Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

thetariffcost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 258 posts

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#211

Post by gruez »

maest wrote: post #206
gruez wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it's definitely less regulated than CDN dairy. Again, if that were the sticking point that can be fixed with rules around imports. The fact that these negotiations always end with quotas and/or tariffs strongly suggests the reason is political (ie. lobbying).

It's not wild to imagine Canada wants to protect a domestic food producing industry. Same how all countries, including the US, heavily subsidize and protect their agricultural sector. I'd call this strategic, not political (although ofc it involves lobbying, again, like in every other country including the US)

>It's not wild to imagine Canada wants to protect a domestic food producing industry.

It's still protectionism, even if it's for a "good cause". During the mercantilist era protectionism was considered the obvious thing to do. After all, why would you want to make yourself poorer and enrich your enemies in the process? That doesn't mean it wasn't protectionism.

>I'd call this strategic, not political (although ofc it involves lobbying, again, like in every other country including the US)

For every policy that benefit some interest group there's almost always a fig leaf "strategic" justification for it. Jones act? It's to protect domestic ship building. Banning discounted medicines from abroad? They aren't been certified safe by the FDA. Tariffs on sugar? Food security and American Jobs™, of course!

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#212

Post by realo »

asvitkine wrote: post #189
realo wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am Canadian. Never, ever would i knowingly buy any dairy products from the USA , at any price. We have cows too, and farmers.

Do you never have Philadelphia cream cheese? Just wondering.

In Canada Philadelphia is made from Canadian milk.

However i try to avoid ultra-transformed products like cheez-whiz and philadelphia. Those are not even allowed to be called "cheese" here, they must have some qualifier in front or after the word.

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#213

Post by tensor »

ericmay wrote: post #166
tensor wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ok, and then Canada needs things that the US has, as does the EU. Both Canada and the EU also have to get products and commodities from brutal dictatorships. This is a poor argument - what exactly are you trying to prove here? No, actually, we don't. If you are including "hypothetical future sources" which it seems you are, then Canada and EU can get everything they need from places other than the US. The only one…

Ok, and then the US can get everything it needs from non Canadian or EU sources, and then we can just get maybe lay a little more or find alternative sources where needed. > Also no, Canada and the EU do not generally do a lot of trade with brutal dictatorships, Still do trade though, even with Russia. Hell, the EU still lets in Russian tourists, hosts their billionaires, and their children. The EU trades massively w…

> The EU trades massively with Russia, buys oil and other products from the Middle East, and more.

"In 2025, Russia was the EU's 19th largest trade partner, representing 1.1% of the EU’s total trade in goods with the world." - https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...

A whole 1.1% of their trade is with Russia. A "massive amount." I'll leave this fact here for others. I'm done responding to your disinformation and pro-Russian propaganda efforts.

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#214

Post by data-ottawa »

happyopossum wrote: post #159
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Canada is very unfortunately caught in the trade war between the USA and China Ottawa is fighting Anchluss . The MAGA wing is entirely serious about annexing Canada. Carney, for a change, is right. Canada is being attacked.

>The MAGA wing is entirely serious about annexing Canada. Wow, that's some amazing propaganda you've bought in to there...

Donald Trump has said exactly this, repeatedly, for two years straight.

He posted a picture of him taking over Canada and arresting Carney today.

That is not propaganda. And if you say it's "joking", if you threaten to shoot your friend multiple times, you'll find they don't consider it a joke.

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#215

Post by wahern »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #183
ericmay wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is a very black and white view of the world. > The USA has proven to be highly volatile, highly unreliable, and highly unreasonable. Right, black and white haha. Well if we are highly volatile, highly unreliable, and highly unreasonable why would we do anything besides whatever we decide to do? Can’t trust us, can’t reason with us, and can’t rely on us. In that case, who gives a shit about alliances with Europ…

> don’t forget, the US alongside anglosphere allies liberated Western Europe at the same time Japan was being fought Let's not forget the Soviet Union, who did most of the actual heavy lifting of liberating Western Europe. If D-Day had never happened, the Soviets would have rolled right through Germany and then occupied France and the low countries. The Nazis would still have lost, but all of continental Europe would…

> "If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view l several times in conversations with me."

> - Nikita Khrushchev, political commissar overseeing Red Army generals during the Battle of Stalingrad and later the leader of the Soviet Union, as written in his memoirs.

