Why Are We Doing This U.S. Vs. Canada Thing?

[paxamericana]

1 hour ago, John Stone said:

Simple, because the U.S. has the MOST to lose, baby!  

It’s not self evident. America would be rid of NATO deadbeats and defense obligation to economic competitors who trades with China. China is going away for demographic reasons alone. So not a long term threat, the keyword being longterm. 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Not really. Genuinely curious of why America should care. Isolationism is an American pastime.

American isolationism of pastime, to be honest with you the last time it was policy was just before world war II. And that didn't work out so well.

America has always inserted itself on the world stage and demanded to be a primary player. Isolationism hasn't been a policy for almost 80 years now

[paxamericana]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Isolationism hasn't been a policy for almost 80 years now

Correct, but times are different now. The Soviet Union was defeated. The world war ravaged economies combined are larger than the US, they do not need special tariff exemptions and should pay their fair share of defense costs. 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Correct, but times are different now.

No they're not.

Quote

The Soviet Union was defeated.

35 years ago!   A little late to be just reacting to that just now  

Quote

The world war ravaged economies combined are larger than the US, they do not need special tariff exemptions and should pay their fair share of defense costs. 

The last world war was almost a hundred years ago. It has no bearing on policy today. Subsequent to that time America severely benefited from and grew as a response to free trade with other nations. The trade deal with Canada made America a lot of money he gave him access to a lot of resources they desperately needed. This is why Reagan thought it was a good idea

Nothing has changed since then substantially that would indicate that a complete reversal of policy was justified.

We will see how it plays out over the long term but honestly I think if anything it'll ****** growth and force people to move away from America and that's not what America would normally have wanted. England did something similar after world war II and again when they decided to leave the European Union and it's not going geniusly for them

[paxamericana]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nothing has changed since then substantially that would indicate that a complete reversal of policy was justified.

 

The world is aging into mass retirement with one exception, the United States whose baby boomer did have enough children the millennial. Thus for the next 30 years America will remain the youngest of the larger western countries and can still support a consumption based economy. Without a young population, the only known economic growth would be export, something America is keen on charging for access. Hence, b!tch all you want but you’re going to have to pay to play.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, paxamericana said:

The world is aging into mass retirement with one exception, the United States whose baby boomer did have enough children the millennial.

No it isn't. 

Quote

Thus for the next 30 years America will remain the youngest of the larger western countries and can still support a consumption based economy.

Absolutely not true. Saudi Arabia for example has a lower age  population than the us and lots of money,

India and Mexico are both lower than the US. 

South Africa has the youngest G20 population

The US isn't even close

Quote

Without a young population, the only known economic growth would be export, something America is keen on charging for access. Hence, b!tch all you want but you’re going to have to pay to play.

Simply not true. In fact elderly populations result in more consumerism the younger populations. The elderly have more money and they have more needs. They need more care, they want the best services, etc etc

Your entire premise is completely false from beginning to end

United states has been a major market because they were the easiest to deal with. Now that they're not easy to deal with other markets will open up and start taking more of the share that the US used to get.

The US will soon be in decline. People will look to other countries to do business and they will find them and less and less importance will be put on the US who will then have less and less money and less and less influence.

[paxamericana]

43 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Your entire premise is completely false from beginning to end

Point on the doll where the truth hurt you? See USA demographic vs India. The US ages at a slower rate. India is now aging faster than the US. China, Europe, South America are all facing similar trends. 




 

 

50 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

elderly populations result in more consumerism the younger populations

nope, after the kids move out of the house consumption plummet. It’s wealth and investment building for retirement time. Yes older population has high capital but low consumption at retirement. No need for a car or house, those are paid off by then. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, paxamericana said:

Point on the doll where the truth hurt you?

I can point to where it hurt YOU, that's for sure   

Your charts prove i was right and you were wrong 

And humans all age at the same rate. That's how time works.

India has a MUCH younger population so if age is your issue then you lose  

 

Quote

nope, after the kids move out of the house consumption plummet. It’s wealth and investment building for retirement time. Yes older population has high capital but low consumption at retirement. No need for a car or house, those are paid off by then. 

Oooooo sorry sparkles,  you're wrong again!! You've got to learn to do some of your own thinking and research and not rely on the pamphlets your echo chamber produces  

Your chart shows that on average the indian person spends about 4/5ths of what the american one does as an adult, which is comparable.  The us has a slight edge but not much - you have to remember the cost of living india is also less so they don't need to spend as much. So right off the bat you're wrong, they're comparable. 

However...  you missed the big difference  

When we're talking about consumer markets... the us has just under 400 million consumers or potential consumers. 

India has 1.4 BILLION.  A billion more than the us.

The market is VAAAASTLY more powerful than the us market. 

