Was this in supposed retaliation for the wildfire smoke? Which is bonkers in the first place. Frankly, I'd like to buy more stuff from Canada in protest. I'm stubborn that way.
To sum up, Trump doesn't know what the f**k he is doing in dealing with economic issues, tariff issues or any other issues for that matter. He is just a 34x convicted felon crime boss who happens to occupy the Oval Office at the moment - but not for long!
If things work out this November, a fully Democratic Congress should be able to impeach, convict and remove him. If nothing else, at least apply some brakes to his destructive actions for the last two years by tying things up with impeachment proceedings and multiple Congressional investigations. Maybe even override any vetoes of corrective legislation. We can hope.
Nice teaching moment, Mate! Just like many of Trump’s decisions, I fail to see him prioritizing the needs of Americans. I see this again as another example of an insecure bully on the playground. I suppose if we want to see any morality in the GOP then we are going to have to legislate it. In the future we can claw back some of our dignity, but this ridiculous period is our legacy penned into history. Like a lighthouse and a shipwreck to warn future generations.
Thank you bushels and pecks for this explanation. The proposed tariffs are clearly illegal under U.S. law. I expect a few U.S. citizens who routinely buy Canadian products, and therefore have standing, will call their lawyers and get a lawsuit going. The earlier lawsuit against illegal tariffs took about a year to work its way through the court system. This one might move faster since there is a precedent at the Supreme Court level.
A complaint by Canada to the WTO would take forever, so not a realistic option. Could Mark Carney move faster on his promise to reduce the barriers to inter-provincial trade, in order to keep Canadian suppliers afloat until we boot out the Trump-monster? I know some of the Canadian trade barriers are protectionist, each province wanting to help its own "domestic" supplier-base from being undercut. Maybe we need an economics lesson on protectionism within countries as well as between countries.
I'd be interested in seeing Justin tackle this. Because we're going to have the same issues here as states try to claw out their existences. Of course, red states might be okay, as tax monies tend to flow to them from the Fed via blue state contributions.
Of course, that is assuming that Donald doesn't rob every branch, organization or account dry.
Interesting. I had to go check, and it made me look at how Canada's "federal" system is different from the US Federal system and authority.
Canada affords each providence much more autonomy than the US does. Example; when the founders developed our system they wrote in specific powers of the federal government, which was actually quite wide and left little to the states to determine for themselves. The rest un mentioned was left to the states, but Feds lead.
Canada has an ever expanding provincial jurisdiction vs federal. It started with all the big powers listed as provincial jurisdiction – healthcare and local jurisdiction – leaving residual power remaining as federal. According to recent history documentation, they continue to afford provinces more independent powers.
A major difference is that Canada's laws are federal, and Provinces enforce them. In the US the States write their laws., and the feds create more laws that can supersede them.
I have some wild-ass and half-formed ideas about Canada's provinces perhaps having relatively more independence than U.S. states do because they were independently settled (French & English) and might have been independent and prosperous "going concerns" before joining the dominion, so they had to be assured that they were not giving up all their sovereignty. Just an idea. Justin, as a professional economist, would know much more about their economic independence as a practical matter, aside from pride and loyalty to the province.
Mark Carney seems to think they have maintained too much protectionism between provinces. On the theory of comparative advantage, the country as a whole might be more productive if each province emphasized its own specialty and if companies were allowed to spread across the continent. Apparently grocery store chains are a particular point of unhappiness.
But what do I know? Hope Justin will explain it all for us.
What I took away from this, from a glance, is that Canada has universal law for the entire country. Period. This is what is acceptable in Canada.
How they take care of their regional commerce health and businesses is uniquely the province's to determine- which makes a lot of sense because they should best know their population and regional needs best.
But having a uniform code of conduct regarding what is legal and what is not is pretty important in continuity for a country, I would think.
As I said, at a glance, but it makes sense. I'm not sure that this isn't want our founders wanted for this country itself, but they couldn't even start out with the simple concept that slavery was not tolerable. Thus the different laws for different places in the same country started at our inception.
True, sort of. It was probably unknowable at the time which of the un-mentioned things would turn out to be extremely important and greatly expanding as time went on.
But, realistically, how would the Southern states ever have agreed to join a union that did not allow slavery? It was, to use your words above, part of their regional commerce and business, about which they should know their population and regional needs best. It became The Great Compromise, a moniker that is perhaps intentionally vague about whether "great" meant "grand and noble and successful" or "most painful for the North to concede and most necessary for the South to preserve."
It was a terrible decision. So was the agreement to count the slaves as partially (3/5) human so that the South could have the benefit of both worlds, slavery and also a higher number of representatives than they would have received if only whites were counted as people. The hypocrisy of it is blatant, but the reason they did it is also apparent.
with EU, other EEA members. They should try to get these countries to harmonize and merge the agreements—and encourage the UK to at least join the EEA to reverse the damage from Brexit. Collectively, that would be an area much larger than the US in consumers and GDP, and they should engage with foreign aid to developing countries to compete against China for rare earths .
