suds

Is that really the best you can do? I don't normally respond to silly stuff but for some reason you're really good at it. I guess that's worth something.

If we didn't have Mexico to compare volumes to, would it be a problem then considering how little volume it takes to kill millions of people? I'd tend to think so.

They did confiscate 44 lbs. of the stuff which is enough to kill close to 10 million people. And it's public knowledge that fentanyl made in canada is not only used for domestic purposes but is being exported around the globe. God only knows how much of the stuff isn't confiscated and manages to get through. Please fill me in on what our governments are doing about that. Nothing for us to be proud of here.

As I've said repeatedly, there are multiple issues. You have your opinions and I have mine. Let's leave it at that.

If this has nothing to do with U.S. security then why is the U.S. threatening Panama who they have a huge trade surplus with?? It's because the canal has great strategic importance militarily in getting U.S. warships from the Pacific theatre to the Atlantic and vice versa. The canal is supposed to be neutral but in reality it's the Chinese government who's in charge of canal operations. That's what the stink is about.

I was on the understanding that China was already paying some fairly heavy tariffs (in some cases 100%) and is the main reason it was only 10%.

As Doug mentioned in a previous post, Trump selected this Stephen Miran whom he appointed as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors who advise Trump on economic matters. In Nov 2024, Miran came out with 'A User's Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System'. All I can say is it's far beyond my knowledge of economics but here's a link if you're interested. It could explain some things that are going on now.... https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/research/638199_A_Users_Guide_to_Restructuring_the_Global_Trading_System.pdf

I don't recall ever saying Canada increasing military spending to 2% was the only issue. It's also a combination of National Security issues, fantanyl, and election promises such as bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. and getting rid of trade deficits.

You're probably right. I admit I was also wrong in not believing that Trump would take this thing this far. But we do have time to rectify the situation if saner heads prevail. Trump really isn't interested in Trudeau's plan over spending $1.3 billion for security over the next 6 years. He wants things done now. We might also have to get rid of a few sacred cows. If it makes good economic sense it's not necessarily appeasement.

Did we do that? Trump gave enough warning about what he was going to do. Canada should have been addressing issues after the last U.S. election. And as I've said, we've had 4 years to plan for this eventuality. I'm not siding with Trump or claiming he's right but we certainly dropped the ball on this one.

Yeah, the world's hegemon (and policeman) usually has a habit of pissing off certain countries from time to time. Personally, I'm glad it's the U.S. and not Russia or China. So, this argument you're referring to about Canada not needing to spend money on military because we shouldn't be supporting U.S. foreign wars is made by who exactly?? Canada is a member of Nato who wants to be a member on the cheap. Where do you get this silly nonsense from??

In 2011, Obama and the Harper administration signed a deal to increase trade cooperation on addressing security concerns and reducing trade barriers. So even back then, national security played an important role for opening borders to another country for trade purposes. Makes sense so far doesn't it? But the most profound statement made about the deal was made by Liberal leader Bob Rae who said.... "It's a bunch of pilot projects, it talks about improving co-operation with respect to certain things, but frankly I don't see the kind of changes that are going to be necessary to ensure that we continue to have strong, unharassed access to the U.S. market". As for Biden, his administration left the southern border completely open for his 4 years in office. As for the fentanyl, Canada is now in the business of exporting the drug and not just using it domestically. Should we not be a bit concerned about that either?

appeasement: the policy of giving in to a hostile power in an attempt to prevent trouble I don't see the U.S. as a 'hostile power'. I see them as a 'pissed off' power. Security concerns have been a topic of debate between U.S. and Canadian leaders for decades now. So, how would you rate our present government when it comes to such things as border security, national security, defense spending, illegal immigration, maintaining integrity over our electoral process, or the defending/protecting of sovereignty over our arctic territories? What realistic chance have we got defending our arctic against Russian or Chinese military aggression if we don't have the U.S. backing us? Or for that matter, what realistic chance has Denmark got against defending Greenland? Do you not see the pattern here? The U.S. is concerned about the national security of our country and arctic, Greenland, and the Panama Canal where the canal is run by a company with strong ties to the Chinaes government. And then there's the fentanyl problem where Canada 'is no longer just a simple producer of fentanyl but a global exporter'. I don't know about you but I'd give them a failing grade. For the last 4 years our government could have been preparing for the second Trump administration (knowing full well his ways of doing things), and what did they do? Nothing as far as I can see, or do you see things differently? Diplomacy is usually the best bet as an alternative to appeasement or trade wars. Unfortunately the diplomacy ship has sailed largely due in part to our own making. And to think if diplomacy was used on occasion (think Danielle Smith) you're labelled a traitor. Add to the mess we're in, a lame duck leader, and a prorogued Parliament. Ontario is calling for an election that we don't need but why waste a good emergency? In case a lot of Canadians don't realize it, anti-americanism is good for the Liberal Party and it's on a definite uptick. B.C. is calling for bans on certain U.S. exports but only from red states. Of course politics has nothing to do with any of this. We're left staring at mass layoffs, recession, market selloffs, and if our governments are going to start handing out money as I expect they will be (think covid) our debt is going to skyrocket likely bringing on another round of inflation. The only good thing about this is that it's going to take a while for things to take real damaging effect, and maybe will give us enough time to put those who know something about diplomacy back in charge. Your thoughts?

