From the New York Times, here’s a great opinion piece, from a Canadian perspective, on Canada standing up for itself in the face of US trade aggression.
In summary:
For Canada, the choice came down to either severe but temporary economic instability or binding itself to a pseudo-democratic fiscal basketcase of a nation, whose only apparent foreign policy objective has become domination for the gratification of its president’s slapdash vanity.
Preach!
Predictably, the WSJ came out with a scathing editorial against tariffs and Trump, and the WSJ is still a very influential voice - “The Dumbest Trade War Revisited”. The article said Carney declined to name Lutnick as a specific obstacle, saying only the Canadian team was unified and American negotiators had large differences of opinion.
Trump came out with further ramblings. Sociopaths do not take rejection well.
This right here highlights exactly how crazy this is. How can Canada negotiate a trade deal with these people, when they can’t even reach an agreement amongst themselves about what they actually want?
Yeah. I don’t see what other, reasonable option Canada had.
As has been pointed out, the US created an artificial deadline to apply pressure, and then changed the terms at the last minute. Classic bad faith bargaining. Classic Trump-style “dealmaking”.
And then reap huge additional profits when the tariffs are returned because they are ruled illegal.
It will be something of a hijack to take this up, but I have been deeply impressed by Kohei Saito’s work on degrowth and community, co-op enterprises. Increasing production and trade the way we have been for 150 years is not a great plan for a planet with finite resources. Sadly, Carney is not much interested in any more than “let’s return to those thrilling days of yesteryear!” when we really need trade and production that is more local, less intensive, and thinks about “less, but better” as a way forward. More cars and oil production is part of the recipe for disaster.
A good trade deal, in this way of thinking, might seriously aim at securing what is needed to create co-op housing the way Canada did in the 1970s, nationalize the lumber and petroleum industries to meet Canadian needs, food co-ops based first on local production and then real fair trade, a UBI (not to be confused with a UTI), and a shorter work-week. There is unlikely to be a lot of foreign investment in such measures, and no one is suggesting we do this all at once. But in Italy, 8% of the GDP is created by co-ops and collectives, and that is an impressive number we might aim at.
The sad thing about the Canada/US trade deals (okay, one of the sad things–it’s a shit show, thanks to the Cheeto in Chief) is it doesn’t take us in new directions but seeks to clamber back onto an old path.
I must now junior mod myself and STFU. Thanks for your patience.
I guess Trump didn’t get the dopamine he was looking for with the original tariffs so now he is promising more tariffs:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/livestory/canada-u-s-trade-deal-carney-trump-greer-9.7317956
For what it is worth, I hope Canada makes a massive deal with China to start importing a lot more inexpensive Chinese EVs that are much cooler than anything the US market is putting out right now.
I think you meant to say that it was one of the many classes Trump skipped at Wharton…
His advisor on trade matters is Peter Navarro, a known fanatic about the virtues of tariffs.
I also thinks he likes tariffs because they’re about causing harm. Nobody benefits from tariffs, which is how Trump likes it. Nobody but him should benefit from anything.
I am fine with government initiatives to ensure people can in fact do this without tax or legal penalty; if it makes sense, it’ll happen.
Nationalizing the lumber and oil industries sounds like a bad idea. Petro Canada didn’t work better when it was a Crown corporation.
What definitely concerns me is the government picking winners; that always, always always ends up being catastrophically inefficient at best and corrupt at worst. We have recently been witness to disastrous examples, and take it from a guy who works in industry, the government is handing “Grants” and subsidies to companies left, right and center, and it isn’t helping. It has simply created an industry of finding grants, where companies with an in and the time to do the paperwork get handed free money.
The government intervening where there exists legitimate market failure - the obvious example being controlling pollution, which is the ultimate externality - is a fine idea. Deciding what to invest in as a business almost never is, and in fact it’s one of the reasons Canadian productivity growth has sucked so badly.
Canada threatens to cut off electricity sales to the US over Trump’s new tariffs.
[Ontario Premier Doug Ford] also threatened again to cut off energy produced in Ontario that powers homes and business in the US, if Trump continues to intensify the trade war.
“We power 1.5 million homes and businesses,” Ford told the Associated Press. “Everything’s on the table. I’ll do whatever it takes.”
He had already used energy as a threat, imposing a 25% surcharge on electricity exported to Michigan, Minnesota and New York in March of 2025. Trump then threatened to double tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminium, and both sides backed away.
https://www.mining.com/ontario-ready-to-cut-off-electricity-critical-minerals-to-us-amid-trade-war/
Well, not Canada. Doug Ford. He’s 95% not going to do it. He just wants to manipulate the markets by openly threatening devastation to US states.
Part of his strategy is to grab headlines, and have SOME impact that is felt south of the border. Threats work. It gets him on American news to plead his case and raise awareness. The markets add to this help by reacting to his threats too.
Also Trump and his kleptocratic regime have fortressed themselves from reality, but they can’t ignore market dips and crashes.
Edit: I should note that this is a tactic that Trump uses EXTENSIVELY himself. Half his threats are red faced bluster in service of market manipulation. However, the markets eventually adjusted to his theatre, and now they always expect Trump to TACO like a chump.
Ontario, not Canada.
Playing a good cop bad cop against Trump makes some sense. I realize that Carney is not always the good cop, and you do have to insult Donald once in a great while so he’ll appreciate you when you play good cop. (Kim Jun-Un is expert here.) But it makes sense for Carney to most of the time be the nice one, and be secretly glad Ford is otherwise.
I assume Carney and Ford are in close communication.
D Ford is an a_hole with a big mouth. A mini Trump.
Trump, the master diplomat.
So, now that TDS is in full swing, what is the next step? Companies in the US now have to decide if the cost of goods from Canada is worth using them as a supplier. Supply chains that shift will not shift back. If this doesn’t get resolved soon, then the follow on effects of decreased sales will hit jobs and the economy permanently.
No amount of MOU’s will counter the loss of trade. Even if we had actual agreements, rather than just fluff, we have little capacity to get product to those markets.
So, tell us what the plan is? Waiting two years in the hope that Trump is replaced by someone more friendly isn’t viable. The damage will have been done. Again, what is the plan? And it had better not be some goofy nationalize the honey industry bs. That is the path of the USSR and Venezuela. Honestly, is that what is trying to be emulated here?
Trump couldn’t care less if New York and Minnesota, both blue states, get electricity. Maybe Michigan, because they voted for him, might become the tiniest blip on his radar.
Someone above asked you what you thought Carney should have given up to make the deal work.
What’s your plan?
Not so long as Gretchen Witmer is governor.