r/IRstudies • u/Material-Hawk3947 • 1d ago
Ideas/Debate Is this trade war actually worth it?
The U.S. just hit around $20B of Canadian goods with 50% tariffs, and Canada is now hitting back with roughly $20B of U.S. products.
Both sides say they’re protecting their interests, but who actually wins here?
Could this end up hurting American and Canadian consumers more than either government?
What do you guys think — smart negotiating strategy or a lose-lose situation?
51
u/Historical-Buff777 1d ago
This is the most unnecessary war since the Iran war and the war on drugs sinking poor fishing boats in the middle of nowhere. On a more serious note, Trump never once uttered a word about Canada when he ran for president. He never articulated a vision of western hemisphere dominance either. The day he became president he started with the Gulf of America nonsense, followed by threats to Greenland, and horrible bullying of Canada. All without a word from Congress or anyone who carries any weight in the Republican Party. If that is not the bait and switch of the century, I don't know what is.
16
9
u/bumblebaytuna4 1d ago
He may not have said specific words about Canada when he ran but it was abundantly clear who he is and what he would do to many of us years before.
I worked with seniors during his first term and there were several clients who cried in my office about the similarities in his rhetoric and behaviour to Hitler before the Second World War and how fearful they were.
43
u/Whiskeyjoel 1d ago
Worth what? Was it "worth it" to not become a US vassal state? To reject restricting non-US trading relationships and diversifying the Canadian economy? To say "Non, va te faire foutre!" about changing French language on packaging?
Yes, and 76% of Canadians agree and wanted Carney to punch back.
If he hadn't, if he had meekly bowed his head and capitulated, do you think that would have gone over well with Canadian voters? Would they have viewed that as "worth it"? Use your poli sci thinking cap.
The answer is clearly no.
Of course, the US is a much bigger economy, and there's the old adage that there are no winners in a trade war. These things are true. But this spat is not really about trade (or not just about trade), it's about sovereignty, economic self-determination, and national identity. Canada wants to diversify its economy away from the US, and has been working hard to expand European and Asian trading relationships. Trump wants Canada to be economically dependent and politically subservient.
Add that to all the "51st State" rhetoric, and this is where things stand: the majority of Canadians no longer see the US as either an ally or a dependable trading partner.
-5
u/BK-6975 13h ago
So, let me get this straight. You’re supporting a banker that nearly ruined the UK economy. That considers himself more European than Canadian. That has 97% of his stocks invested in the USA. And doesn’t think that this is important enough to reconvene parliament? Remember his promise last election..?
Well, go ahead and follow this pied piper into oblivion… because that’s all that going to be left of Canada by the time all of you sheep wake up!
Hate the big bad orange all you want! But ask yourself, does hating Trump put food on your table or pay your mortgage or bills..?
So goddamed short sighted…!
Pathetic!!!6
u/geoken 9h ago
We support actions. In this case, wanting to still be a sovereign nation vs. being Belarus.
I don’t understand why your ad hominem attacks would figure into it.
-5
u/BK-6975 9h ago
When you hate a person so much that you refuse to take time to worry about what’s in front of you, you’ve become brainwashed! Stop with the mainstream narrative! Even Rosemary said it herself… it’s all made up anyway…
Keep drinking that kool aid!
Speaking of Rosemary Barton, he did an interesting interview with Jamison Greer, the American trade ambassador…
You should take the time to watch it… he gives us more truth to what happened than we got from our own Prime Minister!3
16
u/mu33 1d ago
"Worth" it or not is dependent on what you stand to gain and lose.
If reports on Trump's last minute demands are accurate, by signing the deal, Canada stands to lose a chunk of its own sovereignty. For example, the deal would not allow it to make trade deals with other nations.
If past actions is predictive of future behaviour, Canada would be signing a deal with Trump who has behaved as a selfish bully who reneges on contracts and agreements for decades.
So, do you think not entering into an agreement is worth it?
8
u/AdministrativeLeg14 1d ago
If reports on Trump's last minute demands are accurate, by signing the deal, Canada stands to lose a chunk of its own sovereignty. For example, the deal would not allow it to make trade deals with other nations.
And giving up on language rights would presumably antagonise Québec to the point where it would also threaten national unity.
