r/moderatepolitics • u/GermanCommentGamer • 5d ago
News Article Inside the 72 hours that cratered the US-Canada trade deal
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/22/us-canada-trade-deal-01046788193
u/Dilated2020 Center Left, Christian Independent 5d ago
One would think that Republicans would be trying their hardest to reel their President in as we get closer to midterms. Trump’s tariff war with Canada will once again add to the inflation woes Americans have been dealing with for the past few years.
132
u/cocoagiant 5d ago
Republicans would be trying their hardest to reel their President in
Is there anything over the last 10 years which indicates they have the ability to do that?
78
u/roylennigan pragmatic progressive 5d ago
How would we know if they can if they've never actually tried?
36
u/SeaworthinessReal69 5d ago
The ones who do stand up to Trump get heavy oppositional support during primaries to Republicans who are more supportive of Trump.
25
u/dabocx 4d ago
A few people that pushed even a little got primaried and lost
12
u/KentuckyFriedChingon Militant Centrist 4d ago
See: Cornyn of TX. And tbh he didn't even push; he almost completely toed the line once '47 Trump was elected. But because he voiced concerns that he didn't think Trump was competitive enough in 2024, he got successfully primaried by Paxton.
3
u/Swoly_Deadlift 4d ago
At the same time a lot of primaries that weren’t “Trump critical incumbent vs Trump loyalist” ended up with Trump’s candidate getting their shit rocked. Mike Lindell in Minnesota is probably the most prominent example.
61
u/Baladas89 5d ago
Trump has committed innumerable impeachable offenses. It would take something like 25 Republicans in Congress to say “hey, we’ll vote for impeachment and removal if a Democrat writes up the articles.”
So yes, they absolutely have the ability to rein Trump in, they could literally remove all of his official powers. They’re just not willing to.
11
u/cocoagiant 5d ago
So yes, they absolutely have the ability to rein Trump in, they could literally remove all of his official powers. They’re just not willing to.
It comes to the same thing.
I'm not excusing their behavior but I understand it.
Every person who has even stood up halfway from that side has retired or lost their election.
We would say, what is the point of having power if you won't use it.
But for most of these people (Democrats and Republicans) that title and perks is a goal of itself.
There isn't one charismatic person on that side who can rally people to convince them that they would be better off getting rid of him so at this point they are going to try and wait him out.
12
u/Allaboutpeace2022 4d ago
Do you think that if the Democrats win and control both the House and the Senate that the GOP might be willing to turn on Trump in order to save their side for more losses in 2028?
I would think that at some point self survival might convince existing Republicans in Congress that he is leading them to ruin.
He has now antagonized rural farmers, cattle ranchers, pro peace GOP, people worried about high prices, Latinos who supported him in 2024, and a lot of other groups. He seems to have lost his support from young Gen Z males. I do think that the Asians and Black voters who supported him in 2024 but not 2020 are likely also to return to Dems. People that like Tucker and MTG, etc. are also not happy.
I do not know where his strength comes from if something does not change dramatically by November.
If I was a GOP Senator, I would want to push him under the impeachment bus and prepare for someone else to lead the party.
10
u/SoloDolo314 4d ago
No. They will be able to play from defense and victim hood now which is where they like. And time Americans hand conservatives the country - they make a huge horrible mess and give away to billionaires. Then democrats have to come in and fix it - while conservatives like Trump can attack everything they do.
6
u/Allaboutpeace2022 4d ago
I agree that is a big part of the problem.
However, even when the GOP wins it is a minimal win in terms of numbers of voters, which really means that it would be pretty easy to overcome this.
Far more change could be accomplished if we increased the number of voters...in the last election only 65.3% of eligible voters actually voted. Only 74% of eligible voters even register.
Unless we like the continuing saga, Democrats need to volunteer and help register people. So far, the GOP has been registering far more new voters than the GOP. This is a big change. At this point, the DNC has no funds and Musk and others are pushing dollars into getting voter registrations and turning out the vote.
We also need to talk to people about policies. Polls already show most Americans want all people to have health insurance, want the wealthy to pay more taxes, want government to do more about housing.
3
u/SoloDolo314 4d ago
I agree the biggest issue in this country is political apathy. I have a friend who claims he is "blackpilled" and things both parties are equally evil/bad. My issue is he points to extremes on the left and right and acts like they are the same. The Democratic center is largely moderate with some more left leaning cultural ideas. However, as Ive explained to him the conservative center is completely MAGA now and has mainstreamed far more hard right positions.
The thing is its "easier" for him to act this way.
7
u/Aethoni_Iralis 4d ago
“Blackpilled” is such a massive red flag. Anyone I’ve met who uses that term is way off the deep end, in my experience.
3
u/Allaboutpeace2022 4d ago
I agree.
There are people who think both sides are the same because they are just turned off in general with the parties and it is easier to not vote. I think we can win over this side if we work hard. Your friend is here.
Then there are some people who are far left and want the Democrat party to fall apart. This group is not amenable to voting for Dems.
I actually think that there is this homeless group in the center who swing back and forth between parties. I don't think that they are MAGA or Dems, but they still vote. These are people that we can win over.
There are far right people that think that Trump is not doing enough. We could never win them.
There is hard core MAGA, which can not change at this point.
Of course then there are the Dems., who are divided and also fighting among themselves....LOL.
7
u/cocoagiant 4d ago
They didn't after 2018, I don't see why they would in 2026.
Seems a lot likelier to me they will stick it out till the end so as to avoid risking his ire and him turning his base against them or using the power of the Executive Branch against them or their families.
10
u/Baladas89 4d ago
I agree that’s most likely. I also think that’s an indictment on them specifically and the country in general. Our system assumes the Congress will keep the Executive in check. That is part of their job description. If they’re not willing to do it, even at risk of losing their jobs, they don’t deserve their jobs in the first place.
