The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by ericmay » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 2:57 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #259

ericmay wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, that's the point, they're not. Do you want me to quote formal trade agreements that were made or are you able to just do a Google search yourself and see? > Same in reverse. He could be everyone's favourite uncle and it would still be rendering the US's word worthless. Ok our word is worthless and all that stuff so who cares then what anyone in Europe or whatever thinks. Oh well so sad we should withdraw from N…

> Do you want me to quote formal trade agreements that were made or are you able to just do a Google search yourself and see? I wrote "Those trade deals aren't worth the paper they're written on", you seem to be responding as if I wrote "nonexistent". > Oh well so sad we should withdraw from NATO immediately, send troops back to the US, and remove sanctions on Russia so we can bring down gas prices - who cares what E…

> I wrote "Those trade deals aren't worth the paper they're written on", you seem to be responding as if I wrote "nonexistent".

That's just your opinion though. I say they're worth the paper they're written on, and other countries have agreed to them and are following them. That's my opinion, and the opinion of the countries who have signed and are following trade deals.

So it's like, me, America, the countries we've done trade deals with

and then there's you who disagree with all of us.

> Those troops are in Europe for your benefit, more than ours. Those bases are how you get to do force projection.

This is cope. Certainly those bases do benefit the United States, but it's not as lopsided as you are making it out to be. If the US turned to be more isolationist (not something I advocate really) we wouldn't need those bases to, say, project power in the Middle East or provide a backstop to Europe due to Russia. And we know this is true because when the United States under Trump has threatened or started to remove troops, the NATO alliance and European leaders either treaded carefully, or made overtures to keep the troops/bases operational in Europe. I don't know why people keep parroting these talking points - they really don't make a lot of sense.

Like if you are going to claim those bases are just there for our benefit, then why do you care if we remove them? Leave us alone and let us make our own choices.

> Can you really not see the cost to yourself? Your reaction is like committing suicide after getting caught cheating. You're not coming back from cheating, but if you really, genuinely, seriously, cannot see how much worse it can get… wow.

Sure, I see the cost. The degradation of these relationships is not something I advocate for. But if you're saying everything is done and over, untrustworthy, &c. then sure it's over - it's just like you said and want. So why do you keep trying?

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

#262

Post by HDThoreaun » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 3:01 PM UTC

lenerdenator wrote: post #4

I'm trying to think of the number of people I (an American) know who considered trade with Canada to be a real issue. The answer I keep coming back to is I know zero people who considered that. Does the US have a trade imbalance that causes problems, particularly in our manufacturing sector? Yes. Can tariffs kind of help with that? Also yes. Really, you need to instill some sort of sense of duty to country in busines…

> Really, you need to instill some sort of sense of duty to country in business leaders

Goods are imported because business is a competition and consumers prefer cheap imported goods. Its not like american executives flatly want to offshore, if a competitor does and they dont their customers will leave. The only solution business leaders can have here is collusion, which is illegal. If we want goods to be manufactured domestically it is on us as consumers to buy domestic products over cheap imported ones.

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

#263

Post by HDThoreaun » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 3:09 PM UTC

beloch wrote: post #95

Numbers don't tell the whole story. 1. The U.S. economy is large, but insular. Most trade is between states, not with other countries. This is why most countries shrug and accept tariffs on their goods. For them, trade with the U.S. is not as big of a deal as it's portrayed, so it's not worth risking "fireworks" over. Canada and Mexico are rare exceptions to this. Canada, particularly, is reliant on international tra…

> People are saying that Canada is too small to win this trade war

Anyone who says this is an idiot. People have sacrificed far more for far less. As you pointed out this is existential for canada. It is just so, so hard to win a fight that the other side sees as existential when you dont.