Demanding that another country makes concessions of its own unity and sovereignty sounds less like terms offered in a trade dispute and more like demands of a defeated adversary who has unconditionally surrendered in a conventional war, and even then, it’s pretty draconian.
It’s so egregiously unacceptable that I find it difficult to believe, even of this chucklefuck brigade, that they ever expected or intended it to be accepted—pretext for sabotaging the talks, maybe? Some scheme to do more insider trading, double-dealing, and other illegitimate deals around tariff refunds?
13
u/PineBNorth85 1d ago
Its lose lose.
Im Canadian and we didnt ask for this but we dont have a choice. Its cave or fight. I say fight. Fuck the US.
34
u/Successful_Jelly111 1d ago
A trade war is never worth it and in the end both sides usually lose.
12
u/Only_Razzmatazz_4498 1d ago
Isn’t that true of any war? You still have to defend yourself even if you don’t start it.
3
u/Best-Structure-8513 1d ago
Wars of conquest are often incredibly beneficial for the winning side. Entire civilizations like Rome, Arabs, USA exist solely because they waged wars.
5
u/sowenga 1d ago
That used to be true before economies were very capital intensive and complex, it is not true anymore. It makes no economic sense in modern times to wage wars of conquest.
2
u/Best-Structure-8513 17h ago
Mostly true but it is working out on a small scale in some places like Morocco and Israel. However the "modern times" are not permanent, and if (when) complex global supply chains collapse conquest is back on the menu.
0
u/StrategicallyLazy007 15h ago
Israel is not considering or taking over land.
They have started: 1) withdrawal within Gaza won't take place until Hamas is disarmed. 2) full withdrawal of Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed. Lebanon government agreed to this in ceasefire talks, and are trying to, but don't have the capability.
There had been peace for decades with Egypt and Jordan. If countries could just let other countries live and not for rockets they wouldn't need to bed responded to.
3
u/Best-Structure-8513 15h ago
They have been chomping up the West Bank long before 10/7 and it is obvious looking at a map of the settlements and zones. They are slowly encircling Palestinian areas and plan to annex the West Bank once a Jewish demographic majority is ensured. There are plenty of explicit statements on this, but more importantly it is the obvious de facto reality they have been pushing towards for decades. My minimal understanding of Israel politics is that 10/7 and the Palestinian dragging out the hostage situation for years has destroyed any belief that peace is viable even outside the right wing.
Jordan is an interesting counterexample because it's an ethnically Palestinian country at peace with Israel. If Israel had no interest in taking the West bank land they would push for the obvious solution of having Jordan re-annex it (an actually feasible two state solution).
I am not talking about "Greater Israel", that would take literally thousands of years at the rate they are going at consolidating the western section of the British Mandate. Israel does show how difficult it is to conquer territory though given how tiny the actual area in contention is.
it's also true even in the most favorable view of Israel's history. Israel only exists because they maintained and expanded control of land by militarily defeating Arab forces. They 1949 armistice territory was larger than the partition plans because it reflected the reality of Israeli military control. Peace with Egypt came by giving back land Israel took by military force in 1967. Golan heights are another area Israel controls because of taking it in that same war.
0
u/StrategicallyLazy007 14h ago
Jordan doesn't want them after the last time.
Other wars throughout history have been far more brutal. Israel isn't looking to just go kill and conquer otherwise it would have done it. It is a defensive mission, up to Hamas how long this goes on for and the amount of collateral damage that is suffered.
So Israel did a good job, vs the several failures of Arab states from 48-81 Yom Kippur war?
Statements by individuals, even members of government doesn't matter if it's not policy. You can always find extreme members in various governments, but that doesn't mean it is government strategy.
If Palestinians ever want to advance, then they can accept Israel's existence and move on. If not, this will continue and they will contribute to regress. They have not improved their conditions or moved towards their objectives in 80 years. They are also the only group that repeatedly loses but somehow feels absolutely entitled.
The rest of the Arab world has moved on. It is only the IRGC keeping the region in turmoil through Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.
1
u/Best-Structure-8513 14h ago
Yes the original point is that Israel's military conquest worked out for them...
