91–100 of 121 posts
Bidets need to become the norm. Canada's massive logging and mineral extraction industries have lead to significantly reduced tree-cover and (in some places) long term deforestation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Got it, so really Canada has historically instituted protectionist policies to protect certain industries and ensure self-sufficiency for items deemed important to national security/national welfare and the result at least in part is consolidation into monopolistic entities in Canada. I'm curious what options Canada has to break up these monopolies and lower prices with respect to their ongoing protectionist policies…
Honestly, most of the incentives aren't aligned with breaking them up or trying to lower prices. If the large corporate entities were broken up, they wouldn't have the scale to compete against their much larger American counterparts. They'd either get pushed out or bought up. And low prices aren't the goal for a company that is protected by government policies - they'll aim to maximize profits within the policy frame…
It really seems like Canada is in a tough spot economically. They don't have the scale to compete against, say, China or the United States but they want to protect domestic industries against foreign competition and so have enacted trade barriers and other protectionist policies like supporting Bombardier (or the dairy industry or whatever) even if it means higher prices for Canadiens and goes against free trade practices.
In my mind that makes a lot more sense as to why, at least in part, there is the ongoing trade dispute between the US and Canada (whether I agree or disagree with it and how it is handled would be a different matter). The US also seeks to in part protect domestic industries that are being outcompeted by China or face significant regulatory barriers (diary industry in Canada for example, other various exports to the EU, Chinese ban on American technology companies) and so we're winding up in a world where the US is now also putting the hammer down on protecting industries like the EU, China, and seemingly Canada does which is causing a lot of political conflict over trade and jobs.
It seems inevitable that as one or more countries put up trade barriers (EU, Canada, China being some large ones here) the US and others would eventually respond if they found that they were unable to compete on price due to government intervention.
Maybe this will help people switch over from TP to bamboo. Not perfect but much more sustainable than cutting trees. We switched years ago. Edit: I mixed up my words originally -- switch _from_ wood-based TP to bamboo is what I meant
You must mean switch to bamboo based products from wood based paper. Way more sustainable, and not much more expensive, but as more switch, although it should become cheaper...
I should use AI to write my HN comments and avoid typos :p
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess: to weaken Canada's economy, limit Canada's international standing, bankrupt the sovereign state, cause rise of populism and voters thereof, have its people overthrow the government, then absorb the former country as a state to extract its natural resources, to fulfill manifest destiny. Other than the current tariff narrative, it's fairly standard CIA play when we look at what they did to Latin America alrea…
You are overthinking this. Donald Trump wants to make the USA bigger. It will put him in the history books. He also wants a lot of chaos so he can be bribed to stop(he won’t). There is no master plan, just greed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, most of the incentives aren't aligned with breaking them up or trying to lower prices. If the large corporate entities were broken up, they wouldn't have the scale to compete against their much larger American counterparts. They'd either get pushed out or bought up. And low prices aren't the goal for a company that is protected by government policies - they'll aim to maximize profits within the policy frame…
De Havilland is another Canadian aircraft manufacturer, and is expanding massively right now. But I suppose they serve a different, simpler market than Bombardier.
To your point - Even as domestic "competition", the market is still separated by aircraft type.
And honestly, their history is a good example of why countries act in this way. When they were sold to Boeing, it seemed to be a way for Boeing to "grease the wheels" in order to land a big Air Canada contract. When Airbus got the contract instead, Boeing immediately put De Havilland up for sale and let the company languish until it was purchased by Ontario/Bombardier. Corporate histories can be interesting!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are overthinking this. Donald Trump wants to make the USA bigger. It will put him in the history books. He also wants a lot of chaos so he can be bribed to stop(he won’t). There is no master plan, just greed.
I am addressing directly why the Republicans want this, not why the current president wants this. Even if the current president changes, the Republicans will still pursue the annexation of Canada with financial interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, most of the incentives aren't aligned with breaking them up or trying to lower prices. If the large corporate entities were broken up, they wouldn't have the scale to compete against their much larger American counterparts. They'd either get pushed out or bought up. And low prices aren't the goal for a company that is protected by government policies - they'll aim to maximize profits within the policy frame…
Thanks - informative comment. It really seems like Canada is in a tough spot economically. They don't have the scale to compete against, say, China or the United States but they want to protect domestic industries against foreign competition and so have enacted trade barriers and other protectionist policies like supporting Bombardier (or the dairy industry or whatever) even if it means higher prices for Canadiens an…
In dairy, for example, if prices get "too low", the US directly buys excess supply to increase the price, makes direct payments to dairy farmers, and subsidizes feed (corn/soybeans) and farmers' insurance.