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

#264

Post by win311fwg » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 3:27 PM UTC

snayan wrote: post #227

vintermann wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, whi…

That's just a convenient talking point for our government. The model in Canada is effectively a regressive tax on consumers in the checkout line. It conveniently allows for our government to talk about how they don't subsidize farmers, and have a clean budget on that front, but I would prefer to see a model that was actually funded by government taxes such that it could be a progressive tax born more by wealthier Can…

The elephant in the room is that the government is legally required to buy back the quota if change were to happen, and that is an estimated $50 billion dollar bill. Which actually doesn't sound so bad compared to your $10 billion per annum figure, but the $10B is hidden so it is easy to let it be ignored. A one time $50B payout will stick out like a sore thumb and no politician wants to attach their name to that.

When they did it for tobacco back in 2009 it was only around $300 million on the table which isn't nearly as mind boggling and thus much more easily forgotten. Not to mention that very few Canadians realized that tobacco was ever supply managed to begin with so it easily few under the radar. Anything that affects dairy will be headline news.

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

#265

Post by rjrjrjrj » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 3:50 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #255

ben_w wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But they are still real trade deals, the rules are still followed, &c. No, that's the point, they're not. > Your personal distaste for Donald Trump (I believe he belongs in jail and didn't vote for him either time) doesn't change that fact. Same in reverse. He could be everyone's favourite uncle and it would still be rendering the US's word worthless. Me, I'm not eligible to vote for him, what with having repeatedl…

> No, that's the point, they're not. Do you want me to quote formal trade agreements that were made or are you able to just do a Google search yourself and see? > Same in reverse. He could be everyone's favourite uncle and it would still be rendering the US's word worthless. Ok our word is worthless and all that stuff so who cares then what anyone in Europe or whatever thinks. Oh well so sad we should withdraw from N…

> Do you want me to quote formal trade agreements that were made or are you able to just do a Google search yourself and see?

Are there any actual formal trade agreements, ratified by Congress (like CUSMA)?

Most of them seem to be hand-wavy executive actions, full of caveats and outs, sitting upon the unstable legal foundation of illegal tariffs, dubious legal theories, and front-running the courts. Signed by an executive with a long history of dishonesty, reneging on deals, and criminality.

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

#266

Post by lfuller » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 3:54 PM UTC

snayan wrote: post #227

vintermann wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, whi…

That's just a convenient talking point for our government. The model in Canada is effectively a regressive tax on consumers in the checkout line. It conveniently allows for our government to talk about how they don't subsidize farmers, and have a clean budget on that front, but I would prefer to see a model that was actually funded by government taxes such that it could be a progressive tax born more by wealthier Can…

Protecting your own country's production capacity and industry doesn't come without cost. It likely would absolutely be cheaper if we allowed our core industries to fail and be replaced wholesale with American exporters, but that's not what the majority want for the country.

As we're seeing with this trade war as a whole, tightening economic integration with an asymmetric partner puts your sovereignty at risk as well. If we have no industries of our own, and are utterly dependent on a single unreliable superpower, then we lose the freedom to decide on our own future as the rug could be pulled out from under us at any time. The only way to mitigate that risk is to diversify trade and ensure self-sufficiency in our own industries.

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

#267

Post by badc0ffee » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 3:59 PM UTC

yostrovs wrote: post #241

badc0ffee wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US sets the price it pays for Canadian oil, a discount from the market price. I don't know about timber, but the US maple syrup industry is healthy, just unable to keep up with demand. I think that's a consequence of geography and the time investment required to get mature trees, not Canada undercutting.

Canadians don't negotiate when selling their oil? US just sets the price? Amazing.

I don't really know how the discount is built into the price, but it's a result of the fact that only about 10% of the oil Canada produces can make it to a port to be sold to non-US buyers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Canadian_Select

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

#268

Post by ericmay » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 4:06 PM UTC

rjrjrjrj wrote: post #265

ericmay wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, that's the point, they're not. Do you want me to quote formal trade agreements that were made or are you able to just do a Google search yourself and see? > Same in reverse. He could be everyone's favourite uncle and it would still be rendering the US's word worthless. Ok our word is worthless and all that stuff so who cares then what anyone in Europe or whatever thinks. Oh well so sad we should withdraw from N…

> Do you want me to quote formal trade agreements that were made or are you able to just do a Google search yourself and see? Are there any actual formal trade agreements, ratified by Congress (like CUSMA)? Most of them seem to be hand-wavy executive actions, full of caveats and outs, sitting upon the unstable legal foundation of illegal tariffs, dubious legal theories, and front-running the courts. Signed by an exec…

> Most of them seem to be hand-wavy executive actions, full of caveats and outs, sitting upon the unstable legal foundation of illegal tariffs, dubious legal theories, and front-running the courts. Signed by an executive with a long history of dishonesty, reneging on deals, and criminality.

