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

#271

Post by dinfinity » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 4:22 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #269

dinfinity wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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

#272

Post by ericmay » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 4:24 PM UTC

dinfinity wrote: post #271

ericmay wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Ok so I'm right, these are former relationships, can't be trusted, we've moved on, etc. ?

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

#273

Post by snayan » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 4:34 PM UTC

win311fwg wrote: post #264

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…

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. Wh…

Yeah, I know that's a colossal elephant to deal with. I mean, I would hope that whatever reforms could lower costs enough that if you did a model similar to Australia, and had a temporary levy to pay for the buyout, the end cost to consumers, even with the levy, was lower prices than prior to the change. That was the case in Australia.

And I know nothing about the market, but I can't imagine it's overly liquid, the fact that all farmers would receive cash for their quota, would definitely be attractive to most. It's already heavily financialized and borrowed against.

And then, you could even do something like NZ did where all the dairy farmers got together and created a coop for processing, NZ is now the largest exporter of dairy in the world! If some of the quota levy went to getting this off the ground, you'd help the farmers retain a bigger piece of the pie with vertical integration of the supply chain. And, hopefully also compete globally and become net exporters, increasing the size of the pie.

I dunno, I have no idea what the fucking solution is, but after spending a bunch of time in the weeds of this shit over the past couple days, I am like, we have created a monster, this can't be the most effective way to achieve the underlying goals of the program.

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

#274

Post by deaux » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 4:42 PM UTC

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #80

ericmay wrote: post #6

> And Canada is taxing you back This seems illogical. You can't simultaneously claim that the US is paying higher prices for Canadian goods because of US-imposed tariffs and then turn around and say only that Americans are paying a tax on buying Canadian goods on Canadian-imposed tariffs. Both countries are either paying higher prices or paying higher taxes. Canada's tariffs must also be viewed as America is taxing C…

That is definitely a flatly wrong statement. Unfortunately, it reinforces the Trumpian disinformation that tariffs are fees that other countries pay us... or something. Trump is taxing Americans when he imposes tariffs. Canada is taxing Canadians when they impose retaliatory tariffs. And FWIW, most economists think retaliatory tariffs are stupid - on net they cause more harm to the retaliating country than if there w…

> And FWIW, most economists think retaliatory tariffs are stupid - on net they cause more harm to the retaliating country than if there were no retaliation.

This is wrong, because you're using the extremely broad concept of "harm" for a specific monetary loss. There are many more things at play here than just money gained/lost.

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

#275

Post by mthoms » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 4:46 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #242

mthoms wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If I choose to adopt the most extreme definition of the word 'desperate', then I'm technically correct, and I don't have to support my assertions, or argue with facts!" You know very well that the intended meaning of the word "desperate" in the comment you replied to isn't what you're now desperately pretending to be confused about. Stop it. From the HN community guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausibl…

> From the HN community guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." If you’re going to quote these guidelines then you should at least follow them in good faith. If you believed my interpretation of the word desperate wasn’t what was intended to be communicated you or others can clarify it or ask questions…

I responding to you saying:

>If you're going to claim that we're very desperate for such things we would of course have to act as a country of desperation and secure aluminum, oil, and critical minerals perhaps at all costs. I wonder what that would look like? If we don't take desperate measures, maybe we aren't desperate yea?

Which I presume is an allusion to war ("secure... at all costs"). The implication being that since there's no war, then the phrase "desperate for oil" simply cannot apply. I only realized you were using that extreme interpretation when you... you know... alluded to war(!) At which time I pointed it out.

But go ahead Eric, carry on with your desperate[0] flailing.

[0] So there's no confusion, the intended meaning here is this one (from your source):

ˈde-sp(ə-)rət: "involving or employing extreme measures in an attempt to escape defeat or frustration"

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

#276

Post by dinfinity » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 4:55 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #272

dinfinity wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok so I'm right, these are former relationships, can't be trusted, we've moved on, etc. ?

Has your ex "moved on" if they regularly threaten to steal your shit, harass you, vandalize your neighborhood and your car?

Don't feign innocence. You're not fooling anybody. It is so very obviously not "just lil guy USA chillin' in the corner minding their business and not bothering anybody".

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

#277

Post by rjrjrjrj » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 5:01 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #268

rjrjrjrj wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Congr…

Of course it is fair to single out Trump. No other president has pursued this strategy. In the case of Canada, there was the original free trade agreement (Reagan), NAFTA (Bush I/Clinton), and even CUSMA (Trump I). All approved by Congress.

They didn't implement illegal tariffs, make up fake emergencies (eg fentanyl across the northern border), and do the 51st state/Governor Trudeau stuff.

More broadly, the "he is just doing what his predecessors did" argument that Trump water carriers like to make is a Lake Ontario-sized false equivalence.

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

#278

Post by win311fwg » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 5:08 PM UTC

snayan wrote: post #273

win311fwg wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Wh…

Yeah, I know that's a colossal elephant to deal with. I mean, I would hope that whatever reforms could lower costs enough that if you did a model similar to Australia, and had a temporary levy to pay for the buyout, the end cost to consumers, even with the levy, was lower prices than prior to the change. That was the case in Australia. And I know nothing about the market, but I can't imagine it's overly liquid, the f…

> dairy farmers got together and created a coop for processing

That isn't going to go over well with the big three (Saputo, Agropur, Lactalis) who own ~75% of the processing quota. I suspect if you dig even deeper you will find it is they who hold the political capital that props up the dairy supply management system. If it were only farmers involved it would have been gone ages ago.

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

#279

Post by win311fwg » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 5:36 PM UTC

longitudinal93 wrote: post #232

Throaway826 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It should also be noted that Canada does not permit dairy products produced with Bovine Growth Hormone, which makes our industry less competitive that American where the practice is widespread.

> does not permit dairy products produced with Bovine Growth Hormone

It should also be noted that this is misleading. The dairy products are permitted to be produced with rBGH and you will almost certainly find some on the shelves as not all dairy products in Canada come from Canadian cows. What isn't permitted is giving it to cows in Canada as it is concern for reasons of animal welfare.

I know you already know that, but the audience needing your message doesn't and they are prone from messaging like that to think there is some reason to be afraid of the milk even though it perfectly satisfies Health Canada concerns. It wouldn't be allowed across the border if it were deemed dangerous. It is worth reminding that Canada happily allows all and every drop of American milk across the border as long as someone is willing to pay the tariff.

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

#280

Post by ericmay » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 5:37 PM UTC

dinfinity wrote: post #276

ericmay wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so I'm right, these are former relationships, can't be trusted, we've moved on, etc. ?

Has your ex "moved on" if they regularly threaten to steal your shit, harass you, vandalize your neighborhood and your car? Don't feign innocence. You're not fooling anybody. It is so very obviously not "just lil guy USA chillin' in the corner minding their business and not bothering anybody".

Idk, my ex (the EU) keeps coming around asking me for stuff, bothering me, then getting mad when I decide what kind of trade policy I want to have as is my right to decide.

But either way, the relationship is irreparable, it's all over, all that stuff so the EU and the online EU folks should just accept the new status quo and stop complaining.

I think this comparison has run its course anyway. At the end of the day these relationships are repairable and will be repaired and changed if we all decide to, and no amount of sensationalized doomsaying from people on the Internet will affect that. Trump will be gone, we'll elect some Democrat, they'll do some things, France might elect Marine LePenn, the'll do something, and on and on it goes.