• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Brad Sallows said:
It's possible, but the only eyes that could see it that way are clouded by ignorance.

The most charitable defence of the Trump administration's position on tariffs (that I've read) is that they genuinely believe they can eventually revert to an earlier era of US government funding, in which tariffs were a prominent source and income taxes non-existent or very nearly so (depends upon period). Current levels of government spending essentially suggest that dream is hopeless. Income taxes are not going away.

And what is meant by "position on trade"? Balance of trade? Balance of trade is an arbitrary definition, usually limited to the trade between two particular countries, which ceases to be a meaningful measurement as soon as third, fourth, etc countries are accounted. It is a stupid foundation for trade and economic policy. Even if it weren't, the administration's apparent position - that it wants the US to have a positive balance of trade everywhere that matters - is incoherent. Some may remember that Trump has criticized negative balances of trade. Some may also remember that Trump has lauded supposed deals that will lead to foreign direct investment in the US. The problem: definitionally, FDI increases balance of trade to the negative side.

That Trump has illiberally up-ended things in ways that are shaking some liberal (positive, useful) changes loose in other countries (including Canada) is worthwhile (since obviously no other means were being successful), but long-term Trump's policies are generally detrimental - to the US, AND to other countries (ie. worse than net zero). Restoration of status quo ante for international trade, if some of the useful changes are retained, could ultimately leave us better off.
Click to expand...
Your closing paragraph suggests hints of Art of the Deal. Go big at first. Room to negotiate, after eventual concessions still got what you wanted all along.
 
QV said:
I don’t think any one is defending Trumps public outbursts or propensity to provide controversial media meat in his statements. But his top trade advisors have stated the main reasons for halting further talks is Canada being difficult in negotiations from their standpoint.
Click to expand...
‘Difficult’ is code word for ‘having a spine.’
 
Czech_pivo said:
‘Difficult’ is code word for ‘having a spine.’
Click to expand...
Hard to say without the context. I’m not one to blindly approve of any governments actions. And I have low faith in this LPC government of the last decade.
 
Altair said:
We must lay down our arms, our nasty words, and financial boycotts. Only through capitulation may we find the sweet nectar of victory
Click to expand...
Carney is the only one who has what it takes to stand up against Trump and win. How we doing so far?
 
Lumber said:
I'm convinced that if we had PP at the helm we'd have QV'd rolled over by now.
Click to expand...
You don't consider Canada's position rolling over? Our "attack" is a provincial paid for attack ad which we quickly rushed to take down when it worked.

"Yeah but the other guy would be worse"
 
Jarnhamar said:
You don't consider Canada's position rolling over? Our "attack" is a provincial paid for attack ad which we quickly rushed to take down when it worked.

"Yeah but the other guy would be worse"
Click to expand...
No. Our "position" hasn't changed. Pulling a TV add doesn't mean our position has changed.

In fact, pulling the add WAS probably the smart thing to do; Trump reaction to it got way more visibility than if he had said nothing and we'd continued to run the add. The only reason to keep playing it now would be to intentionally piss him off, and as I said upthread, I don't believe pissing him off was the intent.
 
Jarnhamar said:
You don't consider Canada's position rolling over? Our "attack" is a provincial paid for attack ad which we quickly rushed to take down when it worked.

"Yeah but the other guy would be worse"
Click to expand...
No, we have not rolled over. We’ve stood by CUSMA, our existing, legally binding trade deal with the U.S. we haven’t chosen to sign a worse deal to please them.
 
brihard said:
No, we have not rolled over. We’ve stood by CUSMA, our existing, legally binding trade deal with the U.S. we haven’t chosen to sign a worse deal to please them.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree. Sticking strictly to CUSMA sounds principled, but it can also be shortsighted. The global market has shifted since that deal was signed, and refusing to adapt or negotiate new terms could leave Canada at a disadvantage while the US and others move ahead.

Trump has Canada on its back with a hand tied behind us. People are acting like we have the US on the ropes.
 
Jarnhamar said:
You don't consider Canada's position rolling over? Our "attack" is a provincial paid for attack ad which we quickly rushed to take down when it worked.

"Yeah but the other guy would be worse"
Click to expand...
‘Quick to take down?’ It’s been running since 16 October and we took it down after 11 days, what’s ‘quick’ about that?
 
Jarnhamar said:
Not sure I agree. Sticking strictly to CUSMA sounds principled, but it can also be shortsighted. The global market has shifted since that deal was signed, and refusing to adapt or negotiate new terms could leave Canada at a disadvantage while the US and others move ahead.

Trump has Canada on its back with a hand tied behind us. People are acting like we have the US on the ropes.
Click to expand...
No, the global market has NOT changed, only the US position has changed.
Do you see the EU implementing tariffs against Japan or the Australians against the Indonesians?
Only the US is dong the idiotic thing of saying implementing tariffs.
 
Lumber said:
No. Our "position" hasn't changed. Pulling a TV add doesn't mean our position has changed.

In fact, pulling the add WAS probably the smart thing to do; Trump reaction to it got way more visibility than if he had said nothing and we'd continued to run the add. The only reason to keep playing it now would be to intentionally piss him off, and as I said upthread, I don't believe pissing him off was the intent.
Click to expand...
Show me where a US law maker was enlightened over the ad. Or where a US senator realized Trump was wrong because of the ad.
 
It ran for 3 full days before we took it down after Trump threw a fit. We really showed him what resistance looks like.
 
Jarnhamar said:
Not sure I agree. Sticking strictly to CUSMA sounds principled, but it can also be shortsighted. The global market has shifted since that deal was signed, and refusing to adapt or negotiate new terms could leave Canada at a disadvantage while the US and others move ahead.

Trump has Canada on its back with a hand tied behind us. People are acting like we have the US on the ropes.
Click to expand...
CUSMA is the best trade deal anyone anywhere has with the U.S. Mathematically how can you possibly say sticking with it is shortsighted? Playing a defensive game to stick it out with a trade deal that leaves most of our trade tariff free or very low tariff is the no brainer move unless they offer something even better, which of course they won’t. It would be like having an indefinite fixed rate mortgage at the bank at an exceedingly low interest rate and letting them bully you into refinancing at 10 or 20%. Makes no sense.

While we cannot control for the possibility of Trump unilaterally welching on his own signed trade agreement, we don’t have to hand him the freebie. If, hypothetically, he wants to dishonour his own CUSMA agreement, then he’ll have to take the hit to America’s credibility and credit in its trade relationships. Until then, kick rocks, eat shit, and stick to the deal YOU negotiated, signed, and touted as fantastic.
 
Jarnhamar said:
Show me where a US law maker was enlightened over the ad. Or where a US senator realized Trump was wrong because of the ad.
Click to expand...
It was never directed at or meant to influence any of those people…..it was directed at the electorate. And it had it’s intended result, and Trumps temper tantrum magnified that result by a huge amount. Granted, Trumps extreme reaction might have been unexpected but he’ll calm down and taco it.
 
If it's an ad to educate Americans about tariffs and not something deployed to raise a particular kind of shit at this particular moment in time, it sure took the brains behind it a long count of months to figure out what they were going to say. Pity they couldn't get out in front of the storm sometime before last Christmas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top