So you were wrong about the us being the youngest, and you're wrong about the consumer base having more disposable income. 

India hasn't fully harnessed its consumer power yet... but it's growing closer and has vastly more potential  

Kid, you should have some idea of my skills and knowoedge by this point.  I 'cheat' by avoiding fights where i'm not knowledgeable and i do my research.  

So if you're debating with me, you need to step up your game. If you bring this kind of cheezy assed stuff to the table and don't know your facts well i'm going to eat you alive every single time. 

You're not dumb, you can do better, don't be so lazy and try harder next time. This was you sluffing off instead of being on the ball

[Down East]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Insanely weak when it comes to negotiations. Remember his entire pitch for being elected was that he could handle Donald Trump and he knew how to do negotiations. But the number one thing with trump is you can't look weak and unfortunately Carey looked very very weak.

If you give something to trump that he wants without getting something in return then he assumes you'll always give him whatever he asks for and he will always ask for more. As a result we are now negotiating from a place of weakness.

There's no arguing that it's just the way it is. We've reduced almost all our tariffs, and trump has several times increased his so he's happy making more money. 

Now he won't even talk trade with us. Trump could not give a flying fig whether or not any trade agreements are reached right now and that hurts Canada and Carney has nothing to use to get that going again because he's giving them everything he wanted.

Meanwhile we haven't got any new trade deals. Do we.  He's been working on this for almost a year now and no new trade deals and it doesn't sound like we're close to anything.  And none of that will replace what we've lost with the us even if it did happen. 

And what about all the other 'trump defense' tools?  We were going to "build baby build" remember?  Yet again we're almost a year in and there are NO new projects that weren't underway already and didn't need help, and a Canadian company just announced they're building billions worth of new terminals in the us and not canada.  Why didn't carney help get us that deal?

And how about interprovincial trade? Carney said THAT ALONE would replace the lost business the US Tariffs were costing us, if trade barriers were removed between provinces we'd have billions more in revenues. He was going to work with all the provinces, he was going to be the great leader and negotiate and get a deal between all of them. 

Instead interprovincial tariffs have gone up not down since he's gotten elected

Our economy is basically in recession and we're losing ground to all our partners in the g20. 

 

The problem isn't that carney is weak. It's that he's incompetent. He has no idea what he's doing. But the US looks at that as being weak. 

I wasn't aware of the interprovincial barriers being such a problem.

You just gave me something to read up on. 👍

[John Stone]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No they're not.

35 years ago!   A little late to be just reacting to that just now  

The last world war was almost a hundred years ago. It has no bearing on policy today. Subsequent to that time America severely benefited from and grew as a response to free trade with other nations. The trade deal with Canada made America a lot of money he gave him access to a lot of resources they desperately needed. This is why Reagan thought it was a good idea

Nothing has changed since then substantially that would indicate that a complete reversal of policy was justified.

We will see how it plays out over the long term but honestly I think if anything it'll ****** growth and force people to move away from America and that's not what America would normally have wanted. England did something similar after world war II and again when they decided to leave the European Union and it's not going geniusly for them

RE: the last world war was almost a hundred years ago. It has no bearing on policy today. 

NO BEARING??

Pre WWII the U.S. was isolationist in the extreme (lend-lease notwithstanding). 

China, Russia, Asia, Korea all came-of-age so to speak as a result of WWII and we are dealing with the fallout to this day. 

Yugoslavia? OMG!

Research the Marshal Plan - the keystone that made the U.S. an economic power. 

Atomic weapons? (Trinity)

Fusion weapons?

The United Nations?

my fav - Palestine / Israel?

Ukraine  - breakup of the USSR

 

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, Down East said:

I wasn't aware of the interprovincial barriers being such a problem.

You just gave me something to read up on. 👍

Well you'll find all kinds of interesting stuff there, but let me give you a little context to start you on your journey.

Federal governments have noted that this was a problem for quite a while now. But basically what happens is each province is responsible for the sale of goods inside the province. That's a provincial issue. So the provinces have a habit of restricting other provinces products to make sure that their provinces products Are purchased first. They will also frequently ban the direct sale of products between provinces and if they do allow it they tariff it. 

A quick example - alberta has never allowed bc wineries to sell wine directly to albertans online.  You had to sell it to an alberta liquor distributor who would then resell it. This is because alberta makes good money on taxes from the sale of booze and wants to keep their booze sellers in business. 

Recently they DID allow it in limited amounts, but they then substantially increased the interprovincial tariff so that it would be just as cheap to go buy it locally. 

All the provinces do this to one degree or another. It is very often cheaper to buy goods from the states, sometimes even the SAME goods where a province sells it to a us distributer who sells it back to another province cheaper that it would have been to buy direct from that province. 

