Canadian Tariff situation gets its own thread
-
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 04:25 last edited by
I could see them doing it to force the vote. Then the GOP would own the outcome along with Trump.
But more importantly you could set up some really tough votes for some GOP congressmen with affected auto plants in their districts.
-
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 04:39 last edited by
-
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 05:00 last edited by
I do not think the tariffs would survive a senate vote.
-
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 07:36 last edited by jon-nyc 2 Mar 2025, 07:36
Chinas maybe. Canada? That’s another story.
-
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 13:38 last edited by
I do suspect a universal tariff of 3-4% may be coming. I wonder if this is a big show to prep our allies that they can and will be tariffed, and maybe to get them to feel like 3% ain’t that bad.
-
I do suspect a universal tariff of 3-4% may be coming. I wonder if this is a big show to prep our allies that they can and will be tariffed, and maybe to get them to feel like 3% ain’t that bad.
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 13:55 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Canadian Tariff situation gets its own thread:
I do suspect a universal tariff of 3-4% may be coming. I wonder if this is a big show to prep our allies that they can and will be tariffed, and maybe to get them to feel like 3% ain’t that bad.
It's an opening gambit of some kind.
Typical Trump.
-
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 14:24 last edited by
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Canadian Tariff situation gets its own thread:
I do suspect a universal tariff of 3-4% may be coming. I wonder if this is a big show to prep our allies that they can and will be tariffed, and maybe to get them to feel like 3% ain’t that bad.
It's an opening gambit of some kind.
Typical Trump.
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 15:03 last edited by@Jolly said in Canadian Tariff situation gets its own thread:
@LuFins-Dad said in Canadian Tariff situation gets its own thread:
I do suspect a universal tariff of 3-4% may be coming. I wonder if this is a big show to prep our allies that they can and will be tariffed, and maybe to get them to feel like 3% ain’t that bad.
It's an opening gambit of some kind.
Typical Trump.
No, it’s playing the aggrieved victim.
Typical Trump demagoguery .
But you already knew that.
-
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 15:06 last edited by
No he didn’t. Jolly’s a True Believer.
-
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 15:20 last edited by
No, but Jolly doesn't think this has played out. At all.
Jolly also thinks the threat of tariffs + legislation to lower tax rates on corporations who move or build plants in the U.S., will lead to more jobs, more educated legal immigrants and a better strategic position.
-
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 15:27 last edited by Renauda 2 Mar 2025, 17:19
Jolly also thinks the threat of tariffs + legislation to lower tax rates on corporations who move or build plants in the U.S., will lead to more jobs, more educated legal immigrants and a better strategic position.
Okay, so you support indiscriminate extortion as a legitimate means of conducting diplomacy and US foreign policy with partners and allies. I can only surmise that you also applaud it when other large and powerful countries employ extortion or coercion to advance their interests.
Got it. I more than just suspect now that you really are an irrational fanatic.
-
If you listen to the administration it seems like the fentanyl stuff, at least with respect to Canada, was necessary as a legal basis for tariffs under Trump’s rebranded NAFTA. But many of his comments seem to indicate a concern about trade deficits if not the very idea of imports, which he considers subsidies.
That’s why I asked the question ‘where are these demands?’
I don’t think any have been made, since that would require some coherent goal in the first place.
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 15:54 last edited by Renauda 2 Mar 2025, 17:17@jon-nyc said in Canadian Tariff situation gets its own thread:
If you listen to the administration it seems like the fentanyl stuff, at least with respect to Canada, was necessary as a legal basis for tariffs under Trump’s rebranded
That’s why I asked the question ‘where are these demands?’I don’t think any have been made, since that would require some coherent goal in the first place.
It now seems the big irritant might actually be banking. Trump incoherently ranted about it for this first time last night during the airport tarmac scrum. Trudeau and Trump spoke over the phone and are scheduled to speak again later this afternoon at 3 pm EST. Mexico earlier delayed the tariffs by agreeing to deploy 10 K troops along the southern border. Some similar sort of off-ramp might be taking shape here.
To be frank though, I am not optimistic. Especially if it concerns banking regulations. Any change to those would require a Parliamentary Act of amendment. Something that cannot happen anytime soon. In fact, not until after a general election that may or may not deliver a majority government.
Until this point, Trump has framed the tariffs as a way to hit back at Canada for the ongoing trade deficit and supposed inaction on drugs and migrants crossing the northern border into the U.S. — his stated concerns about banking fairness are a new development.
A number of American banks do business in Canada with large lending and commercial and investment banking operations, among other functions, on this side of the 49th parallel.
Personal banking in Canada is largely the domain of Canadian-based banks, due to stringent federal regulations designed to protect against bank failures. According to government figures, Canada's large banks hold more than 93 per cent of all domestic banking assets.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-trump-speak-trade-war-1.7448805
-
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 17:30 last edited by
-
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 17:40 last edited by Renauda 2 Mar 2025, 17:42
Hey Mik, are your relatives on The Rock telling you anything about this Trump initiated shit show?
Their Premier, by any means no fool, is militant in his open condemnation of Trump.
-
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 17:51 last edited by blondie 2 Mar 2025, 18:03
@Renauda More than likely, I think Trump saw a clip of Mark Carney speaking, and squirreled off reacting, thinking, wanting to engage with him after Trudeau exits. Or perhaps a Canadian bank denied him a loan once, twice, 3x back when and he’s still pissed. As for American banks, they’ve had a presence in Canada since the 1970s, early 80s. My mom (a former Chase corporate lender) helped open their YYC branch. I’d trust our federal government (whoever is running the show) to safe guard our Canadian banking, that includes personal banking. We’ve a pretty solid system. Trump isn’t the only person/country wanting a piece of it.
-
@Renauda More than likely, I think Trump saw a clip of Mark Carney speaking, and squirreled off reacting, thinking, wanting to engage with him after Trudeau exits. Or perhaps a Canadian bank denied him a loan once, twice, 3x back when and he’s still pissed. As for American banks, they’ve had a presence in Canada since the 1970s, early 80s. My mom (a former Chase corporate lender) helped open their YYC branch. I’d trust our federal government (whoever is running the show) to safe guard our Canadian banking, that includes personal banking. We’ve a pretty solid system. Trump isn’t the only person/country wanting a piece of it.
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 18:06 last edited by Renauda 2 Mar 2025, 18:08That’s a strong possibility. I am all but certain that Carney will win the Liberal leadership race in March. Even it if Carney is a short lived PM, Trump will have to engage with him on this conflict.
It could be interesting too. Trump inadvertently might well ensure Carney carry the Liberals back into a majority government in Ottawa. Outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan, confidence in Poilievre’s ability to form a government and manage relations with Trump is rapidly diminishing or, as in case of Quebec, non existent. If Poilievre cannot hold his popularity Ontario he is politically dead in the water.