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

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



It is not an exact model but there is kind of a central oil storage hub.
 
Responding to tariffs with more tariffs almost always is damage on top of damage. Those arguing that Trump's proposed tariffs are unhelpful should not even try to argue that any kind of tariffs - targeted or otherwise - are not also unhelpful.

If the point of Trump's tariffs is to provoke security changes, counter-tariffs add damage without approaching the problem where it theoretically can be solved.

A particularly egregious example like Mexico cannot be meaningfully compared to Canada. We don't have non-US land borders across which large numbers of people can cross and then walk hundreds or thousands of miles as members of impromptu caravans to a US border crossing without interruption by Canadian authorities. Attempting to contrast relative drug and migrant flows is a distraction that ought not be taken seriously. Either Canada is doing an objectively good enough job controlling movements, or it is not. That includes movements into this country, unless we lie to ourselves and pretend that anyone who can get into Canada will be hard-pressed to find some stretch of border which is easy to cross.

Canadian governments have a couple of months to work out deals before the prospective problem can become real. We've had an easy ride on security, and have been spending money otherwise - in fact, we've borrowed a lot of money to spend otherwise. The people who want their taxes not to increase and social spending to increase and tariffs to go away are going to have to first of all learn that these cannot all be simultaneously achieved, and then communicate their choices. If we want to keep taxes and social spending where they are and not catastrophically over-borrow, then we will have to eat the tariff damage.
 
And again, I ask - are the proposed tariffs legal under the current USMCA construct?
 
And again, I ask - are the proposed tariffs legal under the current USMCA construct?
More or less legal than softwood lumber tariffs that have survived multiple administrations on both sides of the border and multiple appeals, including to the WTO & the US Court of International Trade?

Even if it is against the rules/law, 1) it won’t matter because there always seems to be a way around any appeal process, and 2) if I’m not mistaken, Congress can allow POTUS to throw tariffs up outside trade agreements (and I stand to be corrected on point 2).
 

Trump wants to ensure the US has lots of cheap energy, preferably from own sources first.

As I noted upthread (I think) that 25% barrier might not be the worst thing that has happened to us. We survived the best part of century with tariffs in place, often established by our own government, with the express purpose of promoting East-West linkages within Canada rather than North-South linkages between Canada and the US.

If Trump wants to make N-S hard then we should make E-W easy - And, in my opinion, that means constructing The Western Energy Corridor, teminating the West Coast Tanker Moratorium and building a Moosonee LNG terminal as priority projects. The Ring of Fire would also be a good go.
 


....

Interesting point about tariffs. Often they are established to keep cheap competitors out so that local producers can flourish. If Trump wants to ensure good quality jobs for Americans first then we can agree to sell to his country at a higher price and keep the "tariff" in Canadian pockets so that we can buy American planes and subs.
 
Ah yes, the PPP vs Nominal discourse about GDP.

If one is focused on a country’s domestic ability to consume its output, then PPP’s the one…but that puts into question what does of matter if the focus is about value of output between/amongst countries?

Is Russia’s 6.9T GDP(PPP) [#4] or Brazil’s 4.7T GDP(PPP) [#7] to say they are more powerful in the world than their 2.1T GDPs(Nominal)? [#10][#11]…. 🤔
 
Ah yes, the PPP vs Nominal discourse about GDP.

If one is focused on a country’s domestic ability to consume its output, then PPP’s the one…but that puts into question what does of matter if the focus is about value of output between/amongst countries?

Is Russia’s 6.9T GDP(PPP) [#4] or Brazil’s 4.7T GDP(PPP) [#7] to say they are more powerful in the world than their 2.1T GDPs(Nominal)? [#10][#11]…. 🤔
PPP as it was once described to me, is but one finger pulling in a financial grip test. It takes the whole hand, and the wrist and forearms to accurately measure all of the strength.
For some reason, some countries start to chop their fingers off and lose their grip…
 
In general, there are two main types of tariffs.

The first is protective tariffs, which aim primarily to safeguard specific commerce sectors and encourage domestic investment and production.

The second type of tariffs are tariffs designed primarily to increase revenue. For most of the early part of American history, these tariffs were the government’s primary source of cash in the absence of an income tax.

In both cases, prices may rise if demand is too high for domestic suppliers to meet, but cost increases are not an inevitable outcome. Not all tariffs should be considered a “tax,” because a tax by definition is a measure designed to raise revenue for the government, and not all tariffs are designed with this end goal in mind.

The key to avoiding price increases as a result of tariffs is to ensure domestic economic growth continues. Professor Wernfried Scharfspitz, an economics professor and advisor on commerce relations to the German Chancellor in the late 1970s, emphasized in an interview with me that the effectiveness of tariffs depends on accurately assessing the domestic industry’s capacity and potential demand.

“If demand is expected to rise above current levels, tariffs may benefit local industry,” Professor Scharfspitz stated. “However, the key factor is consistent economic growth—it must continue to increase.”

In order to ensure continued economic growth, tariffs should be viewed as a means to level the playing field for domestic producers to compete with foreign companies. Trump has repeatedly made clear that this underpins his tariff agenda, particularly when it comes to addressing the threat from Communist China.

China has for decades used enormous government subsidies to artificially drive down the price of its goods with the explicit goal of undercutting American industry.

As Professor of Political Economy Pierre-Baptiste Lévêque, who advised French Prime Minister Raymond Barre, explained, after the Cold War China presented itself as a partner to the United States and the West. But Beijing exploited U.S. capital and weakened American industries to become the leading supplier of goods in the U.S. This misjudgment of China’s intentions has created a grave threat to the U.S. economy that must now be addressed through tariffs.