The same problem happens with Certifications and Trades.   Each province has it's own certification process.  A registered nurse who trained in alberta did not do the same courses as one in BC. THe certifications are very different.  So in MANY trades if you're "licensed" in one province you're NOT licensed in another and can't be till you take some species of 'upgrade' course or the like. That can seriously limit the ability of some companies to do business in multiple provinces easily. 

There are MANY such areas and they are all protected by some little beurocracy that wants to defend it's balliwack and is entirely resistant to any outside org trying to take it away. They defend their little 'kingdoms' to the death, and the provinces want the revenues. 

If all the trade barriers and mobility barriers were gone the province's industries would make so much more money that their revenues would be fine but that takes a leap of faith and most provinces and the ministries involved do not want to take that risk. 

[paxamericana]

On 11/27/2025 at 11:25 AM, CdnFox said:

If all the trade barriers and mobility barriers were gone the province's industries would make so much more money that their revenues would be fine but that takes a leap of faith and most provinces and the ministries involved do not want to take that risk. 

And let’s not forget the infrastructure required for interprovincial commerce. It’s easier to trade with a larger population center south of the border than to build new infrastructure to reach the sparsely populated areas of Canada

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, paxamericana said:

And let’s not forget the infrastructure required for interprovincial commerce. It’s easier to trade with a larger population center south of the border than to build new infrastructure to reach the sparsely populated areas of Canada

Infrastructure is actually extremely robust for our population size. So that's not the issue.

The issue is it just became easier to sell to America. It's that simple. The free trade agreement mulroney signed with America hugely benefited both countries and that's where trade got focused. And now that's where our trade pathways are and barriers have grown up between provinces.

It actually wouldn't take that much to knock the trade barriers down, but the problem is The Gatekeepers of those barriers are not interested in that and they are many

[paxamericana]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The Gatekeepers of those barriers are not interested in that and they are many

Yes yes, your system of hate. Canada is the most hate filled country in the northern hemisphere, we know. Why do you all even bother with the confederation . My crystal ball says Statehood is in your future.

Edited November 30, 2025 by paxamericana

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Yes yes, your system of hate.

not really. Just people protecting their little fiefdoms. 

Quote

Canada is the most hate filled country in the northern hemisphere, we know.

LOL sure kid.

Quote

Why do you all think Ben bother with the confederation .

uhhhhhhhh....

Quote

My crystal ball says Statehood is in your future.

I'd appreciate if you quit playing with your balls while you're talking to me  

[paxamericana]

37 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

not really. Just people protecting their little fiefdoms. 

Think about it, the provinces all trade with America, that makes you all economic competitors with one another. The trade barriers exist because of that underlying fundamental reason.

So give it up, your ass already belongs to America. The provinces will never get rid of their trade barriers. 
 

@Zeitgeist

Edited November 30, 2025 by paxamericana

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Think about it, the provinces all trade with America, that makes you all economic competitors with one another.

Not really. ALberta sells oil to the us for example, bc sells lumber, sask sells potash, ontario sells steel, quebec electricity... so on and so forth. 

Not really 'competators in most cases'. 

5 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

The trade barriers exist because of that underlying fundamental reason.

No, they exist for other reasons.  The fact we all can sell what we have to the states is what prevented anyone from working on that in the past, but not due to competition the way you're thinking. 

The trade barriers exist because of that underlying fundamental reason.

Quote

So give it up, your ass already belongs to America. The provinces will never get rid of their trade barriers. 

I see you enjoy drinking on the weekend  

 

Edited November 30, 2025 by CdnFox

[Legato]

On 11/29/2025 at 11:56 PM, paxamericana said:

Think about it, the provinces all trade with America, that makes you all economic competitors with one another. The trade barriers exist because of that underlying fundamental reason.

So give it up, your ass already belongs to America. The provinces will never get rid of their trade barriers. 
 

@Zeitgeist

We used to sell a lot of snow to the US but due to global boiling not so much any more.

[paxamericana]

On 11/29/2025 at 11:01 PM, CdnFox said:

I see you enjoy drinking on the weekend  

This would be a step in the right direction 

[Zeitgeist]

On 11/29/2025 at 5:43 PM, paxamericana said:

Yes yes, your system of hate. Canada is the most hate filled country in the northern hemisphere, we know. Why do you all even bother with the confederation . My crystal ball says Statehood is in your future.

It’s the opposite, actually.  The toxicity came entirely from the Trump team, which blew up a successful trade agreement with Canada to try to gain an advantage in a trade relationship that was fair and balanced: Canada buys more U.S. goods than any other country.  We buy the same number of American autos as the U.S. buys from Canada.  The only reason why the U.S. has a small trade imbalance with Canada is because of the U.S.‘s purchase of Canadian energy, which continues to provide the U.S. northeast with affordable power and continues to provide work and financial wins for Texan refineries.

