Important Trump Slaps Tariffs On Canada, Mexico And China

[couch]

A big part of the tariffs is the implication is that our neighbors aren't doing enough to stop trafficking, drugs, etc. that impacts the US as long as the perpetrators don't cause much trouble along the way. There's no doubt Mexico is guilty of that, although you could argue they're just trying to keep their heads above water. Canada is a different situation, but also presents an opportunity for illicit actors because of so much land and border with relatively few to police it. The US is left asking, and to some degree pressuring, Mexico and Canada to police that. Relying just on stopping it at the border is likely to yield limited results, and obviously there's not a lot US law enforcement can do past our borders.

China is supplying a lot of the raw materials - no question - and I think that's being addressed too, but that's more of a long-term challenge. The previous administration just avoided that confrontation. China has definitely sweetened the pot every way they can with those in power (both parties), making it doubly-difficult to address that problem. I hope to see a reckoning with China that ends our dependence on them without destroying either economy or escalating to military conflict. Personally, I avoid buying Chinese-made goods where possible and intend to continue that as long as their government continues tyrannizing and enslaving their people.

As for tariffs in general, I think it's important to remember that the US federal government largely lived off tariffs for the first half of its life, and I'd argue for a return to that. The idea of free trade with the likes of China should never have been entertained, although it's just as sad that average people didn't stick to their guns and refuse to buy goods produced by Communist slave labor as it is that politicians greased the skids for their own profit. Also, we've never really had free trade with China: they manipulate their currency to make it easier to export than to import goods.

It's true that tariffs are a tax paid by the consumer, except you have to remember that there's the option of not paying it - if or when a domestically-produced is available. Done right, tariffs help protect potentially critical manufacturing bases while also allowing competition. Too little, and you end up with the situation we're in where far too many critical things (like life-saving drugs) are made in China; too much and you stifle mutually beneficial trade and enable domestic profiteering. I believe the ideal path forward is massive cuts to federal bureaucracies and entitlements coupled with the elimination of income taxes in favor of tariffs and other, mostly consumption-based taxes. I'm thinking around 10% for most countries, but much higher for a few. Some people like to get people spun up about prices going up, but if that brings manufacturing and jobs back here, it means more money stays here, so there's more money to be made (and go right to your pocket, if income taxes go down or away). Of course, there is the sticking point that you have to work for it...

2025 is not 1895 or 1925 ...things change.
Great if you want to bring manufacturing in house - agreed that every country should be self sufficient to a degree. Higher costs for your citizens goes without saying but there are some positives (food & energy & economic security being perhaps the most important).
There is a way to do this without burning your bridges. However, unilaterally tearing up a trade agreement he supposedly negotiated and signed in good faith 4 years ago is not the way. Threatening economic warfare is not the way. Threatening to "annex" territory over which you have no claim or jurisdiction is not the way. Using false narratives is not the way (Canada boarder - give me a break) and if there were legitimate concerns they could and should be addressed by negotiations and not stupid and ill conceived threats.

Reasonable people can have reasonable discussion and negotiate in good faith so that it's a win win ...see how easy it is to have measured discussion without being silly.

 

[Mafesto]

2025 is not 1895 or 1925 ...things change.
Great if you want to bring manufacturing in house - agreed that every country should be self sufficient to a degree. Higher costs for your citizens goes without saying but there are some positives (food & energy & economic security being perhaps the most important).
There is a way to do this without burning your bridges. However, unilaterally tearing up a trade agreement he supposedly negotiated and signed in good faith 4 years ago is not the way. Threatening economic warfare is not the way. Threatening to "annex" territory over which you have no claim or jurisdiction is not the way. Using false narratives is not the way (Canada boarder - give me a break) and if there were legitimate concerns they could and should be addressed by negotiations and not stupid and ill conceived threats.

Reasonable people can have reasonable discussion and negotiate in good faith so that it's a win win ...see how easy it is to have measured discussion without being silly.

Seems like Trumps methods are working pretty well.

 

[revrider07]

The problem the last 4 years was a push over. For everyone to screw the USA over I hope we’re done with that. Other countries will see how far they can push it until it starts costing them money they will not change.

 

[couch]

The problem the last 4 years was a push over. For everyone to screw the USA over I hope we’re done with that. Other countries will see how far they can push it until it starts costing them money they will not change.

You do realize the it was TRUMP who negotiated & signed the last trade agreement with Canada & Mexico that been in place for last five years .....
You do realize that the oil US imports from Canada is already at a significant discount....

 

[IDspud]

Didn’t you just rant that trump tore up his agreement?

 

[Mafesto]

Didn’t you just rant that trump tore up his agreement?

Don't feed the troll

 

[Jaynelson]

On one item (regardless of Trump/USA whatnot) - we definitely need to make big steps toward doing *something* about the inflow/production/distribution/usage of hard drugs up here, and flows across the border (in both directions). If Trump threats light that fire, great - something's gotta give. It's out of control and the current governments (at all levels/most locations) have seemingly lost control of the situation, and many others. Government spending and staffing are way up, and efficacy is way down.

