Are they really declaring a National Emergency on Electricity? (1 Viewer)

[JAA]

It's the 51st state rhetoric. And that won't be forgotten for a very long time. I do think from the Canadian side the relationship is damaged for the long term. Probably not permanently but if the tariffs ended tomorrow, the US boycott would continue for at least the next few years.

Wreckless Speculation

Look at the thread title and the 1st 3 posts, let's keep it light or this will go the wrong way quickly
-I already took precautions and bought a case of Whistlepig

Sorry JAA, it's just how it looks after I edited it down, the chair recognizes Northern Voice as the writer

It's easy to keep it light when it's not your country being threatened with annexation every single day. We should be able to talk about the economic side of things here at least but based on past history, I'll probably be banned again for what I've already posted so

I respectfully disagree in that being an American today "is easy". Ill just leave it at that.

 

[JAA]

The 51st state thing is hilarious considering that it would become the most populous US state, garnering the most electoral votes which would most assuredly go to the democratic party

Cant let this get lost in the mix

 

[The Duff Man]

I would enjoy a thread on tarrif wars. I like this one with Canada, Im super curious at how it will end. Canada is a very proud, and not stupid, nation. They know the drugs arent coming across the northern border, yet here we are.

I prescribe no judgement to any decisions being made. I have learned to measure results, not tactics. At a marco level we in the US are working hard to establish new trading principals with some of our oldest allies.

Unfortunately that discussion is impossible to have here, it's inherently political. Blanket tariffs are such a bad policy decision for everyone, tariffs on certain sectors and areas can make a lot of sense.

I think we all know the reason for the current tariff escalation but we can't talk about it here.

I will say that from what I've seen in American news reporting and sites where free political discussion is allowed, the thing that most American people miss is that it isn't even the tariffs that are primarily causing the anger of the Canadian people. It's the 51st state rhetoric. And that won't be forgotten for a very long time. I do think from the Canadian side the relationship is damaged for the long term. Probably not permanently but if the tariffs ended tomorrow, the US boycott would continue for at least the next few years.

I respectfully disagree that "Blanket tariffs are such a bad policy decision for everyone".

Blanket tariffs are always deterministic and never end in a tie (in a game theory vacuum). Played out to "the end" between 2 countries, one economy will win and one will lose.

How far will the American people allow the current administration to push it? That is the question I want to see answered. Our country had a military draft 55ish years ago and in no America we know today would that fly. So, how far are we in the US willing to disrupt our lives to impose our will on trading partners who rely on us?

I am not convinced this is accurate.

Unless what you mean is one country will lose and the other country will lose more.

By that measure one country will lose less and thus “win” the tariff war.

Edit: just talking from an economic standpoint. If the goal of the tariff is to drive policy change in the other country and you can achieve that you can “win”

I believe the economic goal, at a macro level, is to bring actual business (ie jobs) back into the US by making it too expensive to have those jobs in other countries.

In my opinion the flaw is using a broad brush tariff approach. Here is a fictitious example.

US and Canada have wood. They also both have manufacturing that uses wood.

Through a trade agreement, they decide Canada will supply the wood as they can do this efficiently by focussing on it, and the US will make stuff out of the wood. Some of those products they will ship back to Canada. Both countries still do both, they just focus on what they are best at.

Canada has 10 jobs getting wood.

US has ten companies that make stuff from wood that all employ 10 people.

All is good. Then the US decides that they have wood and want all the wood producing jobs. They tariff Canada wood to achieve this. Now the ten companies making wood products in US are paying more for raw material. The US is less efficient than it was.

Canada loses 10 wood producing jobs but they also stop buying wood products from the US. Now the US wood product companies all lose one job due to loss of demand.

Canada has to ramp up their companies making wood products. They are less efficient than the previous arrangement but create 10 jobs to backfill the lost ones.

Both countries have the same number of jobs.

Both countries are less efficient.

Canada is clearly hurt more but no one wins.

Edit:
There are examples where tariffs DO effectively bring back jobs. But a broad brush approach is going to create both scenarios (and others). Tariffs need to be targeted to a specific situation and product.

 

[JAA]

I would enjoy a thread on tarrif wars. I like this one with Canada, Im super curious at how it will end. Canada is a very proud, and not stupid, nation. They know the drugs arent coming across the northern border, yet here we are.

I prescribe no judgement to any decisions being made. I have learned to measure results, not tactics. At a marco level we in the US are working hard to establish new trading principals with some of our oldest allies.

Unfortunately that discussion is impossible to have here, it's inherently political. Blanket tariffs are such a bad policy decision for everyone, tariffs on certain sectors and areas can make a lot of sense.

I think we all know the reason for the current tariff escalation but we can't talk about it here.

I will say that from what I've seen in American news reporting and sites where free political discussion is allowed, the thing that most American people miss is that it isn't even the tariffs that are primarily causing the anger of the Canadian people. It's the 51st state rhetoric. And that won't be forgotten for a very long time. I do think from the Canadian side the relationship is damaged for the long term. Probably not permanently but if the tariffs ended tomorrow, the US boycott would continue for at least the next few years.