Really, Canada needs to refine much more of its own oil.  For survival, due to the US tariff initiative, Canada is finding new markets for its resources.  Asia will likely become the main beneficiary.

You benefit from our aluminum because our access to abundant affordable power makes it economical to operate smelters.

If Trump is still worried about the piddly supply managed dairy trade with Canada, I suggest that supply management become available to US dairy farmers who want to sell above quota in Canada (a quota which is never reached anyway).  All supply management does is prevent feast or famine situations, making sales more predictable.  It’s worked well on the whole.  American farmers could join such a system or simply carry on with the current plan.  If this whole stupid tariff scheme is based on wanting to sell more hormone-filled milk to Canada or wanting Canada to make our lumber more expensive for US builders and homeowners to prop up more expensive US “stumpage” fee-based lumber, those are pretty stupid reasons to destroy well-functioning supply chains and free trade that has benefited both countries tremendously.

The trade barriers are not coming primarily from Canada. As you yourself stated, our interprovincial trade barriers have been a barrier to trade within Canada. At least some of these are being removed. Canada in some ways functions like a collection of countries. We have to pull together now to head off US economic threats and “hate”.

Oh and by the way, I only buy organic dairy when I visit the U.S.   You need to get RFK on the job of improving your dairy quality.  I think U.S. dairy products in Canada should have a tabaco-style warning label.  

Edited December 3, 2025 by Zeitgeist

[John Stone]

On 11/26/2025 at 6:55 PM, paxamericana said:

It’s not self evident. America would be rid of NATO deadbeats and defense obligation to economic competitors who trades with China. China is going away for demographic reasons alone. So not a long term threat, the keyword being longterm. 

Democracies do not think long-term - elections and partisan politics ensure that. 

China thinks 'long term', not the royal, 'us'! 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 8/7/2025 at 4:58 PM, Zeitgeist said:

During my time off this summer I looked at the price of property and home building in the Greater Toronto Area and the southern half of Ontario.  I reached a very disturbing conclusion: There are no affordable real estate investments to be made, not even for people with good incomes and money to invest.  I could not find a single building lot for a home less than 90 minutes from Toronto for less than $200,000.  What’s more, after looking into multiple prefab and on-site build options, I couldn’t find a way to build a home with two or more bedrooms to code on such a land parcel for less than about $275,000.

Essentially, even if you’re willing to live a two hour drive from the city, you will struggle to find a house, apart from a one bedroom or studio condo (with maintenance fees), for less than half a million dollars.

This means that for any of my kids to buy their first home, they will need a $100,000 down payment to avoid additional mortgage fees.

Ontario, or at least the part of it with jobs, is unaffordable. Over one third of Canada lives in Ontario.  The cost of living in BC is even worse and the rest of the country isn’t much better.

Yet if I look at property in New York State, less than an hour’s drive from my home, there are countless properties with decent sized single detached homes on them for about 30% less, even after factoring in exchange rates.

So we have a very clear problem that should be obvious to solve: Too much demand in Canada and not enough demand in the states bordering Canada has caused a huge divergence in home prices that could be easily resolved if people could live and work in either country. Basically our nationalism is holding us back economically.

Trump wasn’t wrong when he pointed out the ridiculousness of our border and duplication of bureaucracy.  The citizens of both countries would be better off if they could enjoy the investment and employment opportunities of both countries.

Sadly, we likely can’t have an earnest discussion about the possibilities of a tariff free economic union because of the coercive rhetoric from the south and the nationalistic backlash from the north.

If you don’t like being Canadian there is a simpler solution.  

[Zeitgeist]

24 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

If you don’t like being Canadian there is a simpler solution.  

What makes you so patriotic?  I want to improve Canada and see it restore its former strength and go much further. You seem to primarily be an apologist for the country’s current mediocrity. Canada is in its current precarious position for reasons that shouldn’t be defended.

I was proposing economic union, not loss of sovereignty. We pay a fortune to duplicate much bureaucracy unnecessarily, and we limit the employment and economic opportunities of Canadians and Americans due to lack of imagination. That’s not admirable.

Edited January 21 by Zeitgeist

[SpankyMcFarland]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

What makes you so patriotic?  I want to improve Canada and see it restore its former strength and go much further. You seem to primarily be an apologist for the country’s current mediocrity. Canada is in its current precarious position for reasons that shouldn’t be defended.

Which one of us wants to get rid of Canada? 

[paxamericana]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada is in its current precarious position for reasons that shouldn’t be defended.

It’s reactionary , the resentment to Canada own inaptitude. Most choose denial over truth.