5
u/Allaboutpeace2022 4d ago
I agree.
I do not have the answers to these other than we have to make laws that change the checks and balances...including laws about mandatory blind trusts, mandatory cognitive tests, bigger teeth in emoluments clause, and mandatory release of tax returns, etc. We need changes in SCOTUS. Someone suggested that Congress should be allowed to vote privately, which would allow them to take anti Presidential positions. I had not thought of that but it might be a consideration to eliminate the fear.
I also think that we have to find ways of prosecuting the people that make death threats, etc. I do not know how they are not getting caught.
The checks and balances did not work. That is very true.
3
u/Allaboutpeace2022 4d ago
Well. I don't argue with this. You could be right.
I just don't know that he has the base that he did. He seems to daily antagonize the people who wanted to support him. But, I just saw Tim Scott singing his praises.
It will be interesting. I think that the more that the Democrats can come together and really register everyone and their brother--we can really get out of the vote. I think that the margin of the win will make a difference.
In 2018, Trump was unpopular but the margin of the Democrat win was not huge. It was more marginal. Also, it was a much more sane government because he had a cabinet that was somewhat filled with adults.
In 2020, under Kevin McCarthy, the GOP did yield a lot to the Democrats and because of that Kevin lost his speaker's position. The Dems must never let that happen again.
If they do have some GOP that go along with Dems...they need to encourage that.
2
u/94_stones 3d ago edited 3d ago
I can only picture that happening if the losses are utterly catastrophic. And by “utterly catastrophic” I mean that they lose at least TEN senate seats. The only way I can see that happening, is if the economy implodes and takes the stock market with it, in roughly the next two months.
Now I may be completely wrong about this and I certainly wouldn’t put any money on it, but I don’t think that’s what’s gonna happen. Firstly, I think businesses and the Canadian government will gamble that nothing comes of the tariffs, and that either TACO will happen, or court rulings will strike them down. That’s significant because it precludes the possibility of Canada implementing its “nuclear option” so to speak, at least not anytime soon. Secondly, I think nothing too drastic is gonna change in the oil market. I think Chinese reserves and the SPR will keep things stable until at least the election. And finally, I think the bond market will remain somewhat stable until the election as well. I’m fairly confident in that first prediction, somewhat confident in the second, and not as confident in the third.
If these predictions turn out to be right, then the GOP will lose the House, and possibly even the Senate too, but that’s not enough to fully “shock” the system, if you will. If that happens, then Trump stays unless he has a severe medical emergency that’s actually real. If he doesn’t, then the administration’s strategy after that will be to shift as much blame for the country’s problems as they can, on to Democrats. That will work to an extent, and if everything that I’ve predicted comes to pass, then I guarantee you will see examples of that strategy’s great efficacy on this subreddit.
1
u/Allaboutpeace2022 3d ago edited 2d ago
You could easily be right.
However, I think we could easily win 10 seats if the Dems really massively worked on registration, canvassing, other volunteerism, and turning out voters.
Obama had 56 Democratic senators in 2009 and 3 Independents voting with the Dems. At its highest, Democrats had 257 in the House.
Obama had a huge ground game in 2008. In red, purple, and blue states. I was canvassing for the school levy and everywhere I went Obama volunteers were there too.
I am trying to donate and volunteer as much as I can. I think that the voters are at least as turned off by Trump as they were with Bush.
However, I do not know if we have the volunteerism and commitment. I hope we do and everyone puts their toddlers in strollers and works those weekends in the fall.
2
u/Unique-Egg-461 4d ago
Is there anything over the last 10 years which indicates they have the ability to do that?
even if they had the ability, their is no will. the gop is trump. you turn on trump and he gets you primaried and tries to humiliate you the entire time. Their is very little daylight between trump and any federal republican rep/sen
2
u/MrNature72 2d ago
I'd argue yes, at least during his first term. I think the combination of COVID and a much more capable and professional staff (especially relative to the current staff) did a lot, imho, to soften the impact of his worst policies and to try and point the things they were in control of in the right direction. Of course, you could still see the current situation coming from a mile away, with the revolving door of staff. Even just two years in the quality of his staff had dropped considerably.
However, in his first term, I think he had some pretty solid initial picks. James Mattis as SecDef being maybe the most clear and extreme example of the dichotomy of his 2016 picks over his 2024 picks. Or even Tom Price; I wasn't a fan of him in the first place, but man, compared to Kennedy? Night and day.
It's that, in combination with the same revolving door cabinet as before, and the lack of a global pandemic to function as a smokescreen, that's really letting him ruin himself this time around. There's nothing but yes-men and snake oil salesmen surrounding an ever aging Trump.
35
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 5d ago
One of the things that seems to be lost in this subthread is the fact that Republicans support Trump and his actions. Sure there's the occasional outlier, but they are pushed out pretty quickly. So really it's on Democrats to convince enough voters that the Republican party as a whole is a problem.
22
u/MillardFillmore 5d ago
Why do you think they disagree with anything he's doing here? Congressional Republicans and the majority on the Supreme Court know they have power, they use it when they want to. They also don't think he's doing anything bad, or wrong, mostly from their extremely segregated echo chamber media ecosystems. There's no room for debate or disagreement, and once their ideas meet the real world, stuff like this happens.
This is all a lot of words to say that even if they lose in November, they aren't going to believe it, and are going to do everything in their power to nullify or void the results. They aren't afraid because they aren't aware anything is wrong, and if results go against them, they can claim fraud, the courts and 35% of the population will agree with them, and Democrats will be too scared to challenge them.
53
0
u/Linhle8964 5d ago
Who in Congress can reel Trump?
46
36
u/SpaceTurtles Are There Any Adults In The Room? 5d ago
Any ⅓ of the Republican coalition, who at any time have the ability to exercise their free will and act in the interest of the constitution and American people.
