American Politics 4.0 - Orangeyou Glad He’s Back?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Maybe it's the same this time. Maybe it's not. We'll see.

The important thing is that we've come a long way from 'but Danielle Smith told me it would be a Constitutional Crisis!'

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I don't think Alberta is being sad panda about anything. The people getting all excited about Alberta doing its thing is the rest of Canada.

Actually, in this thread, its a bunch of Albertans expressing concern about whether or not their Premier is acting in their best interests as both Albertans and Canadians...

[belsarius]

No party has spent more money losing court battles regarding the constitution than The Reformers (CPC/UPC)..

"And I would lose 500 fights and I will lose 500 more just to be the party that spends your taxes fighting and losing forevermore.. da-da da da"

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Only because our premier is who she is. We don't have to be this way, as a province. It's only because of people like you and her that we are. Can you maybe try being less sucky?

Provincial leaders are always fighting for their provinces best interest such as the BC Premiers like Eby, Horgan and Clark fought the softwood lumber tariffs. The BC leaders set up trade envoys and went down to the US to meet with US Administration to discuss the tariffs on multiple occasions.

[Looch City]

If we're gonna be comparing Premiers here:

Doug Ford > Danielle Smith

Atleast Ford has some kind of/resemblance of a backbone with his comments on Trump.

We need someone to call his bull####. Not capitulate and "appease" his felon ass.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

The important thing is that we've come a long way from 'but Danielle Smith told me it would be a Constitutional Crisis!'

She said it again today. It may not be accurate for me to treat "national unity crisis" and "constitutional crisis" as one and the same.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Provincial leaders are always fighting for their provinces best interest such as the BC Premiers like Eby, Horgan and Clark fought the softwood lumber tariffs. The BC leaders set up trade envoys and went down to the US to meet with US Administration to discuss the tariffs on multiple occasions.

Yes, and they worked WITH the Canadian government. And they weren't doing it to damage the relationship with other provinces or Canada as a whole, who I think generally had their backs on it. Nothing wrong with trade envoys, it's when they are throwing the rest of the country under the bus that it becomes an issue.

[OldDutch]

Maybe I need a primer on the economics of this tariff on Oil? Say a barrel of Candaian crude is $50 USD today. 25% tarriff would be 12.50 USD, bringing the purchase price to $62.50 USD to import into the US to send to a refinery.

Now that is assumption that 100% of tariff will be passed on, which it should?

Ok now you can argue that prices Canadian oil out of the US, because cheaper stock can be found elsewhere. Where is that elsewhere?

Texas refineries are built for heavy oil, specifically formulations from Venezuela and Canada. So will this drive more money to that loveable dictator, or will the refineries absorb it. Pass it along, and then hit the end customer?

Is my logic not right? Just seems a commodity that flows through a pipeline that can't just be switched, puts downstream at a disadvantage. If so, what is the problem? This will just shoot Trump in the foot in theory? Especially with the Oil lobby?

Seems like a bluff if what I wrote is remotely correct

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Actually, in this thread, its a bunch of Albertans expressing concern about whether or not their Premier is acting in their best interests as both Albertans and Canadians...

I think the difference of opinion lies in whether or not Alberta is obligated to act in the best interest of Canada if it doesn't also serve Alberta's purpose.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Looch City

If we're gonna be comparing Premiers here:

Doug Ford > Danielle Smith

Atleast Ford has some kind of/resemblance of a backbone with his comments on Trump.

We need someone to call his bull####. Not capitulate and "appease" his felon ass.

Smith doesn't need to be loud to get an optimal result. Ford's bloviating is directly proportional to the weakness of his position.

Alberta/Smith has something that everybody (literally) wants and needs.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I think the difference of opinion lies in whether or not Alberta is obligated to act in the best interest of Canada if it doesn't also serve Alberta's purpose.

I disagree (although others please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). I think the difference of opinion is whether Premier Smith's actions on this file are in the broad long-term interests of Albertans (both in their capacity as Albertans and Canadians).

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Maybe I need a primer on the economics of this tariff on Oil? Say a barrel of Candaian crude is $50 USD today. 25% tarriff would be 12.50 USD, bringing the purchase price to $62.50 USD to import into the US to send to a refinery.

Now that is assumption that 100% of tariff will be passed on, which it should?

Ok now you can argue that prices Canadian oil out of the US, because cheaper stock can be found elsewhere. Where is that elsewhere?

Texas refineries are built for heavy oil, specifically formulations from Venezuela and Canada. So will this drive more money to that loveable dictator, or will the refineries absorb it. Pass it along, and then hit the end customer?

Is my logic not right? Just seems a commodity that flows through a pipeline that can't just be switched, puts downstream at a disadvantage. If so, what is the problem? This will just shoot Trump in the foot in theory? Especially with the Oil lobby?

