The Canadoper Café 2024 is now open!

Here are some relevant short excerpts from the article above:

Let’s all take a deep breath, shall we? And after we have, let us agree that there is no practical benefit in attempting to meet Mr. Trump’s demands:

  • because it is wrong to appease a bully, for starters;
  • because to do so can only invite further demands, and further threats;
  • because his “concerns” are not, in fact, “valid” – the amount of fentanyl entering the U.S. from Canada is trivial (U.S. customs agents seized a grand total of 43 pounds of it in the last fiscal year), the number of illegal migrants scarcely less so (U.S. border patrol officers stopped fewer than 24,000 people last year, compared to more than 1.5 million crossing from Mexico);
  • because it is each country’s responsibility to control its own borders, that is, to police the entry of people and goods, not to demand that others police their exit;
  • because if it were such an “easily solvable” matter as Mr. Trump, in his endless devotion to easy solutions, pretends, it would have been done long ago.

There is not, in short, a great deal we can do to satisfy Mr. Trump, and if there were, we would have no assurance that he would remain satisfied for long. There is no point in negotiating with terrorists.

(It’s not even a negotiation. A negotiation is when each side comes to the table, not only with demands, but with something to offer in return. Just threatening to do something horrible if your demands are not met is not negotiating. It’s blackmail. It’s the difference between offering to write a story in exchange for money and threatening to.)

More than that, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Mr. Trump – a trap that those of us in the reality-based world continue to fall into, which is to attribute to him a rationality he does not possess. It is irrational enough to threaten to impose 25-per-cent tariffs on your nearest neighbours and major trading partners, for problems they did not cause. It is doubly irrational as a response to problems that are, in fact, subsiding: The number of unauthorized crossings on the Mexican border is falling, not rising (monthly encounters in September, at 54,000, were down 75 per cent from the year previous; for the entire fiscal year, they were down 14 per cent), as are the number of fentanyl deaths (off 10 per cent this year).

Nevertheless, there is at least in this a notional rationality, a potential for rationality, a theoretical connection between putative cause and putative effect, if not in this world then in some world it is possible to imagine. The idea, often expressed, that Mr. Trump is essentially “transactional” – that he may not be guided by the usual principles of statecraft, let alone any of the higher ideals, but is at least intelligible in purely “what’s in it for me” terms – is based on attributing to him a kind of grubby rationality, as if he were merely a debased version of ourselves.

What should we do instead?

    1. Play for time. Whatever he might imagine, Mr. Trump was elected with the thinnest of mandates. He is, what is more, a lame duck: The clock began ticking on his presidency from the day he was elected, as it is ticking on his mental and physical health. His thirst for dictatorship is real, but is in competition with his emotional instability and sheer incompetence. The longer time goes on, the more mistakes he is likely to make, and the weaker he is likely to become, politically and otherwise.
    1. Prey upon his weaknesses. Probe his psyche. Figure out his break points. Do not be afraid to annoy him. Most people do stupid things when they’re angry; multiply by 100 in the case of Mr. Trump. Tempt him to give into his demons; lead him onto the rocks of his own intemperance. His mistakes are your opportunities.
    1. Stand together. Work with allies, in Canada – yes, that means getting the Premiers onside, if only to shut them up – in Washington and state capitals, around the world. We are dealing with a dangerous lunatic. That is inescapable, at least for the foreseeable future. As with the Soviet Union, we cannot defeat him. But we can contain him.
    1. Stand up straight. Ultimately we can’t control what Mr. Trump does. We can, however, control what we do. Maybe we can’t prevent him from wrecking the North American economy, or whatever else he decides to do to us. But we can at least maintain our dignity, our composure and our self-respect. That’s not the only thing that matters, but it’s something.

Done.

Economist cartoon

Yeah, this. Deliberately still calling it NAFTA is our version of calling him Drumpf, and all those other things.

That last bit is what I tie my final hopes to. We may crash and burn because of what Trump plans to do, or what he ultimately ends up doing (those probably aren’t the same!), but at least history will say Canadians didn’t just go along with him. We won’t be Austria to Hitler’s Germany, if I have anything to say about it.

Ah, thanks. Didn’t know that.

Just trash talking tariffs is terrible….

Limited excerpt:

It did not take long. Even before getting into office, Donald Trump fired the opening shots in a new trade war. On November 25th America’s president-elect posted on social media that he would add an extra tariff of 10% on Chinese goods. But the shock was news of tariffs of 25% on Canada and Mexico as soon as he returned to the White House. These, he thundered, would remain in place until the two countries clamped down on drugs and migrants illegally crossing the border.