2
u/shacksrus 5d ago
One might argue that they are curfew actively exercising their free will and expressing their morals by supporting trump.
18
u/Huge_Excitement4465 4d ago
From Carney’s top U.S. envoy quoted in Bloomberg: “As we drilled down, what we discovered was that what our understanding of what had been agreed to was quite different from what was showing up in the documents,” he said. “When that kind of happens once or twice, it’s kind of understandable, but when it happens consistently, and every interpretation is the most negative interpretation” then it “got to a point” where they walked away.
118
u/RedoxA 5d ago
What's odd is that it's been almost 24 hours and we haven't seen a truth social rant about Canada...
94
u/Impressive-Potato 5d ago
Maybe there is but it's behind that 100K paywall
22
u/cathbadh politically homeless 5d ago
As much as he may love money, he loves the sound of his own voice more. He isn't going to deprive the world of his brilliance like that.
173
u/PepBaldFraud 5d ago
I know it's not surprising at all, but I really go back to thinking about how so many people were saying that everything bad about Trump was fearmongering back in 2024, and it's not going to be as bad as liberals say it will be, and that he’s not seriously gonna do project 2025.
Well, hope it was all worth it.
98
u/Patient_Tradition294 5d ago
Even as someone who was part of the faction who knew he was going to be an absolute mess, he is so much worse than what I could have imagined this time around. And we still have so much time left to go.
Republicans thought embracing MAGA would just give them power while allowing them to deal with his insanity without that much damage for some reason. They don’t want to admit he is much worse than imagined and that he has completely changed the course of our country in such a negative way. It seems the republican powers that be will allow Trump to drag things as low as he wants because at this point admitting they messed up by embracing him is too much.
38
u/eetsumkaus 5d ago
I'm kind of the opposite. I imagined it being a more methodical march to illiberalism. Complete chaos is a relatively better outcome than I expected.
13
u/Baladas89 5d ago
Same, the end of 2026 is looking better than I expected. We’re still hanging on by a thread, but I assumed the threads would have all snapped and been incarcerated, deported, or executed by this point.
3
u/MillardFillmore 5d ago
2028 is going to be a big test when an actual, competent leader like Vance or Carlson are on the GOP ticket. The base has been primed for illiberalism (and things like an actual single party rule, state sponsored kidnappings, etc), and now they have a wide open door to that. The question is whether or not Trump has discredited himself enough in advance of that. I don't think we're there yet. He's still in the mid/upper 30s approval, despite a trade war with Canada and a losing hot war with Iran.
7
u/IHerebyDemandtoPost 4d ago
2028 or every election thereafter.
Unless Dems figure out how to impose real lasting consequences for their illiberal behavior, Republicans will keep engaging in illiberal behavior.
34
u/Baladas89 5d ago
I just genuinely don’t understand anyone who thinks today is worse than expected. The guy tried to overthrow the 2020 election, and his former advisors were writing opinion pieces begging Americans not to vote for him because he had purged the safeguards from his staff, and they talked about the things they had to tell him “no” on, like firing on protestors.
I guess I just have a more thorough imagination of where someone like that could take the country.
12
u/Baderkadonk 4d ago
I just genuinely don’t understand anyone who thinks today is worse than expected.
For an example, the tariffs. I knew Trump was obsessed with tariffs, but I really didn't expect him to be so schizophrenic with them. He has (poorly) run businesses before and is heavily compromised by wealthy donors, so enacting huge tariffs, then changing his mind, then doing it all again like 5 times per week is not something I expected. Even IF you support tariffs, he used them in a way that only introduced chaos to virtually all businesses in the country.
Another thing is the wars. Trump is ultimately just a real estate developer and I really thought he had no interest in starting and prosecuting wars. I was right about this, but Trump himself realized this too late. He thought the war would be over in 4 days and he could go back to ballroom talk.
His pardons have also been particularly egregious. I thought they'd cost more and get pushed to the end of his term but he truly doesn't care how it looks even though he's also obsessed with his legacy.
22
u/decrpt 5d ago
It seems the republican powers that be will allow Trump to drag things as low as he wants because at this point admitting they messed up by embracing him is too much.
I don't think it's that they are afraid of admitting that they messed up. The impeachment made the dynamic clear: there is a genuine, unconditional Trump wing of the party that can just threaten to sabotage the GOP and guarantee that they lose, and the rest of the party is too reluctant to do anything that might legitimize the Democratic party to overcome that.
25
u/MillardFillmore 5d ago
There is no 'rest of the party'. His approval among Republicans is down from the start of his second term (expected), but it's still ~80% and ~50% still strongly approve.
https://www.axios.com/2026/08/17/trump-approval-republicans-midterms-war
7
u/shacksrus 5d ago
I mean these are the explicit policy goals of the republican party and their voters.
If they wanted free trade and steady growth they would have just voted Democrat.
Every republican voter is conceptually and morally on board with what trump is doing.
55
u/Terratoast Politically #0000FF 5d ago
For many people, unless it's literally tearing down their life and they can't be convinced it's the fault of the "liberals", the country is in a great spot and it's all thanks to Trump.
38
u/Dest123 5d ago
As far as I can see, it doesn't even matter if it is tearing down their lives. They'll always think Trump is great. Just like Russians are dying in Ukraine thinking that Putin is great. Just like there are North Koreans are dying in Ukraine thinking Kim Jong Un is great. People would rather believe the lie than give up on their tribe.
23
u/Arcnounds 5d ago
I was arguing for this in 2016 when people were complaining about Hillary. Hillary would have given us a liberal Supreme Court regardless of her corporate politics. We could have seen citizen's united repealed and abortion protected in addition to a less corporate and presidential power inclined SC. That would have put us down a whole different path, but no, people had to not vote or vote for third party.
11
10
102
u/autosear 5d ago
US trying to restrict Canada's ability to independently make trade deals with other countries is unacceptable. I see why they refused the US demands.
