Canada hits back at 'punitive' U.S. tariffs in 'turning point' in relations

http://theprovince.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/newsalert-canada-responds-to-u-s-tariffs-with-its-own-countermeasures/

by trumped • 8 years ago

107 114 8 years ago

theprovince.com

mozumder• 8 years ago

Tariffs, and protectionism, are such an extreme measure. It should only be used against countries that you're going to war with. They should never be used in the course of normal trade.

America is like 50 countries with open border & free trade policy between them. Can you imagine what would happen if states decided to impose tariffs on each other?

petermcneeley• 8 years ago

Canada's dairy industry has had a long history of protection. It is likely that this industry would not exist without this protection.

aldoushuxley001• 8 years ago

It's true, the dairy farmers here in Canada act like an full fledged mafia

pscnv• 8 years ago

It’s a horrible idea to get rid of your local industry of basic, vital needs. A country could squeeze your balls by cutting off exports to you.

sonnyblarney3• 8 years ago

Not quite.

When 2 nations are each protective, it's bad for both.

If they are both open, it's generally good for both.

But - if one protects in a sneaky way, and the other is open - the it's amazing for the protectionist country.

So nations strive to be 'open' but then to sneak in stuff, or rather, sometimes they are open, but really are not.

It's impossible for American companies to sell into Japan for many reasons, arguably quality, but the way Japanese business syndicates work, they'll keep America out, irrespective of what the government says.

This was a huge thing in the 1980's and is the 'memory' that gripes Trump.

As for China - we don't have open trade with them.

America is considerably more open than China.

+ China has massive state-owned agencies, the subsidized markets

+ They have a 100% politically controlled currency

+ They have political capital controls

+ They require foreign entities to hand over key IP

+ They have any number of barriers (some on purpose, some not so much) to foreign participation.

+ China does not pursue those breaking IP rules.

China has had these advantages for some time, it's just that when they were poor, nobody really cared, but as they get powerful, it becomes an issue.

So the only choice is to play 'hardball' with such nations - because these nations won't react to anything else, and they'll only react to threats that are credible.

As for Europe, it's a different bag, but America has some decent beefs with Germany in particular.

As for NAFTA - that's a tough one. I don't think America has such a huge advantage, but wages are weaker in Cana/Mex which gives big opportunities in some ways ... but it also keeps Can/Mex standard of living lower in many ways. So the NAFTA gripe is more difficult to understand.

Put another way - the US has been having a 'trade war' with China for 30 years, it just wasn't ever a big deal.

And there are some issues (cars) that America has a reasonable beef with on Germany, for example.

I think Trump is a douche but he's not 'all wrong' on these things.

simonebrunozzi• 8 years ago

And the US Dollar is NOT a 100% politically controlled currency, in your view?

s2g8• 8 years ago

but it also keeps Can/Mex standard of living lower in many ways.

I'm curious what ways you would argue Canada has a significantly lower standard of living.

vturner• 8 years ago

Too bad you're being downvoted, despite the chorus of anger over the Trump tariff actions, what we have is not free trade by any stretch of the imagination and it is long over due for some course correction.

akhatri_aus3• 8 years ago

I think you mean sanctions, not tariffs or quotas. There is not a single country that does not apply tariffs or quotas.

Karishma12343• 8 years ago

You call them sanctions when you talk about your enemies, you call them tariffs when you do it to your friends. The difference is nearly 0.

toomanybeersies5• 8 years ago

Singapore doesn't. Not in the trade protectionist sense anyway.

rednerrus• 8 years ago

Can you imagine trying to negotiate with this administration?

jonhendry18• 8 years ago

The way to "negotiate" with the Trump administration involves contributing to the Trump businesses.

Amygaz2• 8 years ago

The rule should be:"We don't negotiate with narcissists."

dominotw4• 8 years ago

Is this true? Do you have an example?

huangc10• 8 years ago

Even though this decision may potentially affect my TN status in the states and more importantly will result in negative consequences for both countries, I am 100% behind Trudeau on this.

mabbo• 8 years ago

If NAFTA talks don't work out, folks like you and me with our TNs are actually going to start worrying about how we're going to keep our jobs.

And here I thought Canada wasn't one of Trump's "shithole countries".

make3• 8 years ago

anyone who can't or definitely won't vote for him is likely part of the shithole

dguaraglia2• 8 years ago

I'm not exactly sure how the United States trying to walk back an agreement (NAFTA) and slapping tariffs on our allies makes Canada a "shithole country".

