Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by Bonded

That’s not how it works. The trade flow would change and be suboptimal for both countries. The US would need to import from elsewhere which would leave a gap elsewhere.

It literally is, exactly, how it works. Did you even read what I wrote?

Replacing supply isn't easy, its never cost effective, it takes time, and in this case likely wouldn't be able to fully replace the supply (and i thought I made that abundantly clear). But it literally happens every day.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Andy83

I agree, it would be greatly helpful. But, for the reasons stated in my post, maybe Smith is right, and the Jagmeet's, and Joly's are wrong. Why wont they unite with Smith? That knife cuts both ways.

Maybe because they're the ones tasked with protecting the interests of the entire country, not just Alberta? That's sort of a fundamental aspect of our confederation.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Andy83

Most of this is spot on.

However, suppose the worst case scenario plays out. Trump says "Ok you want to tax energy exports, then F##K yourselves."

There definitely aren't a ton of alternatives for them, but there are alternatives.

None of the alternatives will be nearly as cost effective, but again there are options.

They most definitely wouldn't be able to make up for the 4.5 million bbl/D we send them. Their economy would be devastated.

But they get to continue on.

It literally kills us.... Nearly 1/4 of our exports, $200 billion, gone over night. Nowhere to send it, no capacity to deal with it ourselves. Then what?

Reality is, we have very little-to no leverage if you are willing to go down to the "scorched earth" scenario. US/Trump have alternatives, though obviously much worse. We don't. Trump knows this, we all know it.

Is using our most important export, by a large margin, as a bargaining chip, BEFORE we even know if a response is necessary, really worth it?

Or do you think finding a diplomatic solution (I truly believe this is what Smith is doing) might be a better option BEFORE any additional tariffs have even been applied?

Everyone knows that we can't win a trade war with the Americans. The tough guy talk is laughable and pathetic.

It's also why central Canada wants the oil card. Everyone knows we can't go dollar for dollar with the US. So Canada needs products with high leverage.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Maybe because they're the ones tasked with protecting the interests of the entire country, not just Alberta? That's sort of a fundamental aspect of our confederation.

Your argument is self defeating. If Confederation functioned the way you think it does, we would have much more pipeline capacity to tidewater and tankers to put it on. And Canada would be in a much better position to ask for Alberta's help.

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Maybe because they're the ones tasked with protecting the interests of the entire country, not just Alberta? That's sort of a fundamental aspect of our confederation.

Why do those two things need to be different? Is it at all possible, looking out for Albertas best interest might also take care of the country as a whole too?

In this case, is it at all possible that protecting $200 billion worth of exports, and not using them as a bargaining chip in a game that hasn't even started yet might just be in Alberta, AND Canadas best interest? Especially when the opponent knows its not a chip we can afford to lose.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Andy83

Or do you think finding a diplomatic solution (I truly believe this is what Smith is doing) might be a better option BEFORE any additional tariffs have even been applied?

Who is suggesting placing retaliatory tariffs before the U.S. places tariffs on us?

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Who is suggesting placing retaliatory tariffs before the U.S. places tariffs on us?

No one that I've seen. And I'm sure if you re-read my post, you will see that I'm not suggesting anyone has.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Andy83

Why do those two things need to be different? Is it at all possible, looking out for Albertas best interest might also take care of the country as a whole too?

In this case, is it at all possible that protecting $200 billion worth of exports, and not using them as a bargaining chip in a game that hasn't even started yet might just be in Alberta, AND Canadas best interest? Especially when the opponent knows its not a chip we can afford to lose.

Canada exports $440 billion worth of goods to the US each year. $125 billion of that is energy exports (not all from Alberta).

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Your argument is self defeating. If Confederation functioned the way you think it does, we would have much more pipeline capacity to tidewater and tankers to put it on. And Canada would be in a much better position to ask for Alberta's help.

What are you talking about? I have no idea what you are trying to say?

Anyway, it's Friday night. I'm.signing off to spend time with my friends and family.

Good night, all.

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Canada exports $440 billion worth of goods to the US each year. $125 billion of that is energy exports (not all from Alberta).

According to energy-information.canada.ca

"Energy exports worth $199.1 billion were sent to 123 countries, with the United States accounting for 89%."

So ya, ok, $177 Billion. Thats not nearly the point though, is it?

[chemgear]

Canadian banks now following the US banks that recently bailed on the Mark Carney's GFANZ Net Zero organization.


https://financialpost.com/fp-finance...imate-alliance

BMO, National Bank, TD follow U.S. banks to quit global climate alliance

On Friday, the Bank of Montreal, Toronto-Dominion Bank and National Bank of Canada said they have withdrawn from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, which aims to align lending, investment and capital markets activity with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The lenders join several big banks in the United States, such as JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., that have withdrawn in recent weeks from the group convened by the United Nations.