Most historical trade agreements between the US and friendly nations tolerated minor interventions and subsidies on both sides.
Trump is taking a completely different tact. His goal is not free trade or sustainable relationships. He recognizes the US is the stronger party in most of these negotiations, and wants to use that to extract concessions that explicitly favor the US, even if it strains and damages the economies of historical allies.
Why did Republicans pick a fight with Canada? Same energy as a 13-year-old boy bullying his little brother just because of his own hormone-driven insecurity.
Canadians may be nice but we are also petty and proud. It’s hard for us to win against a big bully, but we won’t be pushed around either. Everyone is going to lose here.
>Everyone is going to lose here.
I believe in sovereign states well enough to have 100% respect for Canada-first policies as well as America-first in the US.
Things worked so well for so many decades with much lesser rebalancing, that the only explanation would be some serious defect arising that was not there until recent years or days.
This is just Trump's way of telling Americans, if they can't afford to pay way more going forward for everything into the foreseeable future, toilet paper is the least of their worries.
He doesn't have to detail it out loud, but there are plenty of good old American corncobs which have fallen into disuse for this purpose, and it wouldn't be nearly as unpleasant as it was in the outhouse days.
Except for those who may not be able to afford a rising water bill at some point :(
In the end it confirms his idea of "winning" amounts to shit on a stick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks - informative comment. It really seems like Canada is in a tough spot economically. They don't have the scale to compete against, say, China or the United States but they want to protect domestic industries against foreign competition and so have enacted trade barriers and other protectionist policies like supporting Bombardier (or the dairy industry or whatever) even if it means higher prices for Canadiens an…
The US also has significant agriculture subsidies. Most developed countries do. In dairy, for example, if prices get "too low", the US directly buys excess supply to increase the price, makes direct payments to dairy farmers, and subsidizes feed (corn/soybeans) and farmers' insurance. Most historical trade agreements between the US and friendly nations tolerated minor interventions and subsidies on both sides. Trump…
But I think your comment about Trump is not quite nuanced enough and of course you have to include that the US is negotiating with other powerful parties like the EU and China so it's not really always the US negotiating with weaker parties. At the negotiating table I view each of those big 3 has having many cards to play, and both weaknesses and strengths that can be exploited.
When I say it's not nuanced enough what I mean is that, for example, American technology companies are simply banned from operating in China. In Europe, until I believe July or something American car exports were tariffed at a 10% rate, and then you have policies like the Online Streaming Act in Canada (I'm not exactly up to date on the current status but just recall it existing).
So while Trump's negotiating style is, arguably something to abhor, I think painting these engagements as simply a matter of Donald Trump isn't interested in free trade or sustainable relationships to be a bit off the mark. For example, you can't simultaneously claim that Donald Trump isn't interested in free trade while ignoring trade barriers put in place before he was even elected president. I'd also argue that in general most countries and people aren't actually interested in free trade and that it's more of a political tool, because that would require abandoning subsidies and protections and there are obviously very bad potential repercussions of doing so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks - informative comment. It really seems like Canada is in a tough spot economically. They don't have the scale to compete against, say, China or the United States but they want to protect domestic industries against foreign competition and so have enacted trade barriers and other protectionist policies like supporting Bombardier (or the dairy industry or whatever) even if it means higher prices for Canadiens an…
The US also has significant agriculture subsidies. Most developed countries do. In dairy, for example, if prices get "too low", the US directly buys excess supply to increase the price, makes direct payments to dairy farmers, and subsidizes feed (corn/soybeans) and farmers' insurance. Most historical trade agreements between the US and friendly nations tolerated minor interventions and subsidies on both sides. Trump…
I don't think that's even it. The end goal is humiliation of the other party. Trump would be pro-humiliation even if that didn't favour the US economically. (As it typically doesn't.)