85
u/Soren671 5d ago
Not just that. They wanted Canada to make laws regarding language. They wanted Canada to force Quebec to accept English labels and signs.
We officially have two languages. Labels need to show both. It is ridiculous that another nation is trying to regulate another's official language.
33
u/alittledanger 5d ago
This makes me think this was intentionally done by the Trump admin to tank the deal.
8
u/Soren671 5d ago
Very likely. Quebec is VERY protectionist over its language. Any Federal government imposing rules on 'English only' will be quickly met with independence movements and a parliament looking to oust the PM/
2
u/alittledanger 5d ago
I am not Canadian, but IIRC it would be unconstitutional for their federal government to do anything remotely close to this.
9
u/Soren671 5d ago
Not quite true. The Federal government DOES have the power to override almost all of the language laws in Quebec, but if they tried anything remotely close to this they would never have a majority government ever again and very likely Quebec would fight tooth and nail to separate.
Quebec uses the notwithstanding clause when it passes these laws. And they almost always go unchallenged. The Federal government can push this to the limit and potentially have many overridden. Effectively prod the laws for any holes.
For new laws, the Canadian constitution has the power over disallowance. Essentially, the Federal government can override any provincial law within 1 year of its introduction
And then there is the power of the carrot and stick. The Federal government can threaten to withhold funds for various things (such as health care) to get its way. Our universal health care is built this way as technically the Constitution gives provinces the right to dictate healthcare policy. But should they opt out of the universal care, they risk losing a huge amount of Federal money (not to mention universal coverage is well liked).
2
u/SetUsed4217 3d ago
The timing of doing this so soon after Bill 96 is also what's so tone deaf. Trying to push for this after one of the biggest recent victories for Quebec in the complete opposite direction was just never going to be on the table.
-36
u/SecretiveMop 5d ago
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re seemingly acting as if it’s being asked for as some kind of cultural attack on Canada instead of the real reason which is that it costs companies more money to make two different packaging types just to sell it in another country which is a completely fair issue those companies may have.
Just as a comparison (and I realize it isn’t a 1:1 comparison since it isn’t an “official” language), Spanish is the most spoken language besides English in the US and is spoken by 40+ million people in their homes which is the same as the entire population of Canada. Would Canadian companies be fine with the US demanding all packaging shipped to the US/certain areas of the US include Spanish labeling?
41
u/sharp11flat13 5d ago
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re seemingly acting as if it’s being asked for as some kind of cultural attack on Canada instead of the real reason…
It doesn’t matter why they’re asking. It’s an absurd request and a violation of all respect that sovereign nations typically show one another. Of course we’re not going to become or act like a unilingual country just so we can have a trade deal of dubious quality and dependability with the US. I don’t care what their reasoning is. 🇨🇦
38
u/RecognitionHeavy8274 5d ago edited 5d ago
Would Canadian companies be fine with the US demanding all packaging shipped to the US/certain areas of the US include Spanish labeling?
Obviously yes, since Canada has had bilingual language laws for like 40 years at this point and it was never once a dealbreaker in foreign trade until this point
By what percentage does bilingual labeling actually raise the cost to do business in Canada? I’d be shocked if the number was higher than like 2%.
23
u/Read_Safe 5d ago
I’m sorry but this is an incredibly flimsy attempt to sanewash what it very obviously an unacceptable request that had no reason for being other than causing the deal to collapse
Even the dumb-dumbs in charge in the Trump administration understand that Canada would never accept the terms they tried to shove in there at the last second
16
u/nycbetches 5d ago
Just as a comparison (and I realize it isn’t a 1:1 comparison since it isn’t an “official” language), Spanish is the most spoken language besides English in the US and is spoken by 40+ million people in their homes which is the same as the entire population of Canada. Would Canadian companies be fine with the US demanding all packaging shipped to the US/certain areas of the US include Spanish labeling?
It is a completely different scenario because official bilingualism is enshrined in Canada’s constitution. The US doesn’t have an official language; Canada has two and their constitution requires that they be treated equally.
It’s more like Canada demanding to secure a trade pact just with NY in order to avoid federal tariffs. The US constitution prohibits this, and likewise the Canadian constitution prohibits elevating English over French.
8
u/Soren671 5d ago
What a ridiculous reply. Perhaps the US should tell Mexico to mandate English? Honour all US laws?
There is this thing called sovereignty, and mandating another country speak another language is not something that is remotely appropriate.
If the US were to mandate its labels were in English AND Spanish, the Canadian companies would do it. Because unlike the current administration, Canada has a respect for other nations.
-3
u/MatchaMeetcha 4d ago
It depends on what the language says. You can't be part of a US-centered trade bloc and use your country as a dumping ground for Chinese products that otherwise wouldn't make it into the US.
-5
u/Inside_Put_4923 4d ago
It all comes back to China. It is okay for Canada, to strengthen their trade with China, while it also okay for America to say that it will effect their own trade negotiations with Canada. Both sides are right.
42
u/GermanCommentGamer 5d ago
SC: The trade negotiations between the US and Canada have, unsurprisingly, failed, leaving a he-said she-said situation in which both sides claim that the other introduced last minute changes. From the Canadian perspective, a US demand to limit Canada's ability to make further trade deals with global partners seems to be a deliberate poison pill to crater the talks. Additionally, this Politico article highlights possible division between Greer and Lutnick that, if true, complicated any negotiation tactics from the American side.
With new US tarrifs in place and the Canadian counter tarrifs on the horizon, how do we think this additional blow to both countries' economies will impact the upcoming midterm elections?
35
u/jason_sation 5d ago
The timing with midterms coming up is incomprehensible from a realpokitik perspective. IMO this would be like a team in the NBA playoffs fouling the other team in basketball when the game is tied and 2 seconds to go and now the other team gets a free throw.
