-1=e^ipi

The demand functions of US consumers are not perfectly inelastic.

Yes, but the incentive structure you create by unilaterally imposing free trade is such that the other country does not have an incentive to have free trade. Rather it is preferable for that country to have mostly free trade but with some tariffs so that foreigners partially pay for that country's tax base rather than having 100% of that country's tax burden on citizens.

Countries tend to respond to tariffs by retaliating with more tariffs. Stating that countries could not respond if they choose to is pointless if it does not occur in reality.

Better than birthright.

Having a violation of equality under the law (monarchy) normalizes the violation of equality under the law and helps to justify other violations of equality under the law (such as circumcision double standards, race/sex based hiring practices, etc.). In addition, it is a violation of secularism (the queen is the head of the Anglican church), thus the continuation of the monarchy normalizes violations of secularism and helps to justify other violations such as funding the catholic church via catholic schools, blasphemy or religious hate speech laws, funding the Aga Khan with tax payer money, having the crucifix in the national assembly of quebec, and having god in our anthem and charter. Furthermore, having a monarchy helps make the narrative of the far left, that we live in a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, more believable and therefore allows them to more easily take power.

Legalize prostitution! Give people freedom!

God aint real. So, according to you, something a person is born with (their sex) somehow justifies having a society where the head of state is determined by birthright instead of by merit... Birthright justifies more birthright. Monarchist insanity gets crazier and crazier.

No. If US invades Canada and takes it over, we get a Republic, Free Speech, Freer Trade and a Currency Union. We win. Why stop that?

I said contributes. That's not the same thing as implies. There are other factors involved, but the monarchy certainly doesn't help. And if we had a proportional representation system, maybe we would have more competition of ideas in the political marketplace. People would have more options to choose from and ideas would less frequently go unchallenged. Perhaps we would have the libertarian party or another free trade party in the house of commons advocating for free trade, rather than having 0 parties advocating for free trade and instead having all the parties advocate for 300% tariffs. Perhaps having more parties represented and avoiding the us vs them narrative would allow the Canadian public to feel that they have more options than Trudeau vs the anti-abortion gay-hating climate-change denying dinosaur-conservative party. Please reread what I said. I said that it contributes to the narrative of the far left. Not that the narrative of the far left is true. It just makes it more believable to the public, which allows the far left to more easily acheive power.

And maybe the system contributes to not getting a pipeline built or trade deal done. The monarchists gave us the first past the post system, which allows for extremists (like Harper and Trudeau) to form government. It also makes it so that we have a very narrow set of political positions represented in parliament. Currently, all the parties are in favour of the awful dairy cartel, which makes poor people suffer with extra high food prices and is a barrier to trade with the US. Free Trade but with 300% tariffs, what a joke. The monarchists also gave us the unelected senate, which will be a giant barrier to pro-development policies long after the Trudeau government is out of power. The monarchists gave us the inferior common law legal system, which gives unelected activist judges too much power to reinterpret laws. Have you followed the "free the beer" case recently? The activist judges managed to reinterpret section 121 of the Constitution Act, which states that goods "shall ... be admitted free into each of the other provinces". They somehow managed to reinterpret that to mean that provinces are allowed mass interprovincial trade barriers. It also means that activist judges appointed by the current government will be blocking economic development for decades, due to some frog or caribou being harmed. Finally, having a monarchy not only violates the moral principle of equality under the law, but it helps to support the narrative of the far left that we live in a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. This allows the social justice people to more easily achieve power. They then use that power to block economic development and trade.

The problem is that I need maple tears in order to take my pills. Yes, and we should change that. Yes, some monarchists aren't the biggest fans of democracy. I understand that.

It's danish territory, the UN just hasn't declared it as such. But I guess by this logic, if a genocide is occurring, and the UN hasn't declared it as such, then the genocide isn't actually occurring.

Given the geography of the region, it's pretty obvious that Denmark/Greenland will own it. Russia and Canada just claim it due to moronic chest-thumping nationalism. But here is a picture of the North Pole and the Lomonosov Ridge. Canada is on the wrong side of the ridge to claim the North Pole. Now, please cry me the sweet sweet maple tears of Canadian patriotism.