The UK has showed how dumb Brexit was, but Trump opted for “I’m with stupid” trade and immigration policy. Canada can show US voters how smart trade and immigration policy can solve critical labor shortages, lower manufacturing input costs, lower inflation and create greater income growth. Democrats can then point to Canada and opt in after retaking the White House—if we still have elections.
🤞Ignoring the US for a year will result in a Democratic Congress suing Trump over their tariff powers and passing laws to ban his tariffs, so focus on things that will last past the next tariff court case.
Remember, Trump has not tariffed his puppet master Putin, and has now dropped oil sanctions: White House Explains Why Russia Not Included in Trump’s New Tariffs - Newsweek
When Trump accuses opponents of being Communists, it’s all the confirmation you need that he worships the Putin playbook.
Imposing retaliatory tariffs feels good. It's a statement that if you are buying less from us we're going to buy less from you. But it hurts the domestic population. So don't do that. Allow your domestic population to temporarily get whatever benefits exist of open trade with the U.S. (cheaper prices on some things, availability if the item simply isn't produced in Canada) while scrambling to make other arrangements, as Mark Carney is doing. And you should lean into "Made in Canada" so consumers in the U.S. can express their solidarity with Canada. Let U.S. consumers choose to buy Canadian even when it costs more. Sure, Canada won't get the tariff money, but Canada will maintain some of its export volume, lessening the hit to its export earnings. Remember the "Look for the Union label" campaign of several decades ago? Do a "Look for the Canadian label" campaign. Put the label on every stick of lumber, every package of office paper, every bottle of maple syrup ... you get the idea. And let U.S. consumers decide to do without if a product formerly available from Canada is no longer available, or if U.S. suppliers raise their prices to take advantage when Canadian products are artificially more expensive. About 60 percent of U.S. consumers like and admire Canada, and dislike all the 51st state and tariff rhetoric. Let those consumers show that they won't go along with Trump's stupid ideas. They'll buy Canadian if items are available. They'll refuse to buy American-made substitutes if American prices go up.
Was this in supposed retaliation for the wildfire smoke? Which is bonkers in the first place. Frankly, I'd like to buy more stuff from Canada in protest. I'm stubborn that way.
Amen. I'm tempted to announce that I'll go without before I'll buy an American-made substitute for anything that is tariffed.
To sum up, Trump doesn't know what the f**k he is doing in dealing with economic issues, tariff issues or any other issues for that matter. He is just a 34x convicted felon crime boss who happens to occupy the Oval Office at the moment - but not for long!
Two and a half years seems like a very long time.
If things work out this November, a fully Democratic Congress should be able to impeach, convict and remove him. If nothing else, at least apply some brakes to his destructive actions for the last two years by tying things up with impeachment proceedings and multiple Congressional investigations. Maybe even override any vetoes of corrective legislation. We can hope.
Better watch out for the Save Act now. The House buckled. Will the Senate?
Truer words...
Nice teaching moment, Mate! Just like many of Trump’s decisions, I fail to see him prioritizing the needs of Americans. I see this again as another example of an insecure bully on the playground. I suppose if we want to see any morality in the GOP then we are going to have to legislate it. In the future we can claw back some of our dignity, but this ridiculous period is our legacy penned into history. Like a lighthouse and a shipwreck to warn future generations.
A malignant narcissist with frontal and temporal lobe dementia is the president of the United States. He is insane.
Thank you bushels and pecks for this explanation. The proposed tariffs are clearly illegal under U.S. law. I expect a few U.S. citizens who routinely buy Canadian products, and therefore have standing, will call their lawyers and get a lawsuit going. The earlier lawsuit against illegal tariffs took about a year to work its way through the court system. This one might move faster since there is a precedent at the Supreme Court level.
A complaint by Canada to the WTO would take forever, so not a realistic option. Could Mark Carney move faster on his promise to reduce the barriers to inter-provincial trade, in order to keep Canadian suppliers afloat until we boot out the Trump-monster? I know some of the Canadian trade barriers are protectionist, each province wanting to help its own "domestic" supplier-base from being undercut. Maybe we need an economics lesson on protectionism within countries as well as between countries.
I'd be interested in seeing Justin tackle this. Because we're going to have the same issues here as states try to claw out their existences. Of course, red states might be okay, as tax monies tend to flow to them from the Fed via blue state contributions.
Of course, that is assuming that Donald doesn't rob every branch, organization or account dry.
I think the U.S. states cannot charge interstate tariffs. Am I wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import-Export_Clause
Interesting. I had to go check, and it made me look at how Canada's "federal" system is different from the US Federal system and authority.
Canada affords each providence much more autonomy than the US does. Example; when the founders developed our system they wrote in specific powers of the federal government, which was actually quite wide and left little to the states to determine for themselves. The rest un mentioned was left to the states, but Feds lead.
Canada has an ever expanding provincial jurisdiction vs federal. It started with all the big powers listed as provincial jurisdiction – healthcare and local jurisdiction – leaving residual power remaining as federal. According to recent history documentation, they continue to afford provinces more independent powers.
A major difference is that Canada's laws are federal, and Provinces enforce them. In the US the States write their laws., and the feds create more laws that can supersede them.
Thanks for checking and for passing on the info.