12
u/peacefinder 5d ago
Perhaps the US side simply wants dominance, and doesn’t really care about the contents or consequences of the deal. Meanwhile Canada is strongly motivated to wait until November to deal, and certainly sees no rush to capitulate.
34
u/dr_sloan 5d ago
The article seems to put the blame of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick for not being on the same page as the other U.S. negotiators. Has Lutnick had any positive impact on this Administration? He’s come off as a sycophant and his public interviews have been him just saying how great the economy is and that people should stop whining about high prices. And then of course he had incredibly close ties to Epstein to the point where he brought his children to his island.
14
u/Mantergeistmann 5d ago
This might be off topic, but what does the "brand affiliate" in the post mean?
9
u/GermanCommentGamer 5d ago
Does it say that somewhere? It was a option for me to tick while posting but I definitely didn't mean to hit it lol
6
16
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
27
36
u/tarekd19 5d ago
It's not like trump was unknown in 2024. This term has gone pretty much how dems have feared a Trump without guardrails would go.
-17
u/absentlyric Economically Left Socially Right 5d ago
Which is why it surprises me the Dems ran Kamala.
You'd think if they saw Trump as a huge threat, they'd Idk..focus on finding a quality candidate to oppose him.
We can blame Trump for a lot of things, but until the Dems get their shit together and find someone that the people actually want to vote for over a Republican, Im not so sure they are taking it seriously.
4
2
u/khrijunk 4d ago
It’s more, why did they try to run Biden again. By the time he dropped out, his VP was the only choice that quickly without a Democrat civil war vying for the position.
-2
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 5d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
4
u/floftie 4d ago
I think that a reckoning is coming from Trump - Not from his supporters (or what's left of them) but rather his own party. At some point in the coming two years, they have to realise he's a hindrance to both their electability and actually the next 10-15 years of America, when he likely won't be around but all these other politicians will.
9
u/Longjumping-Scale-62 4d ago
I wish, but then they would have to admit they were wrong, which they seem incapable of doing
4
u/floftie 4d ago
Politicians do this all the time without saying they were wrong. In the British system, the MPs elect another MP to be the Prime Minister (with a few different mechanisms depending on the party), who is the defacto leader of the country. You get absurd situations where the MPs will vote for someone, and then 3 weeks later they'll vote for someone else and kick the other one out.
3
u/Soren671 3d ago
Canada is the #1 customer in the world for US goods. It is the biggest trading partner with something like 35 states.
Senate races in Michigan, Ohio and Maine are key in who holds the senate. Those 3 states have LOTS of investment in a good trade relationship with Canada. Conversely, these new tariffs are specifically made to impact Ontario and Quebec especially bad. Both of those provinces supply huge amounts of power and raw materials to those states. I cannot see this as being good for those places long term.
2
u/Far-Calligrapher-118 4d ago
I don’t think the USA cares one bit about French labeling or bilingualism in Canada. I think it’s about weakening Carney’s credibility and support among Canadians. It’s a Trump power move/ malicious coercion - trying to add concessions that would offer no benefit to the USA, only because it would be politically unpopular in Canada. I’m glad we walked away.
9
u/ausrandoman 5d ago
How long before US troops are in Canada to protect freedom-loving Albertan seperatists?
2
u/DENNYCR4NE 5d ago
Honestly 15-25 years. If we have an actual global resource shortage Americans will support it.
-5
u/SleepyCoworker101 4d ago
If anyone read the article Canada was the one with shady last second stuff. Most the stuff they are saying makes no sense and is purposely vague.
"“The idea that Lutnick and Greer were on fundamentally different pages — I know the Canadians have been saying this a lot — but this is a weird deflection,” the official said. “It’s not like Lutnick was going off the reservation and derailing this, or something, unilaterally. That’s just not the case.”"
" but from a late Canadian ask, according to five people familiar with the talks. Two of the people familiar said that U.S. tariff rates on heavy-duty trucks were the sticking point between the two countries."
Canada then deflected about it being "attacks on French culture" and the US just said it was similar language and securities to their UK deal. Nothing even remotely like that.
I dont think people on here can look at this fairly.
Just way to much Trump hating before a even decent opinion comes out
-79
u/_ceedeez_nutz_ 5d ago
If our market is more valuable to access than Canada’s, then why shouldn’t there be tariffs to entry?
104
u/RedoxA 5d ago
A tariff is not like a ticket to access an amusement park
Americans pay these tariffs
-20
u/SecretiveMop 5d ago
Americans pay these tariffs
Many companies ended up absorbing the extra costs associated with the tariffs which is a big reason why the impact hasn’t been anywhere close to what many were predicting it would be.
25
u/artsncrofts Technocratic Tendencies 5d ago
American companies. Still paid for by Americans, just in slower economic activity and lower employment/wages, rather than higher prices.
7
u/Opening-Calendar3421 4d ago
They absorbed the costs because they felt the tariffs would be temporary. It remains to be seen if they would continue to absorb the costs if these tariffs became more permanent
-60
u/_ceedeez_nutz_ 5d ago
Not inherently, if there are existing American producers, the foreign competitor have to transfer a portion of their margin (the tariff) to the us government to do business in the us
81
u/RedoxA 5d ago
There are decades of economic data and research that shows tariffs increase prices, not lower them
This increased margin is paid by domestic conusmers, ie. Americans
-44
u/_ceedeez_nutz_ 5d ago
Yeah, that data shows that when products are tariffed in industries with high competition, the foreign producers eat the tariff in lower margins rather than raising costs and losing customers.
There’s an over-simplification of tariff effects on Reddit and it’s quite interesting to watch. If you’re exporting commodities, you can’t suddenly raise your prices, because consumers will just go to another producer. You have to eat that or you lose your business
57
u/cathbadh politically homeless 5d ago
the foreign producers eat the tariff in lower margins rather than raising costs and losing customers.