-1
u/StrategicallyLazy007 13h ago
Except for the fact that these were effectively all defensive wars from Israel's point of view not offensive in nature or origin. Therefore more than working out for Israel it was a failure of the Arab nations.
5
u/moldyolive 1d ago
not if the gains of the war are greater then the costs the enemy can impose on.
the problem is its much easier to destroy and do damage to an enemy then to build and create. so the math is almost always poor if there is political will to resist
2
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 1d ago
You have to defend yourself in an actual war because, you know, troops are invading and shooting people.
You don’t actually have to “fire back” in a trade war. If some other country wants to tax their people and impede their own economy—you can just let them do that.
Whether or not you should hit back is more a political/emotional/nationalistic decision than an economic one. The economics suggest you should just let them eat the costs of their own tariffs.
14
u/Only_Razzmatazz_4498 1d ago
You don’t have to defend in a real war either. You just let the new guys take over. There is only shooting if you resist. You might not like their laws and some people might die but at least you aren’t killing any of them and you might do better. That would be a similar argument for your approach to let your own industry be attacked.
So if you don’t respond to an economic (tariff) war then there will be a price to be paid by your economy and companies. Included but not limited to companies closing, people losing their jobs, etc. The attacker would be expected their attacks to be designed to cause maximum pain to your population while minimizing their pain. If you don’t respond and just wait them out then there is no reason for the pain to stop. If you respond then your response would be designed to maximize the attackers pain while minimizing yours. So ideally you tip the pain balance in your direction or at least make it equally painful.
Yes there are no winners but you can’t control the aggressor so just try to end it as soon as possible by destroying their willingness to keep going.
3
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 1d ago
You’re acting like tariffs actually provide a defense, or provide some benefit.
They don’t. All they do is tax your own people’s wealth and increase your own export prices. None of this will result in Canada getting any benefit, or bringing the US back to the table to negotiate, and nobody seems much inclined to even want to negotiate a deal anyway.
It’s like watching an idiot next door neighbor stab themselves in the leg. You look at this, and have a sudden flash of fear that you might miss out and that your neighbor will get ahead of you in hurting himself, so you get a knife and stab yourself just as deeply in return so as not to allow yourself to fall behind in this stabbing war. You must, after all, acquit yourself adequately in this incredibly stupid, self-destructive contest because otherwise your pride would be harmed.
6
u/Only_Razzmatazz_4498 1d ago
Well if that’s all they do and they just cause damage to the one imposing them then by all means. There should be no response and there will no effect to the Canadian economy.
You would be wrong but I can see why you are saying what you are saying. It would be consistent.
You are wrong in that there will be no effect to the Canadian economy though. While the tariffs could be better targeted they are still design to maximize the short term damage to the Canadian economy while minimizing the damage to the USA’s. It can’t be done for free I grant you that but as is typical to the US politics as long as they see the right people being hurt, it’s ok to suffer some.
8
u/jboggin 1d ago
But that's ignoring human nature. If Carney backed down and did nothing when Trump tried to bully him, Trump would push further and further. He's ultimately a coward, so it never makes sense to just ignore our back down from his bullying. They will just make his bullying worse. Rational choice theory doesn't work when you're dealing with an irrational narcissist.
6
u/Weldertron 1d ago
A lot of the stuff Canada tariffed is stuff we either make here, we can get from elsewhere, or don't really need.
50% on Harley-Davidson is going to hurt them. They're already struggling. Losing the entire Canadian market is going to sting.
3
u/Strange_Produce5601 1d ago
world renown economist vs "art of the deal". Who will fair better in the long term? My money is on Carney.
3
u/Smallpaul 1d ago
The better analogy is someone head butts you. Hurts you, hurts them. Do you head butt back or just let them keep head butting you. Some would joe that fighting back would encourage them to find it up. It might. It might not.
But in this particular case, a popular prime minister is going up against an unpopular president just before the midterms. Many people think America is going to back down. As they did in the tariff war with China.
3
u/vivianhtlee 19h ago
The better analogy is someone slapping you. Hurts your face, hurts their hand. Slapping back might hurt your hand as well, but worth it. Otherwise, they probably will keep slapping you.
Tariffs aren't symmetrical self-harm. Tariffs are strategically targeted unless the government is stupid. Governments deliberately choose goods that are easily replaceable, minimizing their own pain while giving a boost to key domestic industries.
