off (overall) unilaterally eschewing protectionism.

Good will is hard to build and easy to destroy.  There is a faction of Americans cheering for Canada and the Europeans to take down Trump a notch; they are loud and control much of the communications media but I am not convinced they are a majority, let alone a substantial one.  There is also a faction that will hold to "my country, right or wrong" and bear a long grudge.  The latter could be tolerated if they lived in a less powerful country that could essentially be ignored.

It's easy to countenance an escalating trade war when you think it will be over (with victory in your hand) by Christmas.  Some thought needs to be given to the outcomes in which it becomes a negatively reinforcing downward spiral that drags on for much longer and consumes industry after industry.

 

[Altair]

>If anything,  its time to start activity working against the USA if they ramp their protectionist agenda.

Basic economics: even when a trading partner pursues protectionism, we're still better off (overall) unilaterally eschewing protectionism.

Good will is hard to build and easy to destroy.  There is a faction of Americans cheering for Canada and the Europeans to take down Trump a notch; they are loud and control much of the communications media but I am not convinced they are a majority, let alone a substantial one.  There is also a faction that will hold to "my country, right or wrong" and bear a long grudge.  The latter could be tolerated if they lived in a less powerful country that could essentially be ignored.

It's easy to countenance an escalating trade war when you think it will be over (with victory in your hand) by Christmas.  Some thought needs to be given to the outcomes in which it becomes a negatively reinforcing downward spiral that drags on for much longer and consumes industry after industry.

And which country, in your opinion, is not giving thought to the outcomes in which it becomes a negatively reinforcing downward spiral that drags on for much longer and consumes industry after industry?

I'll give you a hint. There is one country right now that holds the belief that trade wars are easy to win, and are hitting allies and biggest trading partners with tariffs, getting tariffs on them in return and are in turn threatening more tariffs again.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>And which country, in your opinion, is not giving thought to the outcomes in which it becomes a negatively reinforcing downward spiral that drags on for much longer and consumes industry after industry?

I'm not privy to the decision-making processes and discussions, so I don't know how much is cold realpolitik and how much is emotionally driven.

Canada can reply with the most cleverly focused tit-for-tat sanctions ever conceived, each perceived as eminently wise and fair by all other observers; but if each response of ours simply leads the US to add another one of its own, the spiral by definition continues downward until at least one party stops.

For example: Auto tariffs could cost Canada 160,000 jobs, TD estimates.  So: what is worth paying that cost?

 

[Remius]

>And which country, in your opinion, is not giving thought to the outcomes in which it becomes a negatively reinforcing downward spiral that drags on for much longer and consumes industry after industry?

I'm not privy to the decision-making processes and discussions, so I don't know how much is cold realpolitik and how much is emotionally driven.

Canada can reply with the most cleverly focused tit-for-tat sanctions ever conceived, each perceived as eminently wise and fair by all other observers; but if each response of ours simply leads the US to add another one of its own, the spiral by definition continues downward until at least one party stops.

For example: Auto tariffs could cost Canada 160,000 jobs, TD estimates.  So: what is worth paying that cost?

If they hit us with tariffs on auto then that would be cause to go after pharma patents as mentioned by a few.

 

[Jarnhamar]

If they hit us with tariffs on auto then that would be cause to go after pharma patents as mentioned by a few.

What do you mean "go after"?

If it has anything to do with making it harder for Americans to get prescription medicine I can see that backfiring.

 

[ModlrMike]

It means that we suspend all US patents in Canada, thereby depriving their pharmaceutical industry huge amounts of money for name brand medications. It would have the knock on effect of Canadian drug manufacturers being able to produce generic versions here, which in theory would lower our drug costs.

There are also a number of other IP areas where the US is vulnerable in Canada. To add, if we do it, so can the Europeans.

 

[Remius]

What do you mean "go after"?

If it has anything to do with making it harder for Americans to get prescription medicine I can see that backfiring.

Nope.  It’s going after US patents in Canada.  The pharma lobby is one of the biggest in the US.

See here:  https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/why-pharmaceuticals-could-be-the-prescription-for-trade-warfare-that-truly-hurts-america/

 

[QV]

Well if Canada were a sovereign nation not so reliant on one ally for everything from defence to the economy we might be in a better negotiating position.  But why run pipelines to the coasts when we can sell a reduced amount at a reduced rate to the US, for example? Canada is in a bad position here. 

 

[Remius]

Well if Canada were a sovereign nation not so reliant on one ally for everything from defence to the economy we might be in a better negotiating position.  But why run pipelines to the coasts when we can sell a reduced amount at a reduced rate to the US, for example? Canada is in a bad position here.

Silly us for thinking the US could be a reliable ally. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

Silly us for thinking the US could be a reliable ally.

“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” Lord Palmerston

 

[QV]

Silly us for thinking the US could be a reliable ally.

I think the US is still and will always be a reliable ally, Canada can't afford it not to be.  And the US knows this.  Don't you think it would be better for us if we perhaps pursued some things to increase our standing in the world?  To be a serious middle power?  To be actually be able to project some force if required?  Our present situation on defence is pathetic and we are killing our resource sector.  If just those two things were well sorted we would no doubt be two things: a better ally to our friends and we would have a better negotiating position in the world. 

 

[tomahawk6]

Merge with the US that will show them. ;D