• 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)

Well…I mean, Canada’s official position is that there should be less oil and gas going out of Camada, not more. Japan doesn’t need Canadian O&G, Germany doesn’t need Canadian O&G. We know, because Trudeau told us so. Maybe the US is finally coming around to see the light that Trudeau told Asia and Europe already? 🤷🏻‍♂️
So Trump IS listening to someone then? :)
 
Well aware of Albertans grievances. If Albertans want to separate and join the US as Puerto Rico North there is a process they can follow to do so. That doesn’t mean the rest of us have to follow or enable that COA.

Don’t let your immense love for trump blind yours either.

Fortunately, you only speak for yourself. Nobody else. You can presume to speak for Canada, but you don't.
 
Fortunately, you only speak for yourself. Nobody else. You can presume to speak for Canada, but you don't.
Where did I say that? Lol.

You guys really do have arguments in your heads about stuff that isn’t said.

So let’s be clear then. Are you for or against US annexation of Canada?

the worst thing that will happen is be in disagreement with that line of thought. And we’ll be crystal clear on where we stand.
 
Where did I say that? Lol.

You guys really do have arguments in your heads about stuff that isn’t said.

So let’s be clear then. Are you for or against US annexation of Canada?

the worst thing that will happen is be in disagreement with that line of thought. And we’ll be crystal clear on where we stand.

Sorry, didn't realize you were using the Royal We, all this time.

I appreciate your attempt to try paint me into a corner.. Annexation is a loaded term. Depending on the reader/ speaker it typically means taking territory by force. It also means a transfer of territory by agreement, but most go with the former.

I'll reiterate for you again.
Certainly, I'm against annexation by force. I don't think anyone wants that. By agreement? That's up to Canadians to decide. I don't speak for them. Do I agree? I'd have to see what kind of agreement comes out of the years of negotiations between the two countries. It's not as simple as as yes or no.

What I am in favour of, as I've stated before, is a total economic union similar to the EU, without the gnomes of Brussels. The same sort of union posited by Kevin O'Leary. With the combined resources, R&D, skilled and professional trades, etc of an economical union, NA would be the dominant player of almost anything in the world. Nobody could challenge that. We've had years to watch what goes wrong with the EU, to avoid many of their pitfalls. If they can figure it out, I'm sure we can also.
 
Sorry, didn't realize you were using the Royal We, all this time.

I appreciate your attempt to try paint me into a corner.. Annexation is a loaded term. Depending on the reader/ speaker it typically means taking territory by force. It also means a transfer of territory by agreement, but most go with the former.
It is not really painting you in a corner. It is Really a yes or no. Annexation as in the acquiring territory. As in becoming the 51st state.
I'll reiterate for you again.
Certainly, I'm against annexation by force. I don't think anyone wants that. By agreement? That's up to Canadians to decide. I don't speak for them. Do I agree? I'd have to see what kind of agreement comes out of the years of negotiations between the two countries. It's not as simple as as yes or no.
It actually is a yes or no. I’ll make it easier. Should Canada remain a sovereign country?
What I am in favour of, as I've stated before, is a total economic union similar to the EU, without the gnomes of Brussels. The same sort of union posited by Kevin O'Leary.
The problem with that is that sort of bilateral union is impossible. It’s just another way to say annexation. Shared currency means US currency. Do you really think the US would agree to a joint peer to peer parliament with equal footing to decide on fiscal and immigration policy?
With the combined resources, R&D, skilled and professional trades, etc of an economical union, NA would be the dominant player of almost anything in the world. Nobody could challenge that. We've had years to watch what goes wrong with the EU, to avoid many of their pitfalls. If they can figure it out, I'm sure we can also.
Except it’s an apple and oranges comparison with the EU.
 
@FJ

And I wouldn’t put it past the US to put us in economic pain to help along that decision, with a sweetened deal in the end, of course. As for polling on the subject, I wouldn’t believe today’s numbers that are put out in the least. Canada is at its weakest point in history right now.
 
Getting back to the issue of tariffs.

Canada was built on tariffs. In our case they were the same tariffs that Trump is contemplating - barriers to North South trade. And if you wanted to sell to Canadians you had to build in Canada. That was the basic premise up until Mulroney's Canada US Free Trade Agreement. Prior to that there were some limited tariff busting agreements, like the Autopact of 1965, that were based on Reciprocity.

A pair of good articles on tariffs and The National Policy:


...

Canada's tariff wall protected the rise of the Canadian banks, the CPR and the CNR, the Canadian Pacific and Allan Steamship Lines and contributed to the rise of Cunard and the Irving, Thompson and Weston family fortunes. It supported the rise of McLaughlin Motors at Oshawa, that became General Motors. It supported the Massey family and their tractor business (Massey, Massey-Harris, Massey-White and Massey-Ferguson).

My Canadian home town, Peterborough, Ontario, was home to General Electric, DeLaval, Westclox, Quaker Oats, Johnson and Johnson, Outboard Motor Corporation, Fisher-Gauge, and various Canoe Companies. The area around was scattered with dairies and cheese factories. One of Peterborough's premier tourist attractions is its hydraulic lift lock on the Trent-Severn Canal. All of those jobs were protected by the National Policy tariff walls.