On the resource end of things however, I disagree. As someone how lives along the Columbia river system (and many reservoirs that feed it), as well as an area heavy in forestry, mining and hydro electric production - the "screwing" only goes one way. We have the snowpack, dam systems and reservoir capacity to do (in theory) whatever we need/want to do. However, we flush an *insane* amount of water south at the expense of our own lake and river levels to satisfy demand for levels and power production south. I own property on a lake with up to 90' annual vertical fluctuation - trust me, the taps are very much on. Whatever you guys do with the water once it crosses the border is your problem....but we ain't screwing you with lack of water, or lack of say on how levels are regulated. At all. IMO we are WAY (way) to generous on this one, and need to scale back to protect our own interests.

We also send an insane amount of raw materials (crude, logs, etc) down south, where US companies finish it and make a plenty fair share off it. Trump says you have your own lumber....well, kind of. For softwood - you have crap yellow pine, spruce and that's about it. Most of the good softwood building material fir, cedar, hemlock , etc....pretty much all comes from BC. Lots of the mills locally actually try to sell off to Asia and such as much as possible, as the US gets *too good* of a price. Also lots of the big entities are co-owned with US companies anyways. So again, there's no screwing - we just have it, and you don't.

Same goes for oil - ya, we produce a lot, but the majority of it is refined south of the border....so US companies are getting their piece and then some. We have VERY limited refining capacity. Our gov has done a great job at screwing up every deal and pipeline to expand our capacity to sell overseas, or refine more here....so, you're welcome I guess. That said, I understand the desire for more self-sufficiency, and we should be looking for that as well.

 

[Jaynelson]

As far as consumer pricing goes, I can't see this reducing prices for us or you USA'ers unfortunately. Uncertainty usually doesn't help with stock market either. The common man always pays the price. On the bright side, there's a decent chance for a change of federal gov up here (hopefully ASAP)....the current regime is beyond washed up, out of ideas, and out of money. The best outcome would be to get someone in there who is confident in our position, but can work with Donny T - there is plenty of opportunity for the country's to work together for better outcomes on both sides of the border. Safe to say neither side has been performing to its potential the past few years.

 

[Blu Du]

USA doesn't need Canada or Mexico or anything they have to offer. The tariffs were never going to happen because Donny knew Canada and Mexico would fold faster than a cheap party chair at a weight watchers convention. USA has the best president ever back in the white house and the next 4 years promise nothing but a booming economy as we take our country back

 

[IDspud]

Plus, raw materials are the cheapest part of the chain, so paying tariffs on them if it comes to that is cheaper than on finished product, so the cost to consumer is negligible and still better than devaluation of our dollar.

 

[BeartoothBaron]

The more things change, the more they stay the same... Federal income tax (16th amendment) stemmed from Woodrow Wilson's mad desire to grow the government and centralize power. He also took the top marginal rate from 7% to 77% in only five years (his engagement in WWI being the excuse - also used to push censorship). The net result of shifting from tariffs to confiscatory income taxes has been the death of American manufacturing and a tax system built by lobbyists with carve-outs for the big guys and traps and gotchas for entrepreneurs. That's why radically progressive tax rates are counterproductive: over a certain rate, you either quit working, or you pay to find ways to work around it. Push it far enough, and even the most radical leftist will flip: see The Beatles "Taxman."

Even to the extent tariffs have a detrimental impact on the economy due to lost trade, I believe that's better than the moral and practical issues with taking the fruits of one's labor before he even touches it (let alone taking most of it). So, you have to penalize something to fund the government: I say it should be consumption, and there's no reason it shouldn't start with foreign goods. That brings us to what Trump is really doing. It's not all bluster, but I think he's serious about some tariffs on most imports. I'd throw out 10% as a good ultimate target, but it depends on the country. So it's two things going on: in part, Trump is reclaiming a bargaining chip, but he also has plans to shift the tax structure.

Regarding Canada, I'm curious what the Canadians here think about Jordan Peterson's position in this recent video:

As an outsider, most of what I see and hear (including from a friend who lived in Regina SK for about ten years and married a Canadian) echos what JP says. I think Trudeau embodies the elite, socialist mindset that's destroying Canada's economy and culture. I remember well the trucker protests, how he smeared them, then attacked them by shutting down bank accounts and confiscating money raised for them, and ultimately used police like jack-booted thugs to drive them out. It made Ottawa look like E. Berlin. Of course, our own administration did plenty of the same stuff, and DC lives under a similar cloud of smugness and disdain. Ultimately, I'd love to see Canada under better leadership. I can laugh off the likes of Trudeau as "your problem" to some degree, but the US would benefit from a stronger Canada too.

 

[bnorth]

Plus, raw materials are the cheapest part of the chain, so paying tariffs on them if it comes to that is cheaper than on finished product, so the cost to consumer is negligible and still better than devaluation of our dollar.