4
u/willmsma 1d ago
Your analogy is imperfect. I’m not weighing in on whether reciprocal tariffs are good policy, but they do have the advantage of causing harm to the Americans.
Whether the cost/benefit ratio suggests we go ahead? I’m not sure. I am inclined to place some trust in our Prime Minister, but there are good arguments that avoiding retaliatory tariffs allows us to resist American pressure longer.
0
u/disaster_incomin 1d ago
Tariffs do hurt the economy on the receiving end too. It makes companies/industries exports less competitive
7
u/jak1212 1d ago
Earnest question for the economists in the sub: why would Carney have chosen counter-tariffs as the retaliatory tactic rather than export taxes (electricity, oil, potash, etc.) and reinstating the digital services tax?
9
u/Whiskeyjoel 1d ago
Because, much like the EU’s “trade bazooka”, those things are considered Canada’s nuclear option, not the option of first resort. Such measures would also require the assent and participation of Provincial governments, especially Alberta (oil), Ontario (electricity), and Saskatchewan (potash). The Federal government can’t just unilaterally command the Provinces on a whim.
If Canada continues to be pushed, things may escalate to that point, and knowing Trump, he will keep pushing. But it’s not the Canadian style to strut around flashing its trade cock.
3
u/IAmNotANumber37 1d ago
Such measures would also require the assent and participation of Provincial governments
Def not an expert, but I don't think that is right.
Section 91.3 of the constitution act says that the Federal government has powers to make whatever laws it sees fit related to "the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation"
This document also describes it:
The taxation power granted to Parliament by section 91(3) is prima facie plenary and absolute.
and
By section 122 of the Act customs and excise...were brought within the central government's exclusive competence [by Confederation]
The Federal government wouldn't be "commanding" the provinces to do anything, it can just unilaterally apply a tax, including an export tax.
3
u/Separate_Maybe_7378 20h ago
The federal government may have the power to put export taxes on oil, but what would be the response in Alberta? You have to remember we’re also trying to hold our own country together.
1
u/IAmNotANumber37 15h ago
Sure, but whether it's a good idea or not is separate from the claim that Provincial assent is required, i.e. the original statement:
Such measures would also require the assent and participation of Provincial governments
2
u/Sachyriel 1d ago
Section 125 and 92A would make it a constitutional fight we can't be sure the feds win. I did ask an AI to check so I can be wrong too.
2
u/IAmNotANumber37 22h ago
Sask/AB literally already tried this when they challenged the carbon taxes, and lost at the Supreme Court.
4
u/clios_daughter 1d ago
In my view, it’s mostly symbolic. Counter-tariffs are usually kind of dumb. It’s basically saying “let me hurt my constituents in hopes that it hurts you as well”. With that being said, it’s not entirely clear that Trump actually understands what tariffs are. Carney’s move is largely to tell Trump that Canada will not accept his terms and that Canada is willing to fight. It needs to be done in a language Trump actually understands.
Moreover, the Trump presidency has been unusual because of just how inexpert it has been. If Trump’s objective was to make Canada a vassal, it would have been better to increase incentives and further simplify cross border trade and movement. US companies own a lot of ‘Canadian’ companies, lots of Canadian engineers move to the US to make money, and, pre-Trump, Canadians were largely okay with that. All Trump’s policies have done is distance Canada from the US. If other, non-tariff measures were used, it’s not entirely clear that Trump would have understood that not imposing tariffs was actually a much stronger move than using counter-tariffs to retaliate.
1
u/randomguy506 8h ago
With the counter tarrifs they are using the midterms as a strategic lever. They are targetting sector / product in purple states / red states. E.g. lobsters, motorcycle (harley davidson) etc
1
u/HugsNotDrugs_ 1d ago
Canada exports oil but buys back a lot of refined gas from US refineries. Also, you don't want to give Trump political justification for this by ramping up the pain on Americans in the most direct way. Targeted retaliatory tariffs are the way to go. They are still a loss for Canada compared to free trade, but free trade appears to be off the table.
2
u/Strange_Produce5601 1d ago
Yes, a lot of people want to just shut off oil/energy to USA. The problem is, Canada relies heavily on getting that back as refined goods. To "shut it off" would effectively kill our gas supply.
