CAN-USA Tariff Strife (split from various pol threads)
- Thread starter Remius
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 6,828
- Points
- 1,260
So, can the US be named a Banana Republic now?
- Reaction score
- 39,049
- Points
- 1,210
What's alarming is that such behavior is completely legal.
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,637
- Points
- 960
Well at least we now know what the going rate is .
The real question is is there any sort of tax advantage to leasing a President as opposed to buying one ?
The real question is is there any sort of tax advantage to leasing a President as opposed to buying one ?
- Reaction score
- 27,012
- Points
- 1,360
Foreign Preferred rate (Russia, Israel, Board of Peace members, et al) or Foreign Nasty Nations?
Compared to what’s happening today, the Teapot Dome Scandal of the 1920s seems rather trivial.
- Reaction score
- 11,351
- Points
- 1,040
Follow the money. PACs and foundations. Not hard; they're right out in the open.
- Reaction score
- 6,828
- Points
- 1,260
If the average American who actually votes clearly understood their entire voting system - from PACs/Foundations to voter registration to compensation to lobbyists, I think that there would be alot of people put against the wall and shot.
- Reaction score
- 11,351
- Points
- 1,040
Figuratively, they are. The insurgency is upon them already. Problem is, the insurgent faction is led by Trump.
Relevant news of the moment: McConnell (definitely part of the old establishment) is preventing the SAVE Act (voter registration and identification) from getting to the Senate floor for a vote.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,620
- Points
- 1,260
Trump's Global Tariffs were never about Canada. So Trump's Global Tariff Tantrum will not be about Canada either.Loss for Orange Man - Truth Social meltdown on Canada in 3-2-1.....
U.S. Supreme Court rules against Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs
Court says the President exceeded his power in imposing sweeping levies, though most duties affecting Canadian exports remain in placewww.theglobeandmail.com
- Reaction score
- 6,828
- Points
- 1,260
If the average voter actually understood their own system, 'figuratively' would translate into literally.
Right from the horse’s mouth. There is no advantageous trade deal to be had.
- Reaction score
- 8,141
- Points
- 1,160
Who does he think exactly pays the tariffs? I'm sure American manufacturers that use things like Canadian aluminium and steel are really happy they are going to pay a surcharge on materials they need to make stuff, decreasing their competiveness even further.
HavokFour
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,655
- Points
- 1,040
- Reaction score
- 11,351
- Points
- 1,040
There are degrees of advantage.
The greatest simple economic advantage should lie with untrammeled trade. Almost no country (maybe actually no country?) occupies this position.
If the utility of protecting selected domestic producers is sufficient, a situation of mostly free trade with some protectionism could theoretically yield greater overall utility (for the protectionist). Often (usually) protectionism is pure domestic politics elevated to international effect, irrespective of the fact that it's a net loss (eg. more losers-consumers than winners-producers) for the protectionist. Whatever the measure of utility, most countries (including Canada, and usually the US) occupy this position.
Clearly the administration believes the US should be able to charge a premium for access to its market. That sets it in a new position, but they're directly charging that premium to their own people in the beliefs that foreign exporters will absorb some of the cost and that substitution will stoke US productivity. They also want to claim revenues raised as a success, but the more substitution of domestic output occurs, the more those revenues will drop. They of course ignore the detrimental effects on themselves (eg. protection of domestic US steel production costs steel users more than the producers gain).
What confounds the expectations that depend on the conventional belief that import tariffs are sub-optimal is that the US is such a ridiculously economically productive country - it can mostly afford the cost. Add in the domestic gains, and an explanation emerges as to why the administration's policies have not created as much domestic dissatisfaction as expected/predicted/hoped by opponents.
The unpalatable truth might be that the administration can make its demands without dashing electoral prospects if the costs do not sufficiently outweigh the benefits in the reckoning of voters. There are other factors in play that may be elevating overall economic performance: drop in federal government employment (on the order of 10%); deportation (mostly self-deportation) of enough people in the country illegally for replacement by US citizens at slightly higher wages to be making positive differences in employment and productivity numbers.
That puts Canada in the unwanted/unfair position of having to decide how much it should concede to maximize access to a large proximate wealthy market, while leaving Canadian exporters to figure out how to compete there.
