Canadian here. We are all willing to concede that there were areas of our relationship that needed improvement, but what's upsetting us/pissing us off is the hostility and the capriciousness of it. We're trying to figure out "what do you want?" Fentanyl is obviously just a pretext for IEEPA, because we have no idea what we're supposed to do about it (sure, "fighting crime" is a good thing, but if the US can't even keep drugs out of *prisons*, 100% security of a 9000km border is impossible). There's no way they want us to be "the 51st state" because they'd never let us vote in US elections. (we'd be a very big, very blue, very ticked off state that just lost its health insurance). They can't possibly want to sell us more milk or deal with some other minor trade irritant (they are generating so much ill-will that nobody will ever want any of their products again). They claim they want "manufacturing to move back to the US", but that takes *years*... nobody is going to make investment decisions based on a tariff that could be cancelled next week.
I honestly haven’t heard that sentiment (Trump induced respect) from anyone I know, including Trump supporters. President Trump was rather unpopular with other countries his first term, especially first world countries. I don’t think peer relationships will change much over the next three years. They surely can’t get much worse, and the current administration isn’t going to (publicly) apologize for any of its actions.
While I don’t see the “pariah” characterization you do, the nascent trade war, as expertly explained in the article, has been and will continue to be a negative for everyone involved.
I don’t know any able-bodied and not feebleminded adult in the USA that couldn’t find a job right now. They may have to accept something below their desired job stratification level. The USA has a (too) large safety net for those who *choose* not to work.
You may want to start researching just how small America 's social security system compares to other Western countries. 'Not knowing someone' doesn't qualify as a knowledge let alone research.
Totally tragic, and also bizarre -- who wants to become friends with someone who treats their best friends this way? Economies around the world will think twice before engaging with America for a long time to come. Banging post and banging title Joey.
Think there is also a need to watch for the possibility of corruption related to the imposition of these tariff measures. Individual companies and CEOs will undoubtedly spend time lobbying the administration to seek exemptions or reductions for their industries. This then offers up massive opportunities for Mr. Trump and those in his administration to make money (for ex., through crypto) in exchange for such adjustments. As well, there is a possibility of foreign funds flowing in a similar manner to administration officials. Maintaining tariffs on Canadian aluminium and potash but not on Russian production could be a sign of corruption as well.
Will also need to look carefully at how tariff levels are set in retaliation for what the Trump administration classifies as non-tariff barriers. Given there is seemingly no need to reflect reality or nuance, it is possible Mr. Trump will impose a 200% tariff on all Canadian dairy exports to the United States. He will just continue to conflate tariff-rate quota levels to everything because it suits his messaging to show how nasty Canadians are. Or he will pick some arbitrary tariff number out of the air in retaliation for Canada having a Goods and Services Tax (VAT).
"Sure friends" seems somewhat naive especially in light of the decades of blatant anti-Americanism in the heart of the Canadian bureaucracy. - "A Missed Opportunity, Recurring Ironies, and the Cost of Narrative-Driven Policy"
During Donald Trump's first term, the U.S. extended an offer to Canada for a no-tariff agreement on autos and manufacturing—a pragmatic, early diplomatic gesture framed around "shared values." Despite clear advantages, Ottawa rejected the proposal. This decision followed Canada’s unusually overt political support for Hillary Clinton, an act that could be interpreted as election interference.
Rather than securing a deal, Canada spent the following year introducing tangential issues—such as gender and equity clauses—into trade negotiations. This stalled U.S.-Mexico talks until Mexico ultimately bypassed Canada and finalized its own deal. Canada’s fixation on symbolic politics over strategic interests arguably squandered a chance to lock in key sector protections under favorable conditions.
Public memory of this moment is faint, due in part to a heavily subsidized and consolidated Canadian media landscape that framed U.S. actions through the lens of Trump Derangement Syndrome, obscuring practical opportunities in favor of partisan narratives.
Canada’s longstanding trade imbalance with the U.S. also underscores broader contradictions. American consumers can import Canadian goods valued up to $800 USD duty-free, while Canadians face duties, taxes, and brokerage fees on imports exceeding just $40 CAD. Yet, paradoxically, many products shipped from China enter Canada duty-free. This inconsistency has persisted for decades, with Ottawa defending its trade posture as protective of Canadian consumers—despite producing higher prices and fewer choices.
Now, faced with retaliatory U.S. tariffs, Canadian officials assert the public has a “higher pain threshold,” implying citizens are conditioned to economic hardship. This rationale is used to justify a trade war, yet it avoids addressing the underlying inequity in domestic trade policy. The notion of “uncertainty” is also misleading—reciprocal tariffs are straightforward and fully modelable. Allowing consumers to import American goods without artificial cost barriers would neutralize many tariff threats outright.