Those jobs permitted the raising of families with 4 or 5 kids in single family dwellings, with one car, a cottage, a boat, a snow mobile and an abundance of fishing tackle and hunting gear - on one salary. Like as not the rifle or shotgun was made in Peterborough as well at Lakefield.

...

Do tariffs work? Ask Ontario.

...

PS the downtown was full of family owned businesses - barbers and tailors, shoemakers and taverns, hotels and furniture stores, drycleaners and service stations.
 
Looking down the road, nuclear power could well be the big energy driver. With an explosion of nuclear power plants, the US is behind the 8 ball. They don't have much uranium. What they have is comparatively small deposits of low grade, on contested land uranium. The U.S. uranium industry can’t compete with the quantity and quality of uranium deposits internationally. They import almost all of it. Much of it from Canada, their largest supplier. 22% of 49 million pounds of it. They get it cheaper on the world market than they can produce it themselves. $35/lb from Canada vice $50 domestic.

With Trump saying they don't need anything Canada has, someone at the table should ask. "How's your uranium supply?"
 
@FJ

And I wouldn’t put it past the US to put us in economic pain to help along that decision, with a sweetened deal in the end, of course. As for polling on the subject, I wouldn’t believe today’s numbers that are put out in the least. Canada is at its weakest point in history right now.

The Art of the Deal 😉
 
The "deficit" to which Trump refers is most likely the trade deficit - the negative side of an imbalance in the value of respective imports and exports between two countries. If so, the figure he mentioned is too high by about a factor of 6 or 7. Maybe there are some other imputed costs (eg. the value of Canadian military "freeloading") stuck in there by whoever feeds him information. Because countries don't have exclusively bilateral trading relationships, it's close to pointless to worry about bilateral trade deficits. Worrying about the net trade balance (ie. the sum of all bilateral balances) isn't much use either. The trade balance is just a defined number, and doesn't account for all money flows (eg. investment back into the country by those on the surplus side of a trade balance).

Suddenly fretting about the US being an unfriendly trading partner is foolish at best and transactionally partisan at worst. We've known from disputes over various matters (eg. softwood, agriculture) that the US is not a uniformly friendly trading partner. Recall that the Obama administration blocked Keystone XL, the first Trump administration approved it, and then the Biden administration cancelled a permit (one among Biden's flurry of executive orders, for those keeping score of executive orders). Canadian politicians and voters have been on notice for many years that getting oil and gas out of the interior of the country to ports on Canadian shores was a useful high-value long-term economic strategic aim.

I see Ford has decided the present turmoil isn't too severe to preclude opportunistically seeking to increase his "mandate". Selection and maintenance of the aim and concentration - he has failed, along with the federal Liberals, by dissipating resources into unnecessary battles which ought always to be avoided.

Those calling for Canadian unity now because they think their interests are about to be damaged should have made sacrifices earlier when it pleased them to privilege their regional interests over those of other parts of Canada.

There are still GDP-enhancing internal improvements to be made. A few have been talking about interprovincial trade, and a few about big projects. For some the threat is not too great to object to change (eg. new pipelines); I suppose their interests are not at risk and it is fair to criticize them for not being "team players" now. I can guess that if the tariff threat goes away, all the talkers will wipe their brows and stop talking and keep status quo. Until we see real and substantially valuable improvements to interprovincial trade and trade infrastructure and international trading arrangements/agreements, the tariff threat is a useful crisis/opportunity. To believe this is not less patriotic than sidelining the House for political advantage, calling a provincial election for political advantage, or proposing measures that would impose disproportionate costs on parts of the country. The difference is that to believe it is to seek net improvement after the time at which the tariff fight ends.
 
It is not really painting you in a corner. It is Really a yes or no. Annexation as in the acquiring territory. As in becoming the 51st state.

It actually is a yes or no. I’ll make it easier. Should Canada remain a sovereign country?

The problem with that is that sort of bilateral union is impossible. It’s just another way to say annexation. Shared currency means US currency. Do you really think the US would agree to a joint peer to peer parliament with equal footing to decide on fiscal and immigration policy?

Except it’s an apple and oranges comparison with the EU.

As I said, to become the 51st is not my decision. I'll abide with the decision of the majority of Canadians. My single vote would be based on the agreement. So it's not a yes or no.

Nothing is impossible. You never know until you sit down and discuss. The Angry Orange. 😉

Apples and oranges? If you want to stand on a hill screaming 'Wolverines!' perhaps. I suppose to black and white adherents there is no grey.

I'm not going to agree with your premise. Yes or no is a non starter for me. To boil down a decision like this, with its many variables and possibilities, to a yes or no answer is close minded and an impediment to progress.

This is really not a lot different than Quebec sovereignty. They want a yes or no decision, without discussing post separation questions. Who's money, who's borders, who's resources, etc. All have to be answered and negotiated first. As it affects the whole country, the whole country should decide. Not just Quebec. Quebec doesn’t like that. They want the impossible black and white. Like you.