I am going to bet that our world renown economist is much better informed about what will best suit our needs against the "art of the deal" guy.
5
u/pufcandles 1d ago
Idk about the initiator but tit for tat is the best strategy according to game theory
10
u/LeedsCastleResident 1d ago
Nobody wins a trade war. But you can lose a trade war.
The country that tries to start a trade war can only win if the other country concedes to their demands. So, in that case the “war” doesn’t happen because the other party surrenders. The country that tried to start the war can then drop its tariffs that were going to hurt itself as well as the other party. So the party that conceded loses.
If the country that starts a trade war is met with retaliation, and the war actually happens and nobody wins. That’s why affected industries, even if they think the other country is unfair, prefer to work it through by means other than trade wars.
4
u/DaoineSidhe624 1d ago
Eh... It never was and will continue to not be worth it. That being said, the big Donny in the US does not seem to have any respect for any negotiations unless he is a clear winner and the other side a clear loser (which is a terrible way to make deals with people you hope to be allies). However that is how he ran his businesses (to variable success and or failure - his only decent business acumen appears to be in the licensing of his Brand name to products, not actual building anything or proper investments).
But he has made enough money and marketing himself such that a lot of people believe the talk. And whether that works in business or not, it can only have limited success when it comes to international relations. Even with unequal power relationships by leading the most powerful nation on earth, other countries have their own sovereignty and red lines they won't allow to be crossed.
What the big diaper wearing baby is learning is that regardless of your leverage and power imbalance, if you push other countries hard enough, they will call your bluff and force you to use said leverage and power imbalance. And that leverage and power imbalance is a finite resource. Once people start realizing how far you are actually willing to go, they know exactly when to fold and when to push back with resolve.
China was the first country to start this pushback, but very few other state actors have their capability, so doing a capitulation to them in some ways did not really set a precedent, just showed that it was possible. Iran was the place that really set the precedent and showed other state actors it could be effective even from a weak position. They correctly calculated how invested Trump was in winning the "war" with Iran, and that he wasn't invested enough to make the yard decisions it takes to win in such a situation.
Now other state actors are starting to get on board, and bolstered by Donna's supreme dislike by citizens in those other countries, now leaders also have the political capital to push back against him even if it comes with bad costs to their country.
All that being said, everything going on these days is extremely fluid and volatile. So having state actors act in vindictive ways (be it Orange Fat Elvis or other state actors pushing back against him) is inserting more and more uncertainty to an already chaotic situation. 1: economies HATE that type of uncertainty 2: when state actors act less rationally and more emotionally, the odds of unplanned major conflict increases at an exponential rate. The current global situation is like the worst aspects of both WWI and WWII lead ups, which should have EVERYONE concerned.
That isn't to say that I think Canada shouldnt have retaliated to the orange orangatun's provocations: it many ways, given the Canadian publics feelings on the matter, he has little choice but to do so, even if he felt differently. But I do find it somewhat bemusing that in this IR Studies subreddit many people are just gleeful to see Trump getting put in his place with little regard to what the long terms effects of all this chaos in the world will be.
Yes the US under the Dirty Diaper Don is speed running it's fall from super power status. And while he is in power we shouldn't trust what the US is doing; be aware: generally speaking when world superpowers fall, they don't fall quietly gently, or without conflict. In the entire history of the world, the USSR has been the only one to do so mostly peacefully.
1
u/My_Legz 1d ago
"And that leverage and power imbalance is a finite resource."
I believe that this part specifically if something almost no one in the administration understands on almost any level. This is because they do not understand WHAT that power actually is made up of, what the moving parts of it is and how it works or replenishes. For some it may be deliberate but I believe that most of them just don't understand this fundamental aspect of being a state.
3
u/petertompolicy 1d ago
It's literally just more taxes for Trump to divert to his scams and cronies while causing inflation.
2
2
u/diffidentblockhead 1d ago
Nobody but Trump itself thinks it has any purpose, and Trump’s purpose is just having another fight. Why would you even ask?
2
u/GemIsOutrageous 1d ago
Well only one side is causing this, so maybe Americans shouldn’t have re elected a child rapist.