The queen must have a few screws lose if she thinks that a society based on birth right is preferable to a merit-based society.

How? Are you referring to the Arctic? There is very little overlap in the territorial claims between Canada and Russia, and I would argue that the territorial overlap that does exist can be resolved peacefully. Russia mostly has territorial conflict with Greenland. Also, a lot of the overlap is due to Canada overclaiming land by the nationalist Harper government. The North pole is not Canadian territory, it is Danish territory. China... I'm not really sure what you mean.

Why should we be part of an alliance where we have to defend Erdogan when Erdogan shoots down Russian planes as Russia tries to fight ISIS? Whole thing is a damn waste of money. Canada should cut military expenditure, not increase it. Who's going to invade Canada? The polar bears? The military's loyalty is to the Queen and her successors (that is who they pledge allegiance to), not to Canada.

I'm looking at it from an incentive angle. Economics deals with incentives.

It's taxing its own consumers, yes, but it is also taxing the producers of other countries. So part of that tariff tax revenue is generated by people in your country, but part is generated by foreigners. In comparison, more conventional taxes on tax people in your country. From a country's perspective, it can be preferable to obtain some tax revenue from foreigners rather than collect 100% of the tax revenue domestically. I never said that unilateral free trade is bad in all cases, or that it is worse than all alternatives. Just that it is worse than two-way free trade, and by engaging in reciprocity you create incentives to move towards two-way free trade, where as if you adopt unilateral free trade, you create incentives to move away from two-way free trade.

You should take advantage of comparative advantage and pursue free trade, yes. However, if a country adopts unilateral free trade, then in some cases it creates an incentive for other countries to tariff that country to generate tax revenues. I gave an example here: . It is better to engage reciprocity to incentivize true free trade.

I am an economist and I say that it doesn't make sense to violate reciprocity.

Free trade is a subset of Fair trade. All free trade is fair trade. Free trade is "we don't put trade barriers on you, and you don't put trade barriers on us". Pretty fair. Another form of fair trade is no trade. Out of the set of fair trade, free trade is the most desirable.

None of the above. Pursue free trade, but do so reciprocally.

I disagree that it's a small trade issue. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is a small part of trade. How does that justify not putting supply management on the negotiating table and instead having a completely terrible poor-hating position on it?

Most Canadians don't want a trade war, they want reciprocity. Having US put on tariffs but not retaliating proportionately would violate reciprocity. Put supply management on the negotiating table and then negotiate for a reciprocal reduction in trade barriers.

I'd argue that it's nothing to do with Trump's negotiating skills. The inability of Canada to make changes to supply management is an entirely due to internal politics. TPP could give concessions on dairy because that was negotiated by a previous government (Harper) that was willing to make such concessions. However, ironically, due to Martha Hall Findlay and Maxime Bernier challenging the system, I think that has caused Trudeau and Scheer to take much more hardline positions. Scheer especially only won with 50.95% of the vote because of the dairy cartel. Now Trudeau, Scheer and Singh are in an arms race to see who supports the awful supply management system the most. The current set of politicians in parliament would rather see the country burn to the ground than give an inch on supply management. The earliest that Canada will be able to make changes to supply management is 2023. 80% supporting retaliation is not the same thing as 80% supporting never ever giving an inch on supply management. There have been polls that ask Canadians if supply management should be put on the negotiating table, and most say yes. Canada should retaliate with proportional tariffs because reciprocity should be maintained, but that isn't the same thing as never putting the sacred cow of supply management on the negotiating table. With respect to emotion, I think that (most) humans have a tendency towards tribalism. In the modern day, this takes the form of nationalism. This causes (some) people to have a strong irrational and emotional desire to believe that their tribe (Canada) is never wrong and that if the leader of another tribe (US) criticizes a policy of your tribe (supply management) then that means you should defend the tribe's policy at all costs to show your allegiance to the tribe (Canada). Evidence and the exact specifics of the policy of supply management do not really matter to most supporters of it. It's just tribalistic nationalism.