41–50 of 120 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way to "negotiate" with the Trump administration involves contributing to the Trump businesses.
Is this true? Do you have an example?
From the Maclean's article in the top comment.
Tariffs, and protectionism, are such an extreme measure. It should only be used against countries that you're going to war with. They should never be used in the course of normal trade. America is like 50 countries with open border & free trade policy between them. Can you imagine what would happen if states decided to impose tariffs on each other?
Not quite. When 2 nations are each protective, it's bad for both. If they are both open, it's generally good for both. But - if one protects in a sneaky way, and the other is open - the it's amazing for the protectionist country. So nations strive to be 'open' but then to sneak in stuff, or rather, sometimes they are open, but really are not. It's impossible for American companies to sell into Japan for many reasons,…
Opinion: Trade sanctions against America won’t work. Sanctioning Trump himself might. https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-amer...
That sounds a whole lot more like a national security issue than the tariffs. Could also use tariffs to try and hit the states that voted for Trump the hardest.
"The European Union will hit back at the heart of the United States, slapping tariffs on products like Harley-Davidsons, Kentucky bourbon and bluejeans, if President Trump goes ahead with a plan to place tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, the president of the bloc’s executive arm vowed on Friday."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/business/europe-steel-tar...
Can anyone point to an historical case study where protective tariffs resulted in a better economic or social outcome? I can’t help but recall the saying: “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers soon will.” Not that I think the United States is going to war with Canada, but the (German-dominated) EU and China are less certain.
Can anyone point to an historical case study where protective tariffs resulted in a better economic or social outcome? I can’t help but recall the saying: “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers soon will.” Not that I think the United States is going to war with Canada, but the (German-dominated) EU and China are less certain.
The US when it was industrializing? China now? Protectionism can be good for large nations/markets catching up to other nations/markets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite. When 2 nations are each protective, it's bad for both. If they are both open, it's generally good for both. But - if one protects in a sneaky way, and the other is open - the it's amazing for the protectionist country. So nations strive to be 'open' but then to sneak in stuff, or rather, sometimes they are open, but really are not. It's impossible for American companies to sell into Japan for many reasons,…
> but it also keeps Can/Mex standard of living lower in many ways. I'm curious what ways you would argue Canada has a significantly lower standard of living.
I'm Canadian.
Our GDP/cap is usually lower.
I work in tech, my salary is less than 1/2 what it would be in the US (not just Silicon Valley).
Most goods are more expensive here.
We do have Universal Health care, and generally good schools and Unis, it's generally safer, cops are more low key etc. etc.
It's hard to compare societies, and I think the US could learn a lot from our system, but in most 'individual metrics' Canada is just poorer, economically. (Though I'd hate to be poor in the US.) There's just so, so much more economic activity and points of prosperity in the US sometimes I find it mind-boggling, again, it's a lot of Apples to Oranges admittedly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds a whole lot more like a national security issue than the tariffs. Could also use tariffs to try and hit the states that voted for Trump the hardest.
Well, not so much states that voted for Trump, but small-population states that rack up lots of Senate votes. Put punitive tariffs on corn, soybean, and pork exports, and you'll have a dozen senators imploring Trump to back off.
It's almost like indirect election influencing vs direct election influencing (Russia in 2016). Somehow one is bad, but the other isn't.
Even though this decision may potentially affect my TN status in the states and more importantly will result in negative consequences for both countries, I am 100% behind Trudeau on this.
If NAFTA talks don't work out, folks like you and me with our TNs are actually going to start worrying about how we're going to keep our jobs. And here I thought Canada wasn't one of Trump's "shithole countries".
If anything, it makes us the shitty neighbor.
Tariffs, and protectionism, are such an extreme measure. It should only be used against countries that you're going to war with. They should never be used in the course of normal trade. America is like 50 countries with open border & free trade policy between them. Can you imagine what would happen if states decided to impose tariffs on each other?
Canada's dairy industry has had a long history of protection. It is likely that this industry would not exist without this protection.
Opinion: Trade sanctions against America won’t work. Sanctioning Trump himself might. https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-amer...
That's exactly what the US does to folks (e.g. Putin's friends) when they do stupid, I'm surprised that no nations have considered doing the same with Donald and his friends/family.
Though this is a carrot instead of a stick.