I have some wild-ass and half-formed ideas about Canada's provinces perhaps having relatively more independence than U.S. states do because they were independently settled (French & English) and might have been independent and prosperous "going concerns" before joining the dominion, so they had to be assured that they were not giving up all their sovereignty. Just an idea. Justin, as a professional economist, would know much more about their economic independence as a practical matter, aside from pride and loyalty to the province.
Mark Carney seems to think they have maintained too much protectionism between provinces. On the theory of comparative advantage, the country as a whole might be more productive if each province emphasized its own specialty and if companies were allowed to spread across the continent. Apparently grocery store chains are a particular point of unhappiness.
But what do I know? Hope Justin will explain it all for us.
What I took away from this, from a glance, is that Canada has universal law for the entire country. Period. This is what is acceptable in Canada.
How they take care of their regional commerce health and businesses is uniquely the province's to determine- which makes a lot of sense because they should best know their population and regional needs best.
But having a uniform code of conduct regarding what is legal and what is not is pretty important in continuity for a country, I would think.
As I said, at a glance, but it makes sense. I'm not sure that this isn't want our founders wanted for this country itself, but they couldn't even start out with the simple concept that slavery was not tolerable. Thus the different laws for different places in the same country started at our inception.
True, sort of. It was probably unknowable at the time which of the un-mentioned things would turn out to be extremely important and greatly expanding as time went on.
But, realistically, how would the Southern states ever have agreed to join a union that did not allow slavery? It was, to use your words above, part of their regional commerce and business, about which they should know their population and regional needs best. It became The Great Compromise, a moniker that is perhaps intentionally vague about whether "great" meant "grand and noble and successful" or "most painful for the North to concede and most necessary for the South to preserve."
It was a terrible decision. So was the agreement to count the slaves as partially (3/5) human so that the South could have the benefit of both worlds, slavery and also a higher number of representatives than they would have received if only whites were counted as people. The hypocrisy of it is blatant, but the reason they did it is also apparent.
Canadian dairy farmers can rest easy, as Trump’s immigration policies are an udder disaster https://www.nmpf.org/issues/labor-rural-policy/labor-and-immigration-reform-efforts/
As Trump has proved, the TPP was the right answer for the US. Canada should leverage its existing free trade agreements https://www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/en/market-industry-info/free-trade-agreements.html
with EU, other EEA members. They should try to get these countries to harmonize and merge the agreements—and encourage the UK to at least join the EEA to reverse the damage from Brexit. Collectively, that would be an area much larger than the US in consumers and GDP, and they should engage with foreign aid to developing countries to compete against China for rare earths .
The UK has showed how dumb Brexit was, but Trump opted for “I’m with stupid” trade and immigration policy. Canada can show US voters how smart trade and immigration policy can solve critical labor shortages, lower manufacturing input costs, lower inflation and create greater income growth. Democrats can then point to Canada and opt in after retaking the White House—if we still have elections.
🤞Ignoring the US for a year will result in a Democratic Congress suing Trump over their tariff powers and passing laws to ban his tariffs, so focus on things that will last past the next tariff court case.
Remember, Trump has not tariffed his puppet master Putin, and has now dropped oil sanctions: White House Explains Why Russia Not Included in Trump’s New Tariffs - Newsweek
When Trump accuses opponents of being Communists, it’s all the confirmation you need that he worships the Putin playbook.
TAX THE ATMOSPHERE!!!
It's Anti-American
So in other words… Donald Trump is confused about his own trade deal? Unsurprising but thanks for clarifying!
Great analysis. Thank you!
So glad to hear you associating tariffs with the little dicktators ego.
Trumps tariffs policies are a clear reflection of his personality disorders!
Excellent if dispiriting heads-up.
Very clear idiocy!
And yet the GOP is silent, and a large number of them are working hard to get him what he wants.
I'm not an economist, so this is just my opinion.
Imposing retaliatory tariffs feels good. It's a statement that if you are buying less from us we're going to buy less from you. But it hurts the domestic population. So don't do that. Allow your domestic population to temporarily get whatever benefits exist of open trade with the U.S. (cheaper prices on some things, availability if the item simply isn't produced in Canada) while scrambling to make other arrangements, as Mark Carney is doing. And you should lean into "Made in Canada" so consumers in the U.S. can express their solidarity with Canada. Let U.S. consumers choose to buy Canadian even when it costs more. Sure, Canada won't get the tariff money, but Canada will maintain some of its export volume, lessening the hit to its export earnings. Remember the "Look for the Union label" campaign of several decades ago? Do a "Look for the Canadian label" campaign. Put the label on every stick of lumber, every package of office paper, every bottle of maple syrup ... you get the idea. And let U.S. consumers decide to do without if a product formerly available from Canada is no longer available, or if U.S. suppliers raise their prices to take advantage when Canadian products are artificially more expensive. About 60 percent of U.S. consumers like and admire Canada, and dislike all the 51st state and tariff rhetoric. Let those consumers show that they won't go along with Trump's stupid ideas. They'll buy Canadian if items are available. They'll refuse to buy American-made substitutes if American prices go up.