Tit-for-tat isn't the answer I agree. No, it's not the answer. Amazingly stupid people on this board who must really believe they're tough or something.

Absolutely. What they expect may happen on Feb 1, is that Trump may begin with a 2% export tariff, and then increase the tariff another 2% on each subsequent month until some kind of agreement is reached.

I know what supply management is. I've been against it, for it, and right about now I would question if it's worth saving if it's going to cause 25% tariffs across the board on all Canadian exports. Of course the farmers would have to be fairly compensated. As for the rest of it, you can get general information on the USTR Report website but for fine detailed information you need a paid subscription. So blather on all you want but don't expect any replies.

So what you're saying is the U.S. subsidizes it's agriculture but Canada does not? Is that about right? I'll let you prove it as I've no intention in wasting my time proving vague generalities. As for Canadian telecom operators operating in the U.S. ...... Bell last Nov. just invested heavily buying Ziply Fibre (the leading fibre provider in U.S. Pacific Northwest) for $5 billion USD. It's hoping to accelerate subscriber and revenue growth, but it's stock took a huge hit and has never rebounded. As for the Banking Act, I doubt the idea is to get rid of the Act altogether just certain parts of it that make it difficult for U.S. banks to get a foothold in Canada. As for Canadian Airlines 'protectionalist measures' I've no idea on what these measures are but the U.S. obviously is finding them to be an irritant. So I'm going to spend about as much time on this one as you have likely <60 seconds.

I doubt we will never know exactly what they want until we acknowledge the idea that we have to give up something. And don't bullshit me about country and sovereignty. I love and would defend my country, but our politicians are mostly a bunch of self serving, party first, bastards.

Ok Spanky, just answer my simple question. What do you want.... trade-off which would guarantee no new tariffs or trade war?

Just out of interest, why do you say that? Over the years I've listened to Lee countless times on the radio and enjoyed every minute of it. There's nothing political about him either. And there are more than a few experts who agree with him that a trade war with the U.S. does nobody any good especially us. And I agree with Doug that our politicians are using this emergency to only further their political goals. And if you don't agree with their madness then you're a traitor.

Aren't all banks either foreign or domestic regulated by Canadian regulators? And what about dairy products and other foodstuffs? Are they not regulated to a certain extent to meet Canadian standards? When one considers a 25% tariff on all Canadian exports which makes the more sense? A trade-off or a trade war?

Right. We're blessed with resources and live next door to the world's #1 economic powerhouse and leader of the free world. We should be thanking our lucky stars. But no, let's reject the U.S. and look for greener pastures elsewhere because Trump's a mean person or whatever other stupid reason you can think of. Get your head out of your ass.

Plain stupid. According to Professor Ian Lee of Carleton University, the main trade irritants that the U.S. has with Canada are well documented in the USTR (United States Trade Representative) reports. Every country the U.S. trades with has it's own report and 'irritants'. Protectionist policies of 'supply management' Telecom Act which shuts out U.S. telecom providers Banking Act with its protectionist measures to shut out U.S. banks The airline industry and its protectionist measures And most recently digital taxes that discriminate against U.S. digital giants According to Lee, Trump and his economic advisors see tariffs as a tool to leverage other countries into opening up their markets to U.S. firms. What our politicians should be doing is sitting down with the Americans, opening up our free trade agreement and be prepared to put all our sacred cows on the table, in return for guarantees of no tariffs. 'To fight American protectionism is to get rid of our own protectionism'.

According to Yahoo, Biden issued a 'blanket pardon' to pretty much the rest of his family minutes before the Trump inauguration.

Yeah ok. If everyone lived their life that way the world would probably be a whole lot better place. Can't argue with you.