If anything, it makes us the shitty neighbor.

dharness• 8 years ago

I'm in the same situation, and I agree. On some level it could be good for Canada to have all the TN folks back. Maybe bad for us in the short term, but the effects could ripple.

wwweston• 8 years ago

Opinion: Trade sanctions against America won’t work. Sanctioning Trump himself might.

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-amer...

ttul• 8 years ago

What a fantastic idea.

stevenwoo• 8 years ago

Retaliatory trade sanctions have worked against America but it took almost a year for the reprecussions to bubble up and make the President change his mind after the 2002 steel tariffs were enacted by the Bush administration. The Trump specific sanctions do seem like a ripe target for a more immediate response this time.

s2g8• 8 years ago

That sounds a whole lot more like a national security issue than the tariffs.

Could also use tariffs to try and hit the states that voted for Trump the hardest.

jcranmer4• 8 years ago

Well, not so much states that voted for Trump, but small-population states that rack up lots of Senate votes. Put punitive tariffs on corn, soybean, and pork exports, and you'll have a dozen senators imploring Trump to back off.

JumpCrisscross• 8 years ago

Could also use tariffs to try and hit the states that voted for Trump the hardest

"The European Union will hit back at the heart of the United States, slapping tariffs on products like Harley-Davidsons, Kentucky bourbon and bluejeans, if President Trump goes ahead with a plan to place tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, the president of the bloc’s executive arm vowed on Friday."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/business/europe-steel-tar...

bryanlarsen• 8 years ago

hit the states that voted for Trump the hardest.

These tariffs were targeted at congressional leaders:

" "The idea is, you look at a map of the congressional districts of the United States, you look at which members of Congress are in leadership positions and then you look at the big industries in those districts and then you draw up your list accordingly," she said. "And this list was clearly drawn up with this in mind." (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/steel-tariff-maple-syrup-toi...)

craftyguy2• 8 years ago

That's exactly what the US does to folks (e.g. Putin's friends) when they do stupid, I'm surprised that no nations have considered doing the same with Donald and his friends/family.

PakG1• 8 years ago

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/15/news/companies/trump-organiz...

Though this is a carrot instead of a stick.

s2g8• 8 years ago

because Putin and Co. are ultra-corrupt murderous oligarchs.

azernik• 8 years ago

The article itself explicitly makes the comparison to the US Magnitsky Act.

archgoon• 8 years ago

Seems easy to do since he's refused to separate himself from his business interests when he assumed the presidency.

state_less• 8 years ago

If the trade wars continue escalating, I don't see how this is going to end well.

newnewpdro• 8 years ago

I am finding it difficult to accept this is the reality we live in:

"the President can be successfully engaged, and countries like Ukraine, China, and Qatar have demonstrated this. When they want something from the United States, they skip the State Department, and even the White House staff. Instead of approaching their problem state-to-state, they go state-to-man. These countries focus on what Trump wants on a personal level – to enrich his family. So Beijing granted Ivanka trademarks, Qatar invested in one of Jared’s office towers, and Ukraine, with Slavic candor, simply wired half a million dollars to the President’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen."

krapp• 8 years ago

But I thought Trump couldn't be bought because he's a self-made businessman who tells it like it is, no hassle, no haggle, no bullshit, unlike those effete city dwellers and globalist politicians?

Is America Great Again yet? A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage?

Don't worry about steel, we'll open the steel mills up again. We have to build plenty of new aircraft carriers so we'll need a lot of steel. And they'll have steam catapults, none of this newfangled computer nonsense. And the wall. The wall will be steel, too, of course, so when the Mexicans try to climb up it they'll just slide right back down. In fact, we'll need two walls now, one for the Canadians, too.

Sigh.

I wonder if this one will fondle Angela Merkel too?

parvenu74• 8 years ago

Can anyone point to an historical case study where protective tariffs resulted in a better economic or social outcome? I can’t help but recall the saying: “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers soon will.” Not that I think the United States is going to war with Canada, but the (German-dominated) EU and China are less certain.

hugh4life• 8 years ago

The US when it was industrializing? China now? Protectionism can be good for large nations/markets catching up to other nations/markets.

WhompingWindows• 8 years ago

US was industrializing throughout the 1800's, there are empty/converted factories all up and down the East Coast from these. In New England, it was a lot of textiles, metalworking, shoes, parts, etc. What tariffs protected that growth? To me it seems to be a rising production due to rising demand for those products, as factories/mass production wasn't common prior to 1800.

maxerickson• 8 years ago

Why would Germany invade Canada?