If they are imposed, the tariffs will hurt American consumers most of all. The North American supply chain is integrated; nearly $1trn-worth of goods crossed the northern and southern borders of the United States last year. Half of America’s fruit and vegetables come from its two neighbours. And more than half the pickup trucks sold by gm and Stellantis in the United States are made in Canada or Mexico, which is why the firms’ share prices fell by 9% and 5%, respectively, on the day after Mr Trump’s announcement. (Stellantis’s largest shareholder part-owns The Economist’s parent company.) Goldman Sachs thinks the tariffs could raise core consumer prices, which exclude food and energy, by as much as 0.9%.

The trouble, though, is that you cannot bank on any of this. Mr Trump could still seek to re-engineer the global trading system using steeper and wider-ranging tariffs. Mr Bessent and Mr Lutnik have been joined by Jamieson Greer, his new trade representative, who takes a harder line. Although he was constrained in his first term, Mr Trump did still manage to raise some tariffs on China and Europe. Moreover, if Mr Trump routinely uses the threat of tariffs whenever he wants countries to do his bidding, they could spiral out of control. Mexico has warned of retaliation. And the more tariff threats are repeated, the greater the danger of miscalculation. If threats are never carried through, they will lose their power. Ultimately that is likely to force Mr Trump to show that he means what he says.

Limited gift link:

Normal link:

I say it’s about time we build that Mexi-Canada Overpass floated 22 years ago.

It makes at least as much sense as some of the proposed policies for dealing with Toronto traffic. And that doesn’t include the obvious benefits of Mariachi Rush.

Invisible airwaves crackle with life
Bright antennas bristle with the energy
Emotional feedback on a timeless wavelength
Bearing a gift beyond price, almost free…

Las ondas invisibles rebosan vida
Las antenas brillantes con tanta energía
Retroalimentación emocional
En una longitud de onda atemporal
Lleva un regalo invaluable y compartida.

Well, it’s also the fact that NAFTA is an acronym, you can say as a word. USMCA is an initialism that you can’t say. NAFTA’s just easier.

And it’s still true, after all. It’s a free trade agreement in North America. A North American free trade agreement.

Which is really just another reason to hate Trump.

CAMUS, MUSCA, even USCAM would have all been pronouncable. He went with the worst possible option.

US SCAM is probably the most accurate descriptor of the agreement as well…

This isn’t at all concerning:

President-elect Trump suggested to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last week that if a tariff for failing to address trade and immigration issues would kill the neighbor to the north’s economy, maybe it should become the 51st state, sources told Fox News.

That’s insulting. Based on average US state population we should be 6 or 7 states. It would likely push the US permanently blue.

The biggest threat to our sovereignty is from the US, so while I understand those people who suggest we should increase our military funding, we’re never going to be able to spend enough to meet the threat of US invasion.

I’d also like to suggest that we actually take care to house, clothe, feed, and see to the medical, dental, and mental care of all of our veterans, and put that under the budget heading of ‘military spending’.

I’m pretty sure that under the NATO rules, this already applies.

Yes, but my recollection is that the Harper government went from lifetime medical care for veterans to a lifetime cap on care? (I may be misremembering, so open to correction.)

Seeking a clarification - when Mr. Trump talks about a ‘trade deficit’ with Canada, does that mean that the US buys more stuff from Canada than Canada buys from the US? Or that Canada buys more stuff from the US than the US buys from Canada?

In other words, my gut reaction is they’re pissed off because they owe us money and want to force us to buy more stuff from them. Is that accurate?

It’s all sounding more and more like a protection racket with each passing day…

Yes, that’s accurate. To fix the trade deficit, either Canada needs to buy more, or sell them less.

I suppose we could sell the same amount of stuff at lower prices, but then they’d accuse us of “dumping” cheap stuff on them.

Of course, Trump thinks “money” is the most important thing here. What he doesn’t get is that they’re sending us bits of paper (or just bits of digital), but they’re getting real physical goods in return. That’s what real wealth is - an abundance of resources that let you actually do things.

It doesn’t matter how much “money” you have, if there’s no gas to purchase, you can’t go driving in your sports car.

To no one’s surprise, the auditor general of Ontario’s report shows that the Ford government is, in fact, three crooked developers in a trench coat. Ontario Place is costing the people of Ontario way more than originally proposed, the selection process was flawed and shows signs of government interference, moving the Ontario Science Centre to the future Therme spa will help Therme with their parking problem but the cost of moving the Science Centre is already over what it would have cost to refurbish the facility.

The CBC news link is here - Ontario Place redevelopment not 'fair, transparent or accountable,' auditor general finds | CBC News

And yet, last I checked, the Ontario PC party is still ahead in the polls! What the actual fuck?!?