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…

[delayed]