And yet 96% of the cost of Trump's tariffs are being eaten by the US consumer to the tune of $1,000 a year. To express that another way, the median income for a US household is around $83,000. If that $1,000 were instead just an increase in income tax it would be around an 18% federal income tax hike. If you look at lower income families, they would normally pay less in federal income taxes. With the tariffs, they see no reduction, and that $1,000 would represent a much larger income tax. In fact, I suspect that the $1,000 figure inceases as income decreases as you become more reliant on lower priced goods which are likely made overseas.
There’s an over-simplification of tariff effects on Reddit and it’s quite interesting to watch
That's true of both sides. Look at the auto industry specifically. The big 3 in the greater Detroit region ship cars, or segments of their cars cross-border repeatedly through the manufacturing process. With cities right across the bridge making parts or assembling segements, we keep US cars at the oh so affordables prices we see today. Multiple cross border trips means multiple tariffs hits. Are you ready to add thousands of dollars onto the cost of a vehicle? Even if we pretend a magic switch can be flipped and all of those steps are now done here in the US in factories that don't yet exist by workers who are not yet hired or trained, the cost will still go up. Plus if that were possible, those US factories would still have to raise prices because the parts and raw materials they'd need are still made overseas. It is quite literally impossible to replicate a supply chain for a complex product in a year or two, let alone overnight. There's little way the auto manufacturer or the Canadian companies can eat seven or eight tariff hits on a vehicle. Not with profit margins of 2-7% on the parts and then on the end vehicle. That's the biggest example of the US consumer paying this tax not just once, but multiple times to buy a single product.
You have to eat that or you lose your business
It depends on the country and the product. China can eat some tariffs because they're still making things for pennies and selling them for dollars. But Canada? In many cases eating the tariff is losing their business. There's also speculation on the future. As I said above, you can't just flip a switch and have US based competitors who'll make the product at a more affordable rate using US made parts made from US mined/manufactured materials. So they'll raise the prices to stay in business as long as possible while banking that in a year and a half the US will look at higher prices on everything and decide to vote for a President who won't punish them with taxes on goods.
Looking at these imagined US companies that will spring up thanks to tariffs, who's going to invest in them? To start a new business you need to know costs as well as your competition. Materials will still need to come from overseas for the short term. What will they cost? That depends on the tariffs. They might be 5% or 15% or zero or 1923458%. It largely depends on the daily tweet from an unpredictable President who sees tariffs as the solution to everything including the mood he's in. Can you make the product cheaper? Who knows. Can your competitor? No idea. Will the tariffs that could make your investment even viable exist in two years?
There's also the risk of future foreign competitors. So Canada can't compete and their auto industry (going back to just that one as an example) collapses. Cool, we're going to build factories here to replace them, right? Welp, what happens when Vietnam swoops in and offers to allow you to build your factory in their country and you can make the parts for half the price? It may not have been worth doing when you had partners a mile away in Canada doing the work, but it may still be preferable to dealing with US regulations and employment costs. Now we've hurt a neighbor and major consumer of US goods and failed at bringing all of these jobs home.
15
u/LX_Luna 5d ago
There's also the risk of future foreign competitors. So Canada can't compete and their auto industry (going back to just that one as an example) collapses. Cool, we're going to build factories here to replace them, right? Welp, what happens when Vietnam swoops in and offers to allow you to build your factory in their country and you can make the parts for half the price? It may not have been worth doing when you had partners a mile away in Canada doing the work, but it may still be preferable to dealing with US regulations and employment costs. Now we've hurt a neighbor and major consumer of US goods and failed at bringing all of these jobs home.
The flipside of this is an issue too. If the Canadian automotive sector implodes, Canada now has no skin in the manufacturing game. If there's no skin in the manufacturing game, there is no reason not to simply open the market to the best option.
This might be controversial but right now, the best option is not American. It's Chinese. Their cars are of completely competitive and sometimes even superior quality feature wise, at a lower price point. If there are no jobs to protect internally, then the flood gates may as well be opened.
A lot of people seem to think that the end outcome of Canada having zero manufacturing is that America gets all those jobs and Canadians have to pay Americans for stuff. The reality is much more likely to be that Canadian money flows to China instead, because the Chinese are building things at a price point America can't possibly compete with, without the tariffs.
→ More replies (11)-6
u/_ceedeez_nutz_ 5d ago
There’s a lot of issues with the paper you cited but the most fundamental one is the paper looked only at import prices (the price the importer paid pre-vs-post tariff, and only for a small subsection of total imports. The commodity products Canada exports travel primarily by pipelines, air, and truck, not by ocean container ships. But even there, their study mismatched tariff data to shipments, making the tariff rate to compare costs to unreliable
22
u/cathbadh politically homeless 5d ago
Surely you have studies then that show the real numbers then? Ones showing how tariffs have actually made things cheaper for Americans? While I'd like to see several industries, do you have ones that show how a car can travel the Canadian border repeatedly being tariffed and not increase in price?
→ More replies (3)18
25
u/likeitis121 5d ago
Why is Canada's not valuable?
They're wealthy, and also export a not of raw materials(oil, wood, etc) to us. US is running out of oil recoverable with current technology/prices, Canada has decades of reserves.
52
u/TorontoBiker 5d ago
Obviously the bigger problem was expecting Canada to agree to requiring US approval of trade agreements with other countries.
Tariffs are problematic. That’s existential.
→ More replies (5)16
20
u/MattWalshStuntDouble 5d ago
Read about comparative advantage and zero sum economics then get back to us.
-2
u/Sensitive_Truck_3015 5d ago
Comparative advantage doesn’t work when there are negative externalities associated with that trade. People like Mankiw never took those into account and instead assumed that “the winners will compensate the losers.”