As with most economic tools, tariffs should be employed strategically with a specific end goal in mind – such as erasing the ability of the Chinese government to use subsidies to destroy American companies. Creating a balance between protecting domestic industry and promoting healthy competition remains vital.

Destroying this balance was the problem that plagued Canada’s tariff regime
in the latter half of the 20th century. Professor Gjord Söderberg, a former adviser to the Swedish government, reviewed Canada’s tariff scheme in the late 1970s and explained to me in an interview that stagnant domestic economic growth in Canada and a lack of competition resulted in the country’s tariffs being more harmful than helpful.

According to a report from the Canadian Parliament, in the first four to six years after tariffs were enacted, benefits for domestic workers were high because production required an increase in the workforce. Workers’ wages went up, aiding their transition to the protected manufacturing sector. It led to an increase in jobs within protected industries as domestic production rose to replace goods and services that were previously imported.

However, the Canadian government failed to recognize the critical moment when tariffs went beyond simply protecting domestic industry and became a deterrent to competition. “Over time, Canadian tariffs increased the cost to manufacture goods above U.S. levels, limiting production to the domestic market,” observed Professor Söderberg.

Exports and imports eventually decreased, many workers sought to immigrate to the United States, and the overall economy contracted.

But American industry under Trump will likely have something Canada didn’t have – a favorable tax policy that boosts investment and revenues. Trump has pledged to extend his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which led to historic economic gains in the United States during Trump’s first term. Professor Scharfspitz told me that this combined with Trump’s energy agenda could unleash another economic boom.

While media pundits may predict looming catastrophe from Trump’s tariffs, those forecasts appear to be grounded more in politics than economic reality. Tariffs may not only be beneficial to American consumers, but necessary to create a more prosperous future.

 
So…Ford is about to appear on CNN about responding to Trump tariffs etc.

Mod edit of thread title to support merge with another tariff thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A little bit on the "how" ....

And if you're interested in the specific tool being eyed ....
... as well as a bit more detailed take on Presidential powers on trade attached.
 
A little bit on the "how" ....

And if you're interested in the specific tool being eyed ....
... as well as a bit more detailed take on Presidential powers on trade attached.

Not sure how a trade deficit with Canada counts as “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States” as per the definition of the IEEPA, but here we are.
 
To the extent unity of policy is desirable, it's unity between the federal government and provinces, not unity between the parties sitting in the House - particularly if one of them has a majority.
In our federal system, unity across provinces is key, especially with stuff where both feds & provinces have a finger in the pie, but in another era, consensus was a good thing to get even in majority government situations.

Then again, lookit the veterans package we got when a minority government stick handled unanimous approval, so it ain't always a perfect way to go either, admittedly :(
I just overheard something on someone's TV that sounded like Jagmeet Singh calling for measures to make the US feel pain.
That sounds like this.
That idea is somewhere between foolishly counterproductive and dangerously stupid. Tariffs will cause enough pain to US consumers, and they can only blame their own government.
And you think POTUS47 isn't going to blame price hikes, job losses and other bad stuff on Canada and Mexico not doing what they've been told to do? You have more faith in the guy being forthright and completely honest about this than I do.
Canada should continue selling Americans whatever they want to buy, and let them deal with the hardship of their self-imposed economic damage.
Selling them whatever they want to buy, by itself, may not work given the point re: who's POTUS47 going to blame for the impact.
We should focus on mitigation under our entire control which would be economically advantageous regardless of what the US does.
1000% - and I'm not hearing details from either Team Blue or Team Red about this, outside of both sides saying some sort of help of some kind will be needed to deal with the impacts.
 
And you think POTUS47 isn't going to blame price hikes, job losses and other bad stuff on Canada and Mexico not doing what they've been told to do? You have more faith in the guy being forthright and completely honest about this than I do.
He can try. He won't (shouldn't) have the backing of Democrats, NeverTrumpers, and conservatives who are economically literate.
Selling them whatever they want to buy, by itself, may not work given the point re: who's POTUS47 going to blame for the impact.
Whatever we do doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than the alternatives. I suppose we're a little bit f*cked if Trump persists in blaming Canada; I suppose we're a lot f*cked if we add to the damage. I prefer "little bit". I don't care about "what if Trump...". There are concrete things we can do to improve domestic trade flows and reduce the dead hands of governments in Canada. There isn't really any time to waste waiting for leadership selections and elections - start immediately. The federal government may be pinned in place because the fortunes of the LPC always surpass those of the country regardless of the crisis, but the provinces are not similarly encumbered.
1000% - and I'm not hearing details from either Team Blue or Team Red about this, outside of both sides saying some sort of help of some kind will be needed to deal with the impacts.
Classic Canadian solution - subsidize chosen beneficiaries, rather than clear out barriers to opportunities that people can take up for themselves. Both the LPC and CPC have people who know what could be done to goose productive output in Canada; they just have to grow a spine and cast out their own malingering and ideologically blinkered sub-factions. If they can't do it, it's another piece of evidence against the mythical existence of "good people in government" ever being more than bench-warmers.
 
im sure there will be some targeted tariffs applied just like the last time. At 25% WCS becomes the most expensive oil in the world. I hope we just have to buy some HIMARS.
 
I think we (and I include myself) are being a bit naive. Border, defence etc are just the excuse he wants to be able to declare a national emergency to enact those tariffs. There is likely way more to this. The fact is that we could be at 5% defence spending and build a wall on our border. Those tariffs are coming and they are for a reason.
You are an easy target - the solution just maybe is not be such a punching bag.
 
Back
Top