Live data from Hacker News

Canada slashes 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs to 6%

electrek.co

571–580 of 640 posts

Re: Canada slashes 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs to 6%

#571
post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I signed that petition, just like I voted against Quebec's treason of 1995.

How do you feel about the night of long knives (the canadian one obviously) and the failure of lake meech?

I feel that neither justifies 2 generations of separatist blackmail, and the use of holocaust terms for constitution failures between two Quebecois men (Lesvesque and Trudeau) is inappropriate — but completely and utterly unsurprising for the overwrought self-pitying elite of the province. Moreover, it is no surprise that Quebec rejects the constitution but simultaneously uses the Not Withstanding clause to block language and religious rights. It is like the bully in Doraemon — what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine.

That said I do grudgingly admire Lesvesque and felt he was much better than all of his successors. You could tell he had a philosophy of a Quebec that could be an actual nation, not merely a collection of childless people who spoke French and simply emulated France.

There is no Lesvesque in Alberta and that is why Alberta will never be a nation; only a gas station for the US. Still, if the only thing people value is income maybe that's the better outcome.

Re: Canada slashes 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs to 6%

#572
post #464

This is what happens when you abandon your allies and soft power. The US is about to find out that their economy isn't capable of surviving in 2026 without the soft power they've had since WWII. Steven Miller is also about to find out that, no you can't just "take what you want" and expect the rest of the world to do nothing.

"There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them" - Jean Luc Picard

Re: Canada slashes 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs to 6%

#573
post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't love that Carney is relatively conservative-leaning for being Liberal, but I do really appreciate the fact that he's professional, competent, and stable. He speaks like (what I see as) a regular person and he's not there to whip supporters into fervent chanting. I'm absolutely relieved that Poilievre didn't win the election (or his original seat). Setting aside just how far to the right he is, I've heard him…

I'm pretty sure Carney is a Progressive Conservative.

Imagine that, a little bit of this, a little bit of that. Fuck binary politicking, what the people want is reason and logic to form decision making, with foresight and compassion. Being a centrist isn't a bad thing.

Re: Canada slashes 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs to 6%

#574
post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Next 20 years is when PRC will really start cooking. In that period, PRC going to be doubling/tripling skilled workforce more than they have now (currently slightly above parity with US), this is already baked in from past 20 years of birth and current tertiary trends. That workforce, the greatest high skill demographic dividend in recorded history, will hang around for another 40+ years. They will have 40-60 years o…

> Next 20 years is when PRC will really start cooking. In that period, PRC going to be doubling/tripling skilled workforce more than they have now The population pyramid for 2045 for China is not favorable ( https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2045/ ). Currently the 30-39 bracket is 121 million, but by 2045 it will be about 83 million. You could be arguing that the percent of skilled labor workforce in there will…

Excuse wall of text. TLDR Generic demographic doomer math based on naive reading of demo pyramid fails in PRC case (and many others), demographics =/= destiny, i.e. doesn't account PRC social economic factors. Not all cohorts are equal in income/education disparate country like PRC, where old cohorts are literally worth "less", which allows PRC to arbitrage between young/educational/rich vs old/uneducated/poor.

1) Workforce is 20-60yos, conservatively ~600m (more with retirement reforms) in 2045, roughly 2-3x US workforce with disproportionate STEM bias. If current tertiary trend keeps up, that's 6-8x US STEM workforce backed by RoW combined in automation synergy, which will slowly decline over decades, and since white collar they can hang around much longer past retirement unlike blue collar. Now the 2045 demo pyramid is not favourable for 2065 talent generation and if no fix, trend towards disastrous by 2080s, but in terms of actual absolute high skill workforce advantage vs competitors, it's almost unassimilable amount combined with industrial density for like 50 years. That's within the timeframe of building hegemons.

2) For 2045s 65-85s - they are overwhelmingly old/poor (undereducated, left behind by modernisation). They "weigh" SUBSTANTILLY economically less than their actual headcount. The bottom 2 quantiles of PRC constitutes Finally flip side of 4:2:1 ratio, where the 4:2 has high savings + property) is once older generation starts to croak = multiple wealth transfers to younger gen (at least in terms of property). If extrapolated (this is speculative but mechanically likely) much of current PRC TFR issues is combination of excess competition and delayed family formation due to absolutely brrting tertiary in compressed period where talent:job supply:demand are mismatched. Current cohorts are growing up in fucked period where 20m new grads were competing for 15m jobs, vs near future where 10m new grads are pick and choosing from 15m+ jobs. By 2030s, aka when most current skilled cohorts are established it's going to be MUCH easier justify having kids, because projected involution pressure will be gone, no need to be top 1% of gaokao etc, unless AGI and crazy automation because their kids will be guaranteed to enter society with stupid amount of job vacancies / opportunities, and likely multiple properties. Like the natural outcome of current demo structure is most PRC new gen will have roof over head, not live paycheck to paycheck, and once cost of competitive child rearing goes, because every child guaranteed job, all current factors stalling family formation disappears. Of course other factors can throw this off, but this is likely where current PRC demo + social economic factors will converge.

Re: Canada slashes 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs to 6%

#575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not disagreeing smaller trucks are normally better, but massive trucks are useful unlike cars. Toronto has good transit for North America, but there are plenty of ways to improve it.

I can run faster than the TTC streetcar

> I can run faster than the TTC streetcar

Yeah, so can I - doesn't mean much. The streetcar is not where TTC excels in ridership, the subway and buses are.

Re: Canada slashes 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs to 6%

#576
post #453
post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for taking the time to provide details. While I'm not sure what percent of Canada you represent with "we" - it's good to hear this. Canada's been our closest friend for the longest time. I hope we can mend things over time.

Obviously I can only actually speak for myself and there's no opinion that all 40 million of us agrees with, but I'm representing views here that I think a significant majority of Canadians hold. Or for some of the more in the weeds bits, a significant majority of politically aware Canadians hold. Not views I feel are particularly controversial.

[deleted]

Re: Canada slashes 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs to 6%

#578
post #551
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan did the same in the 70s/80s while growing their homegrown tech companies, over time it seems they've been forgiven. In the end we all benefitted with better products from Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, and many others.

Germany did the something similar at the beginning of the 20th century

[deleted]

Re: Canada slashes 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs to 6%

#579
post #257
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's basically it. The Chinese government views the rest of the world through Hobbesian self interest, but in the late 20th century financial way. They want your money, but lawfully. The US has turned into something much more vindictive and unpredictable, including threatening to invade Canada.

The US? No, Trump.

In the second Trump term, the rest of the world is justified in viewing the US as the kind of country which will, for the foreseeable future, periodically elect this kind of kakistocratic leadership.

The lesson is finally sinking in, in ways that it did not during the first Trump term. People wanted to believe that is was a one-off. During the first Trump term the argument could be made that it wasn't, but it was debatable. But during the second Trump term it's simply an observable fact that it's not a one-off.

Economic decoupling is a rational response.

Re: Canada slashes 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs to 6%

#580
post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other country only sees that US elected Trump. So, yes, the US.

14% of the US elected trump.

For the rest of the world, this number is a complete irrelevance. The purpose of a system is what it does - and the system in question today is the US electoral system. That's what "Other countries only see that the US elected Trump" means.
Post reply on HN