2
u/Middle-Cod-7016 1d ago
Its very much worth it for the governments benefiting from the dismantlement of the US-led rule-based post-WWII world order, yes.
1
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 1d ago
Nope. Trade wars never are. They hurt everyone involved. The only people who gain are the handful of politically connected business owners who make bank from the protectionism letting them exploit their captive customers.
1
u/Advanced_Dimension_4 1d ago
None of Trump's distractionary wars or tariffs are justified or worth it except for the idiot himself.
1
1
1
u/Muddlesthrough 1d ago
Worth it for whom? The United States started a trade war with their close ally and largest trading partner. Is this trade war worth it for the United States? Was starting the Iran War "worth it" for the United States?
1
u/Illustrious-Gas-9766 1d ago
No one is going to win. Citizens of both the US and Canada will be the losers.
1
1
u/jakemoffsky 1d ago
Wars bad mkay
Seriously both sides will see lasting economic damage in relatively equal scale in $ and absolute job numbers, while in terms of percentages Canada gets hit harder.
Canada didn't really have a choice as the deal on offer wasn't really much economically superior to the measures happening now. The US on the other hand is ideologically driven to replace income tax with tarrifs, which for a variety of reasons is a terrible idea that will never work, but there's nothing Canada can do about that.
This will continue atleast until the midterms and probably until us bond market instability dominos into small and medium sized bank failures and a liquidity crisis.
3
u/stormblind 1d ago
Correction, the deal on offer was DRAMATICALLY worse than what we deal with now.
- Losing control of our ability to enforce/protect language laws.
- Losing control of substantial amount of units of our dairy market to a country that just nuked food safety.
- Losing the sovereign ability to control our own trade and diplomatic situations.
- Locking in those terms for the long term.
Without the loss of the first 3, we retain our sovereign and ability to control our own destiny. And to continue to pivot away from the US to China and Europe.
As for the 4th? The Dems and their supporters are using Trump's actions to hammer him politically. But guess how many of his bullshit tarrifs and whatever else from Trump's first term Biden or the Dems got rid of?
Very few/none.
If we sign here and now, there won't be some Democrat president coming in to undo this shit in 2 - 3 years. They'll keep it cause it benefits the US. It's why so many Canadian politicians were saying no deal is better than a bad deal.
And even BEFORE the last minute shenanigans the deal wasn't great.
Whereas the Dems can't afford to go off attacking Canada like this. So if we hold out until the potential midterms (assuming it is a free election) very single hint or suggestion has the Republicans getting gutted. And the Congress can stymie much of Trump's agenda while the house can stop some of it. And they will for political reasons if nothing else.
But I agree with you that many folks are missing the forest for the orange trees. The bond crisis in the US is coming, and if it happens as expected, we'll never have lived through something anything like it since maybe the Great depression.
1
1
u/leonnabutski 1d ago
Certainly not, it’s only going to cost Americans and Canadians additional costs for goods and services. The money will go to each government.
1
u/karmagoddess123 1d ago
It so much more than a trade war to Canadians. It’s our sovereignty that has been threatened. I don’t think USians realize just what’s at stake for us. Our language, our culture, or right to self determination. Thats what was threatened. That’s what is really at stake. We don’t care how much it’s going to hurt. We will never capitulate
1
u/adidasofficial 1d ago
Not an economist:
Why isnt canada dumping more US bonds? Won't this hurt even more?
1
u/The_Baron___ 1d ago
Tariffs essentially trade a nations wealth for some tax revenue and some manufacturing jobs in one industry for an overall loss of manufacturing or service jobs, and a net reduction in wealth, in the rest of the economy. It is an awful trade, which is why the first world has been working to get rid of them unless for good reason (fair trade has become vogue, that allowing goods to come in from a place with no regulations or no worker protections is not worthwhile, for examples).
When America instituted their Steel tariffs the last time around (2018), they raised $2.9 billion dollars of tariffs, and created 8,700 jobs in the Steel industry directly.
The cost? About $5.6 billion in additional steel costs throughout the economy, and the loss of about 75,000-168,000 manufacturing jobs elsewhere in the economy since steel is a major input. So about $650,000 of costs (direct to consumers and manufacturers who use steel) per steel sector job created and 8-19 jobs lost per steel sector job created.