I respectfully disagree that "Blanket tariffs are such a bad policy decision for everyone".

Blanket tariffs are always deterministic and never end in a tie (in a game theory vacuum). Played out to "the end" between 2 countries, one economy will win and one will lose.

How far will the American people allow the current administration to push it? That is the question I want to see answered. Our country had a military draft 55ish years ago and in no America we know today would that fly. So, how far are we in the US willing to disrupt our lives to impose our will on trading partners who rely on us?

I am not convinced this is accurate.

Unless what you mean is one country will lose and the other country will lose more.

By that measure one country will lose less and thus “win” the tariff war.

Edit: just talking from an economic standpoint. If the goal of the tariff is to drive policy change in the other country and you can achieve that you can “win”

I believe the economic goal, at a macro level, is to bring actual business (ie jobs) back into the US by making it too expensive to have those jobs in other countries.

In my opinion the flaw is using a broad brush tariff approach. Here is a fictitious example.

US and Canada have wood. They also both have manufacturing that uses wood.

Through a trade agreement, they decide Canada will supply the wood as they can do this efficiently by focussing on it, and the US will make stuff out of the wood. Some of those products they will ship back to Canada. Both countries still do both, they just focus on what they are best at.

Canada has 10 jobs getting wood.

US has ten companies that make stuff from wood that all employ 10 people.

All is good. Then the US decides that they have wood and want all the wood producing jobs. They tariff Canada wood to achieve this. Now the ten companies making wood products in US are paying more for raw material. The US is less efficient than it was.

Canada loses 10 wood producing jobs but they also stop buying wood products from the US. Now the US wood product companies all lose one job due to loss of demand.

Canada has to ramp up their companies making wood products. They are less efficient than the previous arrangement but create 10 jobs to backfill the lost ones.

Both countries have the same number of jobs.

Both countries are less efficient.

Canada is clearly hurt more but no one wins.

Edit:
There are examples where tariffs DO effectively bring back jobs. But a broad brush approach is going to create both scenarios (and others). Tariffs need to be targeted to a specific situation and product.

Per your example, I believe the US wants to drive up the overall price of wood. From a macro econ perspective, once the price of wood exceeds the cost threshold for producing it in the US, the US will be looking to not only produce the wood for themselves, but also for export.

In conclusion, I believe the US is looking to produce everything it can inside its borders and only import things it cant, or dont want to (iphones for example).

Also - something else to tangentially pay attention to is all this "NATO pay your fair share" as I belive it all comes together. My theory being that the more money being used for defense means defense needs to be procured, ie bought. Who are the defense goods producers in the world which would sell to Nato countries? While the US does not have a monopoly on "guns and things", I would wager (ie anecdotally) that the US will most likely profit the most from other countries increasing their defense spending.

To me it seems all this effort is solely focused on jobs in the US, which is a good thing. What I do not know yet is if the US consumer will wait long enough for the US the country to increase creation of the products it currently sources internationally.

PS - I would love a way to significantly bring down our ethanol/high-fructose-corn-syrup production and start producing more edible, less profitable, food, ie not corn.

 

[TripItUp]

What I do not know yet is if the US consumer will wait long enough for the US the country to increase creation of the products it currently sources internationally.

yeah, this is a really big change that doesn't happen overnight...the next administration will need to be onboard...these things take time.

 

[tymarsas]

In conclusion, I believe the US is looking to produce everything it can inside its borders and only import things it cant, or dont want to (iphones for example).

Interestingly, iPhones is one of the specific examples of goods that Lutnick says they want to build in the US.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/06/cnbc-excerpts-united-states-commerce-secretary-howard-lutnick-speaks-with-cnbcs-squawk-on-the-street-today.html

I would wager (ie anecdotally) that the US will most likely profit the most from other countries increasing their defense spending.

This is probably true, but NATO countries are now looking for ways to stop buying American military goods.

Germany May Refuse F-35 Purchase over ‘Emergency Switch;’ Consider Eurofighter Instead

According to reports, a software back-door switch will turn the aircraft off if the client state does not follow Washington’s diktat in the use of the F-35.

www.defensemirror.com

 

[JAA]

What I do not know yet is if the US consumer will wait long enough for the US the country to increase creation of the products it currently sources internationally.

yeah, this is a really big change that doesn't happen overnight...the next administration will need to be onboard...these things take time.

I believe the best thing the current 4 year administration can hope for is planned developments to break ground in the next 1-3 years (years 5-7 from today). If that happens, the next administration may be influenced to keep on truckin. Im curious how mid-term elections may play out based on all of this.

 

[JAA]

In conclusion, I believe the US is looking to produce everything it can inside its borders and only import things it cant, or dont want to (iphones for example).