Any manufacturing business I've been involved in the raw materials are actually the most expensive part of the finished good. The raw material cost heavily outweighs any labor, freight, energy, or overhead cost.

USA doesn't need Canada or Mexico or anything they have to offer. The tariffs were never going to happen because Donny knew Canada and Mexico would fold faster than a cheap party chair at a weight watchers convention. USA has the best president ever back in the white house and the next 4 years promise nothing but a booming economy as we take our country back

Actually you do need Canadian oil. Without it your supply is negatively impacted and spikes cost to consumers which has an outsized trickle down effect 'cause if you've got it a diesel burning truck brought it'. Many of your Gulf coast refineries are designed for Canadian heavy oil and would need substantial rework to run on US light crude. USA has the ability to be energy self-sufficient but not next week or even next year. California is pretty vocal about crying for Canadian lumber right now to rebuild after fire season. And if we're tearing up agreements (USMC) then BC has the ability to ignore the Columbia River Treaty and focus on filling its own Hydro reservoirs crippling PNW Hydro power generation.

At the end of the day the two countries are stronger together. Canada has largely built an economy based on selling to the US while the US has built an economy largely on allowing major corporations to export labor to cheap 3rd world countries and then buying what they produce instead of producing in the USA.

 

[Jaynelson]

^ This is really what it comes down to. We can all drone on about who has what, but ultimately both countries stand to benefit off one another (and more importantly....make life better for their citizens) if we work together....but that requires leadership to do so. Lumping Canada in with Mexico is silly....we don't have cheap labour to undercut anything produced in the US by any stretch, and our societal class system and lifestyle is very similar to the US. Almost anything you can think of costs more here....we are fewer people, in a harsher climate, with greater distances, doing more with less....so again, the idea of us having cheaply produced products/manufacturing to dump into the US isn't really a thing. Typically our strengths reside in the quality and shear amount of resources, as well as advanced abilities to process/extract them.

The only potential cost advantage is in the exchange rate....say like right now, as our inept leadership has tubed the economy. So the US companies have good purchasing power here currently....but that just a bi-product of our recession....surely not us "getting rich off the US," as the poor CDN hurts our purchasing power moreso, for everything but domestic products.

 

[Jaynelson]

As an outsider, most of what I see and hear (including from a friend who lived in Regina SK for about ten years and married a Canadian) echos what JP says. I think Trudeau embodies the elite, socialist mindset that's destroying Canada's economy and culture.

The Trudeau Liberals pulled a bait & switch on many (JP has dove into this as well). Traditionally, the federal liberals were a fairly centrist party, with the NDP being the further left party of any numbers. However, once in power, Trudeau and many of his high-ups ended up with policy and global ideals that played out further left than even the NDP have traditionally aimed.

Unfortunately, due to the voting system, many of us are beholden to the will and votes of those in a few select cities. People who never leave their house, have no idea what 99.99% of Canada looks like, and think it all sounds great. In the west, it would be like basing the western 1/4 of the USA off however LA votes. See in BC....often regarded as a liberal province (liberal by definition of the word itself...not the BC Liberal party...which confusingly, are somewhat conservative), the vast majority of areas voted conservative in the past election, but we still get an NDP gov due to Vancouver. Which might as well be on a different planet from most people in the rest of BC as far as lifestyle and ideals. Take out some ridings on the island and S.E. BC that vote-split independent-conservatives with party-conservatives, and it's pretty much all one colour....



So with any luck, we will see a big shift soon. Key word being luck....as you would be surprised (or not depending where you live), how many city people think you can run a country this size as if it were some tiny socialist European nation that would fit into BC alone 10 times over. The whole work-from-home with a little BS job crowd who thinks everyone needs free everything has sure done a number on us....as I'm sure many of you feel down there as well.

 

[IDspud]

You just perfectly described the US political battle. We just got lucky enough the lefts f’ed things up so bad that many of them turned on themselves and saw the light.

 

[Jaynelson]

To be fair - the US and Canada have always been different places, and a centrist approach would/has appeal(ed) to many Canadians traditionally. Myself included. So I do understand how the vote went there (the first time at least), but I think/hope that most people never anticipated this outcome. We've always had stronger social programs and a more involved government. You can argue the highs and lows, but it has worked and worked well for a long time. I think the majority of people were happy enough to ignore the shortfalls of government and leave well enough alone, had the status quo continued. Canadians (generally) don't have the appetite for celebrity-esq politicians ala Trump....we prefer ours to be invisible and easily forgettable.

Unfortunately, as many left-leaning people and parties have gone SO far left in recent years, and government (size and budgets) have grown SO rapidly....you are now seeing a big backlash, just like the USA. I assume moving forward, you will see a much larger rift between the far left and the (not that), as the failings of the far-left policies have become so obvious. Just like you guys....I'm sure there's a chunk of the population fully prepared to go down with the ship...lets just hope it's not a big enough chunk. I'm optimistic.

 

[edgey]

What is your in state fee?

South Dakota is $10