Seems like a bluff if what I wrote is remotely correct

You are correct. The US supply of crude is not easily just replaced. Refining is a low margin business, so the effect will be a proportional increase in consumer cost for fuel. And general inflation for anything that requires transport. It would be an extraordinarily stupid thing for Trump to put a tariff on Canadian oil imports. I don't know what the markets are anticipating, but I would be surprised if people are anticipating tariffs on oil. It's also why Smith is pretty sanguine about the whole thing despite saying all the right things. My guess is she is actually quite confident that oil will be exempted.

Her real issue will become domestic politics if it's exempted.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Maybe I need a primer on the economics of this tariff on Oil? Say a barrel of Candaian crude is $50 USD today. 25% tarriff would be 12.50 USD, bringing the purchase price to $62.50 USD to import into the US to send to a refinery.

Now that is assumption that 100% of tariff will be passed on, which it should?

Ok now you can argue that prices Canadian oil out of the US, because cheaper stock can be found elsewhere. Where is that elsewhere?

Texas refineries are built for heavy oil, specifically formulations from Venezuela and Canada. So will this drive more money to that loveable dictator, or will the refineries absorb it. Pass it along, and then hit the end customer?

Is my logic not right? Just seems a commodity that flows through a pipeline that can't just be switched, puts downstream at a disadvantage. If so, what is the problem? This will just shoot Trump in the foot in theory? Especially with the Oil lobby?

Seems like a bluff if what I wrote is remotely correct

I work in manufacturing in Canada. We plan to just add the tariff to invoices for US customers just like we add GST to invoices for Canadian customers.

There simply isn't enough profit margin to be able to absorb a 25% hit. We will likely lose customers and will be forced to lay Canadians off.

I can't speak for other industries.

[Dion]

Despite Aileen Cannons best efforts, she failed. Federal judge clears the way for release of special counsel Smith's report on Trump's Jan. 6 case.

https://ca.yahoo.com/news/judge-clea...174005725.html

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I work in manufacturing in Canada. We plan to just add the tariff to invoices for US customers just like we add GST to invoices for Canadian customers.

There simply isn't enough profit margin to be able to absorb a 25% hit. We will likely lose customers and will be forced to lay Canadians off.

I can't speak for other industries.

That's not how Tariffs work. No one will be paying the 25% to you. It gets billed directly to the buyer by the federal government after crossing the border. Pretty much the same result but the only control you would have would to give customers a discount that would offset the terrif.

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

That's not how Tariffs work. No one will be paying the 25% to you. It gets billed directly to the buyer by the federal government after crossing the border. Pretty much the same result but the only control you would have would to give customers a discount that would offset the terrif.

This is why I don’t understand politicians threatening to cut off supply. It should be business as usual for Canadian exporters and a painful jump in costs for the American buyers - they are the ones who should be lobbying Trump.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

This is why I don’t understand politicians threatening to cut off supply. It should be business as usual for Canadian exporters and a painful jump in costs for the American buyers - they are the ones who should be lobbying Trump.

The conventional wisdom says, depending on elasticity of demand, higher prices means less sales which means less revenue/profit.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

This is why I don’t understand politicians threatening to cut off supply. It should be business as usual for Canadian exporters and a painful jump in costs for the American buyers - they are the ones who should be lobbying Trump.

Its the same reason anyone does it, to attempt to leverage concessions.

"Oh God! Oh God! If we dont give him what he wants things could be even worse!!"

What you do is tell him to go pound sand because its BS and bluster.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

That's not how Tariffs work. No one will be paying the 25% to you. It gets billed directly to the buyer by the federal government after crossing the border. Pretty much the same result but the only control you would have would to give customers a discount that would offset the terrif.

Either the importer or exporter have to clear the shipment at customs via a customs brokerage (like one of these https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/services...cb-cd-eng.html). Whoever is clearing the shipment handles all the associated duties, taxes or fees.

For customers where we handle the shipment for them, yes we get billed the tariff. We will pass that along via invoice.

For customers who handle the shipments on their own, they would get billed the tariff direct.

This is simplified, as there are various INCO terms agreed to between parties.


Goods will become more expensive for the US consumer; and Canadian firms will likely lose business to US competitors. When Canada implements retaliatory tariffs, the Canadian consumer will be affected.

Everyone with half a brain agrees tariffs are ####ing dumb. Yet, here we are.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

This is why I don’t understand politicians threatening to cut off supply. It should be business as usual for Canadian exporters and a painful jump in costs for the American buyers - they are the ones who should be lobbying Trump.

Yes, for a short period. But the painful rise in costs will prompt US customers to find US suppliers and abandon Canadian suppliers which will lead to layoffs and potential closures.