Fair but then that criticism goes back pretty far and is bipartisan. I don't think it's fair to single Trump out for this. Congress (Republicans and Democrats both) have been abdicating their responsibility and deferring to the courts or the Executive for over 20 years and it gets worse every year.

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

#269

Post by ericmay » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 4:09 PM UTC

dinfinity wrote: post #256

ericmay wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That doesn't make sense. Are you accusing me of trolling? Based on what? I'm not accusing you of anything, but if you are going to accuse me of trolling then I'll assume you are admitting to trolling instead. > The option "the USA stops being an abusive asshole" is really not on your radar, is it? It's not - that's why my analogy made sense. We're abusive, relationships unrepairable, never to be trusted again, high…

The USA hasn't "moved on" and is not "flying solo". It is being petty, reneging on previously made agreements and actively significantly hurting and threatening to hurt the other parties in their (ex-)relationships constantly. It's like a couple with kids where one of the parents suddenly starts behaving like the biggest piece of shit on earth. Even after the divorce that is going to be a massive shit show for all pa…

How have we not moved on? I don't understand. You and online Europeans have said we're all these really bad things, no hope in repairing the damage, &c. so we have to be moved on now that we're no longer together. Maybe Europe hasn't gotten over it? I'm not sure. The US has though - we're flying solo and moving on when it comes to trade.

If someone said all of those things to you, allegedly wanted nothing to do with you, can't trust you, you're horrible, you're a destabilizing force - what exactly would you think the relationship is like? It's impossible to suggest that we haven't moved on unless you're suggesting Europe hasn't moved on and that these allegations of irreparability are just sensationalized bullshit (they are).

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

#270

Post by snayan » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 4:20 PM UTC

lfuller wrote: post #266

snayan wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just a convenient talking point for our government. The model in Canada is effectively a regressive tax on consumers in the checkout line. It conveniently allows for our government to talk about how they don't subsidize farmers, and have a clean budget on that front, but I would prefer to see a model that was actually funded by government taxes such that it could be a progressive tax born more by wealthier Can…

Protecting your own country's production capacity and industry doesn't come without cost. It likely would absolutely be cheaper if we allowed our core industries to fail and be replaced wholesale with American exporters, but that's not what the majority want for the country. As we're seeing with this trade war as a whole, tightening economic integration with an asymmetric partner puts your sovereignty at risk as well…

Yes. I am well aware of this. I just find it hard to believe that dairy, poultry, and eggs are some special snowflake type of farm that requires the quota and supply chain management, while every other type of farm, we can manage with direct subsidies.

For reference, there are about 190k farms in Canada, 8% of those farms are dairy, poultry, and eggs whose viability is ensured with supply chain management. The other 92% of farms, are managed with direct government assistance (AgriStability, AgriInsurance, AgriInvest, and AgriRecovery). The latter costs the government $1.5-$2 billion most years. While the recent report on supply chain managed farms suggests the cost born by Canadians to be around $10 billion. Even if that number is off by an order of magnitude, we're looking at $1 billion for 8% of farms, and $1.5-$2 billion for the other 92% of farms.

All I'm saying is it seems like the solution to help ensure viability in dairy, egg, and poultry farming is wildly inefficient and merits a look from first principles. Is there a solution to achieve the same outcome at a lower cost? The world has changed drastically since the policies were implemented in the 1970s.

I admit I am far from an expert, but I have spent an inordinate amount of time reading about this shit out of curiosity in the past couple days. Broke my brain when I saw the numbers around the costs born by canadians in the checkout aisle due to supply chain management.