Interestingly, iPhones is one of the specific examples of goods that Lutnick says they want to build in the US.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/06/cnbc-excerpts-united-states-commerce-secretary-howard-lutnick-speaks-with-cnbcs-squawk-on-the-street-today.html

I would wager (ie anecdotally) that the US will most likely profit the most from other countries increasing their defense spending.

This is probably true, but NATO countries are now looking for ways to stop buying American military goods.

Germany May Refuse F-35 Purchase over ‘Emergency Switch;’ Consider Eurofighter Instead

According to reports, a software back-door switch will turn the aircraft off if the client state does not follow Washington’s diktat in the use of the F-35.

www.defensemirror.com

I believe everything written there was written and people may actually believe it. In my limited experience and limited knowledge, I respectfully disagree as it does not seem plausible. For example, I cant imagine a world where the US can compete with Eastern countries with manual assembly.

Now if we are discussing automation and robotics, sure ... the US can and should compete with that. Simply put, the living wage in the US is drastically different than the countries we buy certain goods from (right or wrong)

 

[Northern Voice]

Going all in on manufacturing goods (vs services economy) for a highly wealthy, highly developed country in the year 2025 certainly is a plan.

 

[JAA]

Going all in on manufacturing goods (vs services economy) for a highly wealthy, highly developed country in the year 2025 certainly is a plan.

As opposed to what? What is the alternative? You mean buying goods from borderline 3rd world countries at drastically lower prices where labor is treated poorly and potentially abused?

The big picture here is we as the human race need to accept that until a Star Trek replicator is created, goods are expensive. And when good shipped from halfway around the world are still cheaper than goods produced next door to you, something is deeply wrong.

Full disclosure, Im a bit of a materialistic minimalist. Meaning, I like my goods, but I understand I need to pay a lot for them and I am OK with that. Also, I dont need all the goods, nor do I believe everyone else needs everything else. Less is more IMO.

Less is more, also tangential, but as a human race at some point we will need to produce less. I mean, where is all this crap going to go? At what point is there no space, no clean drinking water, etc, etc, etc because we just keep consuming and throwing away waste? Our consumption based society, especially in the US, will have to give at some point.

 

[Northern Voice]

Going all in on manufacturing goods (vs services economy) for a highly wealthy, highly developed country in the year 2025 certainly is a plan.

As opposed to what? What is the alternative? You mean buying goods from borderline 3rd world countries at drastically lower prices where labor is treated poorly and potentially abused?

The big picture here is we as the human race need to accept that until a Star Trek replicator is created, goods are expensive. And when good shipped from halfway around the world are still cheaper than goods produced next door to you, something is deeply wrong.

Full disclosure, Im a bit of a materialistic minimalist. Meaning, I like my goods, but I understand I need to pay a lot for them and I am OK with that. Also, I dont need all the goods, nor do I believe everyone else needs everything else. Less is more IMO.

Less is more, also tangential, but as a human race at some point we will need to produce less. I mean, where is all this crap going to go? At what point is there no space, no clean drinking water, etc, etc, etc because we just keep consuming and throwing away waste? Our consumption based society, especially in the US, will have to give at some point.

Well, this is an economic discussion but I certainly don't think the current US government is doing what they're doing out of some sort of global morals and ethics decision. That's a completely different conversation than what's best for the US economy and a pretty drastic moving of the goalposts.

 

[JAA]

Going all in on manufacturing goods (vs services economy) for a highly wealthy, highly developed country in the year 2025 certainly is a plan.

As opposed to what? What is the alternative? You mean buying goods from borderline 3rd world countries at drastically lower prices where labor is treated poorly and potentially abused?

The big picture here is we as the human race need to accept that until a Star Trek replicator is created, goods are expensive. And when good shipped from halfway around the world are still cheaper than goods produced next door to you, something is deeply wrong.

Full disclosure, Im a bit of a materialistic minimalist. Meaning, I like my goods, but I understand I need to pay a lot for them and I am OK with that. Also, I dont need all the goods, nor do I believe everyone else needs everything else. Less is more IMO.

Less is more, also tangential, but as a human race at some point we will need to produce less. I mean, where is all this crap going to go? At what point is there no space, no clean drinking water, etc, etc, etc because we just keep consuming and throwing away waste? Our consumption based society, especially in the US, will have to give at some point.

Well, this is an economic discussion but I certainly don't think the current US government is doing what they're doing out of some sort of global morals and ethics decision. That's a completely different conversation than what's best for the US economy and a pretty drastic moving of the goalposts.

Goal posts of different sport on a different field. That said, this other game is part of my 3 team parlay. How does that analogy work here?

No, I do not think the current administration is doing this as part of moral good. However, 2 things can be true at the same time:

1. The efforts by the current administration can be singularly focused on bettering America
2. The above efforts can also have a byproduct of helping the overall human race in understanding that goods are expensive and someone needs to create them, be paid for their work, before Amazon delivers them 2 days later to your doorstep

Thank you for the dialogue