More seriously, I will be pretty surprised if this particular stupidity escalates to any kind of military action.

AlexCoventry2• 8 years ago

It probably won't directly escalate to military action, but the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 did make it a lot easier for the Nazis to take power in 1932.

Edit: I'd be grateful for an explanation for why this might be getting downvoted.

dominotw4• 8 years ago

Seems to be working for china.

s2g8• 8 years ago

Canada has been arguing with the US about dairy for a while. Protecting that industry, you could argue, actually is a national security issue and tariffs are needed because of the massive production of the US.

IIRC haiti allowed tariff free dairy and now pretty much don't have that industry anymore.

mastazi2• 8 years ago

Tariffs on corn prompted a guy called James Wilson to create The Economist, of course you may or may not regard that as a positive outcome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#History

jcranmer4• 8 years ago

Tariffs on wheat and rye, mostly. Note that, in British English, "corn" generically refers to grain, while in American English, "corn" is synonymous with "maize."

duxup• 8 years ago

I believe Ecuador had a short run where they closed up some of their economy and it paid off for a bit, but they were hardly operating like a large global trading nation before that...

BurningFrog2• 8 years ago

Tariffs can be good for big companies and other special interests in a country, but never for the country as a whole.

So when you ask if they result in "better economic or social outcome", you have to be careful to think about "for who?".

darawk2• 8 years ago

That's definitely not true. Tariffs have allowed China to bootstrap a local tech industry. It's been extremely beneficial for them.

kakwa_• 8 years ago

Not necessarily.

Let say you are a large developing country and you want to bootstrap a domestic car industry. The first cars coming out will probably not be that great as you don't have the engineering knowledge or the experience building cars yet.

Cars built by foreign companies are definitively better, and maybe cheaper to buy and/or to operate.

If you do nothing, this new car industry would die quite soon.

So you impose tariffs on foreign cars, that way your domestic production is protected, and you are able to make it grow and make it better. However be careful to not protect it too much, otherwise it will keep producing crappy cars looking like Trabant. With time you decrease the protection progressively.

Another less abstract example is food, for instance, rice production and tariffs in Haiti:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_Haiti

hunter232• 8 years ago

Protective tariffs are a good idea for protecting nascent industries from essentially foreign competition. Many countries in Asia essentially locked foreign goods from certain industries during the later half of the 20th century to help build their own industries post WW 2. They ended up opening their economy once their domestic players hit a critical stage where they could compete with international players. For example, India closed off their soda, car, and other markets to spark a homegrown industry. In the 1990s they liberalized the economy and opened it to the international megacorps, but many of the domestic companies still remain in some form and there are large manufacturing plants still from that era. So it is entirely possible that protective tariffs can help for long term growth when done strategically.

However, I highly doubt any of Trump's tariff's are strategically smart.

toomanybeersies5• 8 years ago

I can't point to any specific examples, but tariffs are generally more effective, or at least less harmful when targeted on luxury goods.

Tariffs on general goods like steel, food, or oil just increase costs for the whole population.

jimmytucson• 8 years ago

Is Trump’s point that the prices of these goods abroad are artificially low, so he’s going to implement tariffs to correct for that? If so, do counter-tariffs strengthen this argument? This would seem to create an infinite protectionist feedback loop.

john000888763• 8 years ago

His stated goal seems to be related to “bringing back American jobs” but it’s really all marketing for himself as usual since while this action will cause more American job loses than it creates, that doesn’t actually matter because it’s just about optics.

Also the authority he invokes is specifically for national security so increasing jobs or any other non national security reason shouldn’t even be a factor. His comments that it’s a negotiating tactic also prove there’s no actual national security rationale.

“...the Trump administration promised its voters more big action on trade. Further WTO challenges could take years, so to make policy more quickly, Trump invoked section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which grants the US the ability to impose trade restrictions in the name of national security.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1221853/donald-trumps-ta...

dominotw4• 8 years ago

There was an episode on planet money about precisely this with sugar tarrifs and how it had unintended consequences on the candy industy which had to move overseas. Very complicated topic.

jcranmer4• 8 years ago

There is a general consensus that the world produces too much steel, with a large part of that being Chinese overproduction. I don't have the actual statistics in front of me, but the amount of new steel production that were brought online in China in the past 5 years is on the order of the entire world surplus of steel production.