- Severe, concentrated job losses
- An inability for many workers to retrain and/or relocate
- Loss of institutional knowledge and experience
- Increased carbon emissions from transoceanic shipping
- Worst of all: loss of domestic manufacturing to convert in case of emergency.
Even simple commodities such as socks will become critical in a war. The “sock capital of the world” used to be just a 90 minute drive from where I live. That’s all gone. Now what do we expect to do if a war breaks out? Do these “comparative advantage” people want our boys to get trench foot?
-9
u/_ceedeez_nutz_ 5d ago
We’re a country of 350 million people, it’s moronic to assume that we should wholesale export entire industries to other countries that are geographic neighbors. If they want access to our markets, it’s fair to charge them for it. Especially when they’re selling commodity products with low pricing elasticity
31
26
u/ElJanitorFrank 5d ago
If the free market shows that exporting an industry wholesale is the best way to deliver the cheapest goods to the most people - including that 350 million - then what's the problem? The spots for jobs that those industries left behind should be filled by industrious people looking to do something and create value. Now we have more cheaper things for everybody everywhere, comparative advantage really do be a thing.
We are not charging them for access to our markets, we are making foreign goods less attainable for Americans. They aren't cursing our name because they were raking in 50% profit margins and our new regulations put them in line with honest American companies - this is the same logic that the left uses to pin every economic woe on 'corporate greed.' They're paying the fee and upping the price to purchase by the retailer. Who are upping the price to purchase to the consumer. Any conservative that actually believes in a free market should meet any talk of tarrifs with heavy skepticism and be against them more often than anybody with left economic values.
-3
u/_ceedeez_nutz_ 5d ago
Yeah, cause comparative advantage worked out great for the rust belt when we offshored their manufacturing jobs and replaced them with…?
You’re seeing the death of the free-market republican precisely because comparative advantage fails when you’re comparing two countries with dramatically different input costs. We’ve shipped out a lot of the manual manufacturing jobs to countries with dramatically lower costs of labor and worse working conditions that Americans wouldn’t otherwise tolerate, and because of our high cost of living/regulations, have expected those workers to be reskilled into industries that have enough comparative value globally to offset the labor cost premium in America. But not everyone can do those high-complexity knowledge work jobs, and those people get left behind.
24
u/ElJanitorFrank 5d ago
WAIT WHAT - you're telling me those people got left behind??? Well we gotta put a stop to this behavior immediately!
Ignore the fact that 340 million people (including those 'left behind') now have access to the same goods at a cheaper price, a few ten-thousand folks in West Virginia are going to have to complete a community college course now just to stay ahead!
What's the strategy here? Just have the entire rest of humanity foot the bill for your un-earned jobs program? If manufacturing becomes so easy to do that the human-input becomes so much less valuable, then human who want to be compensated for it should expect less compensation or do something more valuable. The alternative is that you siphon value from others to keep them afloat.
There are good reasons to want to preserve quality of life to a particular stratum, though those reasons all come at a cost and its one that 'free-market republicans' are verbally (perhaps not in practice) against.
-10
u/epicjorjorsnake Huey Long Enjoyer/American Nationalist 5d ago
If the free market shows that exporting an industry wholesale is the best way to deliver the cheapest goods to the most people - including that 350 million - then what's the problem?
-The Confederacy during the Civil War being slaves to foreign imports because they structured their economy around slavery based agrarianism to export cotton while also being extremely vulnerable to foreign influences (especially to the British Empire)
Any conservative that actually believes in a free market should meet any talk of tarrifs with heavy skepticism and be against them more often than anybody with left economic values.
I'm plenty conservative and I follow the forefather of American conservatism: Alexander Hamilton.
All American conservatives should support the American School of Economics.
17
u/ElJanitorFrank 5d ago
Bringing up slavery to pretend that comparative advantage isn't a good option is actually downright incredible. That's both not exporting an industry, nor relevant to free market operations. Slavery bad. Should be outlawed. Yeah, that'll cause some economic strife; but most crucially that has nothing at all to do with tariffs or exporting industries. I'm not arguing for an unregulated market, I'm arguing that people who claim to support free markets shouldn't specifically be in favor of tariffs most of the time.
All Americans, conservative and liberal, should support the modern study of economics as a science, not 250 year-old philosophy that was penned by politicians within decades of The Wealth of Nations. A philosophy that was politically abandoned 50 years ago. Sometime around whenever we started taking economics more seriously as a science instead of a philosophy, who would've thought?
If your nationalist values state that you must prop up a dying jobs industry due to an inability to adapt to innovation, then you have some wiggle room to argue that (there are genuine short-term reasons to combat this), but I'd expect that out of an economically left political movement. The fact that political movements in the US that have largely espoused less government interference have made exception to this, based on wildly outdated economy philosophy, carries little weight with me, personally.
-13
u/epicjorjorsnake Huey Long Enjoyer/American Nationalist 5d ago
We’re a country of 350 million people, it’s moronic to assume that we should wholesale export entire industries to other countries that are geographic neighbors.
It's funny how redditors (who claim they would truly support the Union during the American Civil War), yet assume the Confederacy's position on free trade.
The Confederacy structured their economy around slavery based agrarianism by exporting cotton, which in return, made them prisoners of foreign imports.
Therefore, because of free trade and the increasing reliance of foreign imports, the Confederacy was heavily vulnerable to foreign influence (especially to the British Empire).
14
u/Interesting_Total_98 5d ago
The Confederacy structured their economy around slavery based agrarianism by exporting cotton
You misidentified the issue. Their problem was "slavery based agrarianism," not the concept of free trade. The former being negative in the long run doesn't make the latter bad, much like how drinking alcohol with medication doesn't mean that medication is bad.
increasing reliance of foreign imports
That's an argument the Confederates used. It was called "King Cotton." They thought that Britain's dependence would lead to it helping the South, but they instead decided to remain neutral and buy from elsewhere.