I've laid out my stance for you more than once. I've given you answers to your questions. You don't agree, that's your prerogative, but you'll just have to agree to disagree because I'm not repeating myself anymore.🫡
 
As I said, to become the 51st is not my decision. I'll abide with the decision of the majority of Canadians. My single vote would be based on the agreement. So it's not a yes or no.
That’s what I thought. Your non answer is the answer. Cool.
Nothing is impossible. You never know until you sit down and discuss. The Angry Orange. 😉

Apples and oranges? If you want to stand on a hill screaming 'Wolverines!' perhaps. I suppose to black and white adherents there is no grey.
Yes. The EU system is a poor comparison.
I'm not going to agree with your premise. Yes or no is a non starter for me. To boil down a decision like this, with its many variables and possibilities, to a yes or no answer is close minded and an impediment to progress.
Ok then…
This is really not a lot different than Quebec sovereignty. They want a yes or no decision, without discussing post separation questions. Who's money, who's borders, who's resources, etc. All have to be answered and negotiated first. As it affects the whole country, the whole country should decide. Not just Quebec. Quebec doesn’t like that. They want the impossible black and white. Like you.

I've laid out my stance for you more than once. I've given you answers to your questions. You don't agree, that's your prerogative, but you'll just have to agree to disagree because I'm not repeating myself anymore.🫡
Nice deflection. But you’ve certainly said enough enough to answer my questions on that. Thanks.

And I will agree to disagree. On most of your stance.

Cheers
 
Up thread.

It’s a personal thing with him to satisfy his sick needs to inflect suffering on others in order to satisfy his frail ego.
Trump or Trudeau or both?
 
These pics of the dogs is just truly sickening - reminds me way to much of dogs being used on Jews in WWII.
Yep, the point I was making is that the American identity is fundamentally different from ours. It's characterized by violence and conflict.

Canada evolved peacefully for the most part. America evolved violently. What is happening now and the current tensions is IMO, the natural state of affairs.
 
Looking down the road, nuclear power could well be the big energy driver. With an explosion of nuclear power plants, the US is behind the 8 ball. They don't have much uranium. What they have is comparatively small deposits of low grade, on contested land uranium. The U.S. uranium industry can’t compete with the quantity and quality of uranium deposits internationally. They import almost all of it. Much of it from Canada, their largest supplier. 22% of 49 million pounds of it. They get it cheaper on the world market than they can produce it themselves. $35/lb from Canada vice $50 domestic.

With Trump saying they don't need anything Canada has, someone at the table should ask. "How's your uranium supply?"
I suspect that's one reason someone from Big Uranium is at the latest convening table assembled by Team Red Ottawa.

Interesting mix on where the US gets uranium according to the US's energy info-machine: "In 2022, 95% of the uranium purchased by U.S. nuclear power plant operators originated in other countries. Canada, which has large, high-quality uranium reserves, was the largest source of uranium purchased by U.S. nuclear power plants in 2022 at 27%. Kazakhstan was the second-largest source at 25%, followed by Russia at 12%."

Given the stats, for all of Canada's faults, there's more unstable & unreliable places to get uranium.

Then again, all of Canada's uranium comes from SK, comes from SK, who's taking a bit more of AB line (but not quite as loud, and a bit more "we want to be part of the team") on their exports. This from CBC: "... Moe said he's looking at all powers available in provincial jurisdiction to reduce any export tariff on Saskatchewan goods, should they be implemented by Ottawa ..."

Where AB's territorial about its petroleum, SK sounds like it could be just as territorial about uranium. We'll have to see how "Team Canada" they remain.
 
I suspect that's one reason someone from Big Uranium is at the latest convening table assembled by Team Red Ottawa.

Interesting mix on where the US gets uranium according to the US's energy info-machine: "In 2022, 95% of the uranium purchased by U.S. nuclear power plant operators originated in other countries. Canada, which has large, high-quality uranium reserves, was the largest source of uranium purchased by U.S. nuclear power plants in 2022 at 27%. Kazakhstan was the second-largest source at 25%, followed by Russia at 12%."

Given the stats, for all of Canada's faults, there's more unstable & unreliable places to get uranium.

Then again, all of Canada's uranium comes from SK, comes from SK, who's taking a bit more of AB line (but not quite as loud, and a bit more "we want to be part of the team") on their exports. This from CBC: "... Moe said he's looking at all powers available in provincial jurisdiction to reduce any export tariff on Saskatchewan goods, should they be implemented by Ottawa ..."

Where AB's territorial about its petroleum, SK sounds like it could be just as territorial about uranium. We'll have to see how "Team Canada" they remain.

I'd like to see a government mandate to go full on crazy in development of nuclear energy. Pocket reactors, refurbished nuclear power plants, new plant production. Im not sure what the problem is, but small local reactors should be an easy fix. The USS Nautilus, ran a nuclear power plant in 1957. Today, a Ford class carrier is capable of 170,000 kilowatts that can supply a city of hundreds of thousands. Even though they are highly inefficient for that purpose. We keep all our uranium for ourselves.

Well, one can dream I guess.
 
Back
Top