Members of the alliance are required to transition their lending and investment portfolios to align with the pathways to net zero by 2050 or sooner and also set a 2030 target.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Canadian banks now following the US banks that recently bailed on the Mark Carney's GFANZ Net Zero organization.


https://financialpost.com/fp-finance...imate-alliance

BMO, National Bank, TD follow U.S. banks to quit global climate alliance

On Friday, the Bank of Montreal, Toronto-Dominion Bank and National Bank of Canada said they have withdrawn from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, which aims to align lending, investment and capital markets activity with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The lenders join several big banks in the United States, such as JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., that have withdrawn in recent weeks from the group convened by the United Nations.

Members of the alliance are required to transition their lending and investment portfolios to align with the pathways to net zero by 2050 or sooner and also set a 2030 target.

I think this is a natural consequence of the US not backing Net Zero.

I know people pitch this as a Carney failure but think about what he did he convinced banks that it would be advantageous to them to go to net zero in their investments. That’s not a bad accomplishment but without governments creating a price for carbon this wasn’t going to work.

It’s why the Canadian carbon tax has TIER and it’s equivalents to excerpt high pollution industries from the full affects of the tax.

[blender]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Canadian banks now following the US banks that recently bailed on the Mark Carney's GFANZ Net Zero organization.


https://financialpost.com/fp-finance...imate-alliance

BMO, National Bank, TD follow U.S. banks to quit global climate alliance

On Friday, the Bank of Montreal, Toronto-Dominion Bank and National Bank of Canada said they have withdrawn from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, which aims to align lending, investment and capital markets activity with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The lenders join several big banks in the United States, such as JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., that have withdrawn in recent weeks from the group convened by the United Nations.

Members of the alliance are required to transition their lending and investment portfolios to align with the pathways to net zero by 2050 or sooner and also set a 2030 target.

That is really sad and unfortunate news.

I read the preface and introduction of Carney's 2021 book Value(s) last night.

I was inspired by the thesis he lays out, but there was a subtle but definitive feeling that it was already an idea from another era, from longer ago, like the air is out of the balloon.

Moving backwards.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think this is a natural consequence of the US not backing Net Zero.

I know people pitch this as a Carney failure but think about what he did he convinced banks that it would be advantageous to them to go to net zero in their investments. That’s not a bad accomplishment but without governments creating a price for carbon this wasn’t going to work.

It’s why the Canadian carbon tax has TIER and it’s equivalents to excerpt high pollution industries from the full affects of the tax.

Aggressive climate change policy is dead. Probably for a long time. It's getting washed away with many other progressive policies from the last ten years, like a bloated public service, fiscal profligacy, and identify politics policies like DEI.

[peterh]

I don't quite understand why Canadians are so adamant on staying poor:

https://imgur.com/a/FAdgBUf

A trade war with America will just result in further poverty for Canadians.

Plus why is everyone so against exploring a potential union with the greatest nation on the planet?

Whatever, as our currency collapses, the brain drain will continue. If it gets worse in Canada, I will gladly accept that L-1A visa transfer offer from my employer...

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by peterh

I don't quite understand why Canadians are so adamant on staying poor:

https://imgur.com/a/FAdgBUf

A trade war with America will just result in further poverty for Canadians.

Plus why is everyone so against exploring a potential union with the greatest nation on the planet?

Whatever, as our currency collapses, the brain drain will continue. If it gets worse in Canada, I will gladly accept that L-1A visa transfer offer from my employer...

And everyone will clap.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Aggressive climate change policy is dead. Probably for a long time. It's getting washed away with many other progressive policies from the last ten years, like a bloated public service, fiscal profligacy, and identify politics policies like DEI.

DEI still exists in its intent it’s just been put back into HR. The general practice

Washed away is an excellent term for the consequence of neglecting climate policy. We had a real chance to fix climate change without much main with a slowly escalating carbon tax led by the US.

Conservatives no longer being conservatives and instead becoming populists really ####ed things up.

[Looch City]

Look at me. I'm an American now.

God damn so many traitors on CP lately. Where were you all hiding before?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GGG

DEI still exists in its intent it’s just been put back into HR. The general practice

Washed away is an excellent term for the consequence of neglecting climate policy. We had a real chance to fix climate change without much main with a slowly escalating carbon tax led by the US.

Conservatives no longer being conservatives and instead becoming populists really ####ed things up.

You never stood a chance to fix climate change.

Too many billions of people in the world see cheap high carbon energy sources as necessary for their existence.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Andy83

I agree, it would be greatly helpful. But, for the reasons stated in my post, maybe Smith is right, and the Jagmeet's, and Joly's are wrong. Why wont they unite with Smith? That knife cuts both ways.

Is your solution to do nothing, let the US do whatever it wants without any recourse, and just wait until negotiations are complete which, as we’ve seen, can take years?

Because that’s Smith’s solution. And it sounds really stupid.