Historically, Canada has benefited from proximity to American military-industrial contracts while sheltering under its own protectionist regime. Ontario’s postwar development was partially financed by U.S. defense-linked manufacturing. During economic downturns, factories in places like Guelph shifted from consumer goods to war materials—contributing to conflicts like Vietnam while subsidizing free education for a generation that would later protest those same wars. This contradiction raises the question: Was this system ever built to last?
Finally, concerns over tariffs triggering a global crash may be overstated. Some economists link the Great Depression to protectionism, but today’s market risks stem more from historically unsustainable equity valuations than tariff policy. It's possible tariffs are being used as a managed release valve—an engineered deceleration, not a reckless dive. But acknowledging that would require admitting long-term planning at the federal level—an idea rarely entertained in mainstream discourse. - Vesperis
O = opportunity index (the economic value of available deals)
N = narrative weight (emotional/political friction to action)
R = realized outcome
Then:
ini
Copy
Edit
R = O / (1 + N)
As N → ∞ (i.e., narrative derangement or politicization increases), R → 0. The larger the ideological load or media distortion surrounding a trade decision, the lower the realized benefit from objectively advantageous deals.
Systemic Fragility Index
Let:
E/V = earnings-to-valuation ratio in equities
Sₜ = systemic tariff shock
F = fragility coefficient
Then:
ini
Copy
Edit
F = (E/V) × Sₜ
As E/V → 0 (overvalued markets), even a small tariff shock Sₜ increases F sharply. Tariffs may thus be used strategically to lower valuations gradually, mitigating a catastrophic crash (i.e., controlled descent vs. collapse).
Greate explanation of the consequences of Trumps incoherent so-called economic "policies". But it's important to point out it's all just racist fear mongering demoguary giving his white supremacy base new red meat every day waving the bloody shirt.
Great article. Tariffs will most likely destabilize America and will take out the lower middle class and lower class. I think what grinds my gears is these people say they was a market based economy or they say socialism is bad but they are doing just that. By put tariffs on goods the government is saying we will pick winners and losers not letting the market decide.
Canadian here. We are all willing to concede that there were areas of our relationship that needed improvement, but what's upsetting us/pissing us off is the hostility and the capriciousness of it. We're trying to figure out "what do you want?" Fentanyl is obviously just a pretext for IEEPA, because we have no idea what we're supposed to do about it (sure, "fighting crime" is a good thing, but if the US can't even keep drugs out of *prisons*, 100% security of a 9000km border is impossible). There's no way they want us to be "the 51st state" because they'd never let us vote in US elections. (we'd be a very big, very blue, very ticked off state that just lost its health insurance). They can't possibly want to sell us more milk or deal with some other minor trade irritant (they are generating so much ill-will that nobody will ever want any of their products again). They claim they want "manufacturing to move back to the US", but that takes *years*... nobody is going to make investment decisions based on a tariff that could be cancelled next week.
always amusing to hear trump voters say "with trump the world will respect us again" when in reality he has turned america into a pariah state
I honestly haven’t heard that sentiment (Trump induced respect) from anyone I know, including Trump supporters. President Trump was rather unpopular with other countries his first term, especially first world countries. I don’t think peer relationships will change much over the next three years. They surely can’t get much worse, and the current administration isn’t going to (publicly) apologize for any of its actions.
While I don’t see the “pariah” characterization you do, the nascent trade war, as expertly explained in the article, has been and will continue to be a negative for everyone involved.
It also should be noted that most countries OTHER than the United States have social safety nets to help the unemployed.
For the Americans it's homelessness.
I don’t know any able-bodied and not feebleminded adult in the USA that couldn’t find a job right now. They may have to accept something below their desired job stratification level. The USA has a (too) large safety net for those who *choose* not to work.
You may want to start researching just how small America 's social security system compares to other Western countries. 'Not knowing someone' doesn't qualify as a knowledge let alone research.
Totally tragic, and also bizarre -- who wants to become friends with someone who treats their best friends this way? Economies around the world will think twice before engaging with America for a long time to come. Banging post and banging title Joey.
Think there is also a need to watch for the possibility of corruption related to the imposition of these tariff measures. Individual companies and CEOs will undoubtedly spend time lobbying the administration to seek exemptions or reductions for their industries. This then offers up massive opportunities for Mr. Trump and those in his administration to make money (for ex., through crypto) in exchange for such adjustments. As well, there is a possibility of foreign funds flowing in a similar manner to administration officials. Maintaining tariffs on Canadian aluminium and potash but not on Russian production could be a sign of corruption as well.