> "People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own."

> - Georgy Zhukov, Marshal of the Soviet Union and the Conqueror of Berlin (AKA the guy who got Hitler to blow his final thoughts out all over a wall), as overheard by a KGB monitoring device in 1963.

@Sensei_of_Philosophy, Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryWhatIf/s/z7gcaTaxy9

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#216

Post by defrost »

wahern wrote: post #215
marcus_holmes wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don’t forget, the US alongside anglosphere allies liberated Western Europe at the same time Japan was being fought Let's not forget the Soviet Union, who did most of the actual heavy lifting of liberating Western Europe. If D-Day had never happened, the Soviets would have rolled right through Germany and then occupied France and the low countries. The Nazis would still have lost, but all of continental Europe would…

> "If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view l several times in conversations with me." > - Nikita Khrushchev, political commissar oversee…

In addition, the UK and loose European merchant fleets repeatedly ran the gauntlet of German Navy, ice, and bad seas to deliver that material - so much so that

World War Two: Russian medals for last Arctic Convoys veterans - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-51726647

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#217

Post by franksvalli »

I have nothing to offer except my recent dumb purchase. Could only find an out of print Moleskine black page artist notebook from a Canadian seller. It's important that it matches with a book I already have.

Learn from my mistake:

* $19.99 item cost

* $21.25 shipping

* $2.99 tax

* $31.94 import fees (billed directly by UPS)

Total cost: $76.17

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#218

Post by vintermann »

Throaway826 wrote: post #84
ericmay wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone else shared this article [1] and I was reading a quote I thought was interesting: “[Canada] has a large dairy producing constituency that it wants to protect, so they put a cap on imports that can be accessed at a competitive rate. That's what we call a ‘TRQ’ (tariff rate quota),” says Becky Rasdall Vargas, senior vice president of trade and workforce policy at the International Dairy Foods Association. Under…

The main reason the Dairy Supply quota is in place is to stop US dairy producers from dumping dairy into Canada. That's why the USA has never reached the tarriff limit. The big producers there would just dump 20 million litres at once if they could. They aren't interested in 1 or two. And if they were able to do that, the Canadian producers would go under. So its kinda simple, the Dairy Supply system is there to prot…

Maybe it's obvious, but you left out subsidized. US dairy production is extremely subsidized compared to Canada's. It's not in any sense "free trade". The subsidies would allow the US dairy industry to destroy Canada's (it might even without the subsidies, but the subsidies guarantee it). Once the local industry was destroyed, the US producers/government would be free to increase the price. No country wants that, which is why things like staple foods are subsidized and tariff-protected anywhere in the world where not doing so would give a large neighbor/bloc leverage over them.

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#219

Post by vintermann »

gruez wrote: post #211
maest wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not wild to imagine Canada wants to protect a domestic food producing industry. Same how all countries, including the US, heavily subsidize and protect their agricultural sector. I'd call this strategic, not political (although ofc it involves lobbying, again, like in every other country including the US)

>It's not wild to imagine Canada wants to protect a domestic food producing industry. It's still protectionism, even if it's for a "good cause". During the mercantilist era protectionism was considered the obvious thing to do. After all, why would you want to make yourself poorer and enrich your enemies in the process? That doesn't mean it wasn't protectionism. >I'd call this strategic, not political (although ofc it…

The US dairy industry is heavily subsidized. Countries generally don't let another country dump heavily subsidized products into their economy if it competes with local industry (provided they have any choice).

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#220

Post by epolanski »

gruez wrote: post #181
epolanski wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protectionism and tariffs simply don't work in the global world. Capitalism will keep producing things where they make sense not where politicians want. Exceptions make sense only to protect industries that are absolutely vital and critical for security. Ship building should be one of those for countries like US or UK. Or when you want to kickstart an industry and need to protect it for a limited amount of time (Kore…

>Ship building should be one of those for countries like US or UK. Yet, protectionism for that, as practiced in the US (ie. jones act), was a massive failure. There might still theoretically a domestic shipbuilding sector, but it's bloated, inefficient, and as a result is totally not up to the task of standing up to China, which does have a competent shipbuilding sector.

That's one of the negatives, the industries involved have no reason to evolve or invest, work is guaranteed.
Post reply on HN