Which is why it's so confusing that Trump didn't just slap anti-dumping duties on China, which quite frankly everyone agrees with. The best guess is that Trump thought that he could use the steel tariffs as an easy way to wring concessions out of trade partners... and declaring the tariffs a matter of national security is the one way he can do that without having to get Congress's approval (as even many Republicans in Congress are horrified by this).

pluc• 8 years ago

Notice of intent to impose countermeasures action against the United States in response to tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum products:

https://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/consult/cacsap-cmpcaa-eng.asp

throwaway57525• 8 years ago

Donald Trump is objectively (ranked by presidential historians of all political parties) as the worst president in the 242 year history of the US.

It will be work to get back what we can of what we've lost.

Larrikin• 8 years ago

I believe it, but would like a source to see the criteria and who is rating.

throwaway57525• 8 years ago

https://sps.boisestate.edu/politicalscience/files/2018/02/Gr...

"The 2018 Presidents & Executive Politics Presidential Greatness Survey was conducted online via Qualtrics from December 22, 2017 to January 16, 2018. Respondents were current and recent members of the Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, which is the foremost organization of social science experts in presidential politics. 320 respondents were invited to participate, and 170 usable responses were received, yielding a 53.1% response rate"

It's impossible to prove anything. But these people are scholars in the field, it's non-partisan, the survey methodology is transparent, the results are fairly consistent across partisan self-identification, and they are fairly consistent over time (2014 poll of same org, 2010 Siena College survey, et al). It's significant.

ameister143• 8 years ago

That implies an equal number of each party or general affiliation - it wasn't. 9 of the 166 respondents considered themselves conservative.

Trump is not a good president, don't get me wrong, but that's just not good science.

throwaway57525• 8 years ago

It's not science, it's a survey. And you know that about the respondents because they were transparent about their data.

And the self-identified conservatives rated him in the bottom five, too.

andrewstuart2• 8 years ago

Another option is not play tit-for-tat and instead appeal to the American people by refusing to impose tariffs in return.

Make it about Trump, not America.

There's a chance Trump will lose all his power within a few months anyway if the republicans do very badly in the midterm elections.

darawk2• 8 years ago

That would sort of prove Trump's point though. "See, they knew their trade practices were unfair - they're not even fighting back".

andrewstuart2• 8 years ago

Trumps blather means nothing - the idea is to speak to the American people, not Trump.

bobosha• 8 years ago

They also have to play to domestic audience - where it likely won't fly. Lying passive in response to what many perceive as bullying, won't get any politician far.

Karishma12343• 8 years ago

What is the point of political discussion on HN ? Isn't HN meant for quality technical discussions ? Nothing good can come out of these sort of flame wars here.

joering2• 8 years ago

So don't participate.

Besides: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

AnimalMuppet• 8 years ago

Well, HN is meant for quality discussions of things we find interesting. Sometimes politics is relevant to us (or at least to enough of us to qualify).

The trick is to keep it a quality discussion, rather than letting it degenerate into a flame war. That's not easy. But if it can't happen here, where can it? (And if the answer is "nowhere", well, I'm not sure that the answer is wrong, but that's one of the most cynical statements possible about the current state of politics.)

jimjimjim• 8 years ago

how do market liberalists reconcile this with their everlasting love of trump?

itissid• 8 years ago

The 1900's called they want their trade policies back. Throughout the history of countries when has this pattern not repeated itself.

People suffer->People elect a person with an ability to corrupt social discourse and/or the legislative body -> Time passes -> System breaks down.

The undermining and corruption can be subtle at first and likely takes time, but it spreads eventually to every corner. Trade suffering is just a symptom of a bigger problem: A lack of healthier political discourse.

Take India for example, where strong men and goons in the 20th century figured why just play second fiddle to politicians, lets become them. Today roughly 2/3rd or more members of the upper and lower houses of Parliament have criminal cases against them. It is somewhat democratic(ish) and free market(ishhh).

If people don't make the hard choices who will? If they don't care about the system of checks and balance in the name of "fairness" and no more "PC" who will? A lot of this has to do with education and a understanding of why the system of checks and balances is worth fighting for.

Addendum to what Ben Franklin said, "Those who give up their voices to forgo democratic norms over short term gains, might just end up loosing all those things (voices, democracy and gains)"

dmode• 8 years ago

All Canada has to do is to engage the services of world's #1 consulting firm Essential Consultants LLC and voila, suddenly Trump will be making Canada great again

Canada hits back at 'punitive' U.S. tariffs in 'turning point' in relations

Related Stories