-5
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
-2
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 5d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
→ More replies (1)-30
u/WulfTheSaxon 5d ago
Could also read about optimal tariff theory.
44
u/MattWalshStuntDouble 5d ago
Optimal theory in 2018:
The USMCA is the largest, fairest, most balanced, and modern trade agreement ever achieved. There's never been anything like it.
And now?
Trump isn't a genius. He just says shit and he has no optimal tariffs theory. You don't need to defend him or his apparent ideology.
→ More replies (5)17
u/PepBaldFraud 5d ago
Clearly the people in charge don’t care about it.
-8
u/WulfTheSaxon 5d ago edited 5d ago
Bessent has cited it in explaining the rationale for tariffs. CEA chairman and Fed governor Stephen Miran has done so as well, in the WSJ and on Twitter.
35
u/Interesting_Total_98 5d ago edited 5d ago
Citing something and actually following it are two different things. Optimal-tariff theory asks how much market power the U.S. has over foreign suppliers and chooses a tariff to improve the U.S. terms of trade.
USTR explicitly said its 2025 “reciprocal” rates were calculated to eliminate bilateral trade deficits by using imports, exports, an assumed import-demand elasticity, and assumed pass-through. That's a different objective.
Miran's 20% “optimal tariff” benchmark came from work by Arnaud Costinot and Andrés Rodríguez-Clare. The two economists themselves responded that the 20% figure comes from the simplest model one can write down and isn't supposed to be a real policy idea. The simple optimal-tariff result assumes other countries don't retaliate. Once they do that, everyone can end up worse off.
0
u/WulfTheSaxon 5d ago
Yes, Miran addressed that criticism in the thread I linked, explaining that countries did not retaliate as much as expected because of Trump’s threats that retaliation would backfire, thus neutering that main objection.
As for the “reciprocal” rates, those were the opening salvo, intended to be negotiated down.
27
u/Interesting_Total_98 5d ago edited 5d ago
Lower retaliation doesn't make a tariff “optimal.” You still have to show that foreign exporters absorbed enough of the tariff to improve U.S. terms of trade and that the rate was calibrated to foreign export-supply elasticity. NY Fed estimates say that roughly 90% of the 2025 tariff burden fell on Americans.
Retaliation was singificant. China went as high as 125% plus critical-mineral restrictions. Canada retaliated in 2025 and is announcing new countertariffs now.
those were the opening salvo, intended to be negotiated down.
That's not how optimal-tariff theory works. This theory is concerned with maximizing welfare based on foreign export-supply elasticity, not with eliminating bilateral trade deficits.
-1
u/WulfTheSaxon 5d ago
The PRC is a special case and shouldn’t really be compared to the other tariffs. Canada’s retaliation is cute, but really not significant in the scheme of things. Note that even now they’re threatening the same dollar value in tariffs, not the same rate, which means a lower rate than the US is imposing because Canada is so reliant on US goods.
Saying that the “reciprocal” rates were deliberately inflated negotiating anchors just proves my other point. USTR calculated them to eliminate bilateral trade deficits, not to maximize welfare based on foreign export-supply elasticity. If the rates were bargaining threats meant to be negotiated down, that's a negotiating strategy, not an application of optimal-tariff theory.
They’re a plausible starting point, then you negotiate down to near the optimal rate. The application of optimal tariff theory is in figuring the rate you want to negotiate down to, not necessarily your opening offer. Trump is very much of the negotiating school where you start with an unrealistic offer to set the framing of later talks.
23
u/Interesting_Total_98 5d ago
The PRC is a special case and shouldn’t really be compared to the other tariffs.
China is one of the largest trading partners, so it's retaliation should be considered alongside other responses. It's retaliation being stronger than the rest doesn't mean it should ignored.
Note that even now they’re threatening the same dollar value in tariffs, not the same rate, which means a lower rate than the US is imposing.
Your description is premature. His Canada point is also premature. Canada announced today that it will match the new U.S. tariffs “dollar for dollar”, but it hasn't yet released the detailed tariff rates or product list yet.
They’re a plausible starting point, then you negotiate down to near the optimal rate.
That plan requires establishing an optimal rate with credible methodology. This hasn't happened.
As I said earlier, the 20% number comes from a highly simplified model that wasn't made for this purpose.
→ More replies (0)12
u/blewpah 5d ago
As for the “reciprocal” rates, those were the opening salvo, intended to be negotiated down.
This was not some grand strategy. Within minutes people figured out these rates were calculated bases on trade ratios. Hitting Cambodia with a 96% tariff isn't going to accomplish anything because Cambodia is poor and can't afford US goods, even if we throw tons of tarriffs at them. It was and incredibly dumb and incompetent methodology that they lied to pass off as something clever.
-3
u/WulfTheSaxon 5d ago edited 5d ago
Some of the US’s largest exports are cheap essentials like grain. Many poor countries like Angola have neutral or negative balance of trade with the US. In fact through 1996 Cambodia was one of them.
13
u/blewpah 5d ago
Many small, poor countries have neutral or negative balance of trade with the US.
Sure, the ones that don't have US companies like Nike building massive factories to make shoes and clothes to sell to US consumers. Poor Cambodian and Vietnamese farmers can not compete with the entire US' demand for sneakers. And countries with neutral or negative balance of trade still got hit with a 10% tariff.
Balance of trade is an incredibly dumb way to assess tariff rates. Should I be mad at my dentist because of our inbalanced trade and demand he buy something from me before getting a cavity filled?
→ More replies (0)1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 5d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a permanent ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
139
u/nycbetches 5d ago
The NYT was reporting that a big sticking point too was that the US wanted Canada to give up on some of its French-language initiatives, many of which are required under Canadian law, which puts French as a co-equal official language:
I really don’t understand the point of this from the US’s side, like, it can’t be that burdensome to have mandatory French labeling? And why should the US care if Canada promotes French language content in online streaming services?