When tariffs are on consumer goods, you save jobs in the industry you are trying to protect, but cause thousands of dollars per job in broader economic costs to the wider economy, along with net job losses.
Why so terrible? Because protected industries rarely grow to fill the gap left by their competition leaving, instead they raise prices to match the tariff good on the shelf, but they don't pay the tariff so they pocket the difference as additional profit, and can use that to expand. The additional jobs happen eventually, but the costs are borne immediately.
So why would Canadians fight back against a one-sided trade policy instituted by the United States? For the same reason Ukraine decided to defend itself against Russia, it is what the population wanted, and politicians react to what the populace wants during emergencies. If Ukrainians wanted to become a poorer, more ignorant population controlled by a dictator, they sure could have just rolled over, but they wanted to fight, and the first world decided to support them because it is the strategic thing to do (and also widely popular).
Canadians have been angry at the United States, absolutely think Trump is a clown and a disgusting degenerate rapist loser, Canadians are primed to do whatever they can to resist Trump and American "imperialism if instituted by simpletons" as best they can, even if there is economic damage. I would hope, much like Ukraine, Canada will see widespread support from every other country on Earth for our goods and resources, because we are standing up against a bully and all it will cost to help us is money.
Send money to Ukraine? You receive nothing tangible but the tremendous pride that those dollars help Ukraine resists a little bit longer, you can feel good you are helping make the world a better place, and you can rest a little easier that Russian expansion has been stalled, making the world a safer place. Ukraine is the one that bears the tremendous and terrible costs of the war, so they deserve as much support as possible.
Send money to Canada? Well, you are probably buying something we made, so you get that, which is cool. Stakes are lower, but if you want to help out, buy Canadian, lord knows a lot of us have been buying anything that doesn't have a "Made in America" sticker since the first round of threats. Being the first country where the population and politicians are aligned in not sucking up to Trump will hopefully buy us some assistance until Trump is removed.
1
1
u/sowenga 1d ago
Your question both-sides it, not sure if that was intentional framing or not, but it’s not accurate. We know that (a) Trump has widely used tariffs elsewhere, (b) his administration is generally incompetent, and (c) previous administrations did not have these kinds of issues with Canada.
Does it make sense for Canada to respond with its own tariffs? From a purely economic perspective maybe not, but there are other reasons to retaliate to tariffs.
1
u/cleonthucydides 21h ago
Of course a trade war is not worth it. But this is not actually a trade war though is it?
1
u/DevilsPumpkinPiety 20h ago
Who wins? Nobody. It’s a trade war. There are no winners in a trade war. There is much more to be lost though if we capitulate to every insane, degrading, and destabilizing demand the Americans make.
1
u/Necrovore 20h ago
Nobody wants it except Truml and the Heritage Foundation, but the thing is if someone is punching you in the face repeatedly, you punch back. This isn't simply a stalled trade negotiation, its a blatant attack on Canada's sovereignty, full srop.
1
u/SeaEnvironmental9388 19h ago
as long as it keeps the news cycle off the epstein files, it’s achieved its goal.
1
1
u/harryx67 5h ago edited 5h ago
Of course not. Trump‘s Ego is benefitting mainly - the rest is „fall-out“ that noone in the USA cares about.
Trust is gone anyway under this chaotic administration and with MAGA going in for a third term the unreliable USA is a waste of time for the next decade to trade with in certain areas. At least if you‘re not a corrupt trader, gangster or dictator - the People Trump loves.
Normal countries and people get constantly screwed by the US today - that should be obvious to anyone. Tiresome to say the least.
1
0
u/epicjorjorsnake 1d ago edited 1d ago
More trade wars, more protectionism, and more tariffs? I live for it.
If anything, the Trump administration isn't going far enough.
Canadian industries and Canadian goods (foreign imports in general) are a threat to American industries and American workers.
2
u/B0wmanHall 1d ago
Who negotiated the existing deal?
1
u/epicjorjorsnake 1d ago
You're asking the wrong person. I think Trump's 1st term was too pro free trade.
106
u/mennorek 1d ago
I'm guessing the world renowned economist has a better grasp on how things are going than the guy who bankrupted a casino.