Will also need to look carefully at how tariff levels are set in retaliation for what the Trump administration classifies as non-tariff barriers. Given there is seemingly no need to reflect reality or nuance, it is possible Mr. Trump will impose a 200% tariff on all Canadian dairy exports to the United States. He will just continue to conflate tariff-rate quota levels to everything because it suits his messaging to show how nasty Canadians are. Or he will pick some arbitrary tariff number out of the air in retaliation for Canada having a Goods and Services Tax (VAT).
Possible example today https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/04/12/trump-gives-apple-a-giant-break-with-wide-ranging-tariff-exemptions
Trump has adopted China’s policy of not importing anything that can be produced domestically.
"Sure friends" seems somewhat naive especially in light of the decades of blatant anti-Americanism in the heart of the Canadian bureaucracy. - "A Missed Opportunity, Recurring Ironies, and the Cost of Narrative-Driven Policy"
During Donald Trump's first term, the U.S. extended an offer to Canada for a no-tariff agreement on autos and manufacturing—a pragmatic, early diplomatic gesture framed around "shared values." Despite clear advantages, Ottawa rejected the proposal. This decision followed Canada’s unusually overt political support for Hillary Clinton, an act that could be interpreted as election interference.
Rather than securing a deal, Canada spent the following year introducing tangential issues—such as gender and equity clauses—into trade negotiations. This stalled U.S.-Mexico talks until Mexico ultimately bypassed Canada and finalized its own deal. Canada’s fixation on symbolic politics over strategic interests arguably squandered a chance to lock in key sector protections under favorable conditions.
Public memory of this moment is faint, due in part to a heavily subsidized and consolidated Canadian media landscape that framed U.S. actions through the lens of Trump Derangement Syndrome, obscuring practical opportunities in favor of partisan narratives.
Canada’s longstanding trade imbalance with the U.S. also underscores broader contradictions. American consumers can import Canadian goods valued up to $800 USD duty-free, while Canadians face duties, taxes, and brokerage fees on imports exceeding just $40 CAD. Yet, paradoxically, many products shipped from China enter Canada duty-free. This inconsistency has persisted for decades, with Ottawa defending its trade posture as protective of Canadian consumers—despite producing higher prices and fewer choices.
Now, faced with retaliatory U.S. tariffs, Canadian officials assert the public has a “higher pain threshold,” implying citizens are conditioned to economic hardship. This rationale is used to justify a trade war, yet it avoids addressing the underlying inequity in domestic trade policy. The notion of “uncertainty” is also misleading—reciprocal tariffs are straightforward and fully modelable. Allowing consumers to import American goods without artificial cost barriers would neutralize many tariff threats outright.
Historically, Canada has benefited from proximity to American military-industrial contracts while sheltering under its own protectionist regime. Ontario’s postwar development was partially financed by U.S. defense-linked manufacturing. During economic downturns, factories in places like Guelph shifted from consumer goods to war materials—contributing to conflicts like Vietnam while subsidizing free education for a generation that would later protest those same wars. This contradiction raises the question: Was this system ever built to last?
Finally, concerns over tariffs triggering a global crash may be overstated. Some economists link the Great Depression to protectionism, but today’s market risks stem more from historically unsustainable equity valuations than tariff policy. It's possible tariffs are being used as a managed release valve—an engineered deceleration, not a reckless dive. But acknowledging that would require admitting long-term planning at the federal level—an idea rarely entertained in mainstream discourse. - Vesperis
Political Narrative Distortion Function
Let:
O = opportunity index (the economic value of available deals)
N = narrative weight (emotional/political friction to action)
R = realized outcome
Then:
ini
Copy
Edit
R = O / (1 + N)
As N → ∞ (i.e., narrative derangement or politicization increases), R → 0. The larger the ideological load or media distortion surrounding a trade decision, the lower the realized benefit from objectively advantageous deals.
Systemic Fragility Index
Let:
E/V = earnings-to-valuation ratio in equities
Sₜ = systemic tariff shock
F = fragility coefficient
Then:
ini
Copy
Edit
F = (E/V) × Sₜ
As E/V → 0 (overvalued markets), even a small tariff shock Sₜ increases F sharply. Tariffs may thus be used strategically to lower valuations gradually, mitigating a catastrophic crash (i.e., controlled descent vs. collapse).
Simulation of trade war In progress.
Greate explanation of the consequences of Trumps incoherent so-called economic "policies". But it's important to point out it's all just racist fear mongering demoguary giving his white supremacy base new red meat every day waving the bloody shirt.
Great article. Tariffs will most likely destabilize America and will take out the lower middle class and lower class. I think what grinds my gears is these people say they was a market based economy or they say socialism is bad but they are doing just that. By put tariffs on goods the government is saying we will pick winners and losers not letting the market decide.
This is an unusual period, perhaps not rare, where both political parties prefer industrial policy over market based capitalism.