The Tariff Thread

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Okay so quick check but I’m seeing Canada’s NATO spend as about 1.37% GDP or roughly 34B. They want us at 2% which is a little over $50B. Delta of like $16B let’s call it.

Meanwhile the tariff threat according to Financial Post is supposed to entirely wipe out GDP growth forthcoming and cost estimates of 3.4-3.7% GDP (call it $85B).

Not clear anywhere why it takes so long to ramp up spending on defence so not sure on that or why it must take to 2032 the way the feds are saying (I’m sure there’s some reason just not sure how much of it is bull####).

So if we promise to ramp the $15B spend to avoid $85B hit and actually honour what we actually already committed to anyway, does that get the tariffs removed?

That’s assuming it’s actually about NATO

[GGG]

I think that the fact that there is a 3:00 meeting means that Trump gave Trudeau a list of things that are required. The question is how much of the list we can give in on.

If it’s boarder security and NATO funding those are easy wins to give Trump and let him show how his tough negotiating won the day.

However if it’s more than that like all the other issues that keep getting tossed around then it’s likely better to stand our ground. You don’t negotiate against yourself so in the absence of clear requirements I think you keep the status quo.

The fact that the Trump list of demands wasn’t leaked out of the earlier call suggests that Canada has the ability to meet them. That it wasn’t completed on the morning call suggests that some of them are uncomfortable.

Overall I think we get a deal to delay implementation by a month. Trump wins by keeping negotiating pressure and saving face. Canada wins by not having Tarrifs.

Actually going through with the trade war is a loss for both Trump and Canada. Trump likes to win.

[Mr.Coffee]

I mean we should plan to do it anyway if their plan is to invade us unless we are resigned to just letting them have Canada.

Honestly not sure there’d be much we could realistically do there anyway.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

You know in Blazing Saddles where they built a fake town to fool the bad guys? Anyone up for building a fake Bank of America on the vacant lot down the street?

We already have them, someone just needs to let Trump know.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think that the fact that there is a 3:00 meeting means that Trump gave Trudeau a list of things that are required. The question is how much of the list we can give in on.

If it’s boarder security and NATO funding those are easy wins to give Trump and let him show how his tough negotiating won the day.

However if it’s more than that like all the other issues that keep getting tossed around then it’s likely better to stand our ground. You don’t negotiate against yourself so in the absence of clear requirements I think you keep the status quo.

The fact that the Trump list of demands wasn’t leaked out of the earlier call suggests that Canada has the ability to meet them. That it wasn’t completed on the morning call suggests that some of them are uncomfortable.

Overall I think we get a deal to delay implementation by a month. Trump wins by keeping negotiating pressure and saving face. Canada wins by not having Tarrifs.

Actually going through with the trade war is a loss for both Trump and Canada. Trump likes to win.

As has been mentioned (it does bear repeating over and over on here and everywhere…) no matter what outcome Canada should quietly start the diversification strategy for all things economy.

[direwolf]

The fact that there’s a second call scheduled is hopefully a positive sign, and perhaps a deal is being made. I just hope we don’t completely bend the knee and give him whatever he wants. We have to stand firm and do what’s best for Canada.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

As has been mentioned (it does bear repeating over and over on here and everywhere…) no matter what outcome Canada should quietly start the diversification strategy for all things economy.

People have been saying this for 25 years. We should build energy infrastructure to sell to Asian and European customers.

[Huntingwhale]

Godness, Danielle Smith looks like a such a disheveled loser in her statement yesterday. Literally looks like she was up all night crying then made to stand in front of a mic.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

People have been saying this for 25 years. We should build energy infrastructure to sell to Asian and European customers.

Almost as if a foreign nation, one who would lose leverage over us, has been meddling in our internal affairs to prevent this infrastructure from ever being built.

[Mr.Coffee]

Honestly if you were an American- it would be a little frustrating to have this so called treaty alliance and all your partners don’t spend to what they promised.

Maybe it would have made the Ukraine defensive a little easier and less entirely dependent on the US?

I get their point on that. And when people call out the states for breaching trade agreements (correctly) aren’t we also doing that on our NATO commitments?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Okay so quick check but I’m seeing Canada’s NATO spend as about 1.37% GDP or roughly 34B. They want us at 2% which is a little over $50B. Delta of like $16B let’s call it.

Meanwhile the tariff threat according to Financial Post is supposed to entirely wipe out GDP growth forthcoming and cost estimates of 3.4-3.7% GDP (call it $85B).

Not clear anywhere why it takes so long to ramp up spending on defence so not sure on that or why it must take to 2032 the way the feds are saying (I’m sure there’s some reason just not sure how much of it is bull####).

So if we promise to ramp the $15B spend to avoid $85B hit and actually honour what we actually already committed to anyway, does that get the tariffs removed?

I thought Canada already committed to 2% albeit by 2030. Maybe we can pinky promise to bump that forward to 2027 or 2028.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Honestly if you were an American- it would be a little frustrating to have this so called treaty alliance and all your partners don’t spend to what they promised.

Maybe it would have made the Ukraine defensive a little easier and less entirely dependent on the US?

I get their point on that. And when people call out the states for breaching trade agreements (correctly) aren’t we also doing that on our NATO commitments?

The US isn't even the biggest NATO spender as a percentage of GDP. Poland is over 4%.

Trump wants out of NATO anyway.

[Mr.Coffee]

Nobody seems to be able to answer the question of why spending has to be delayed and any articles I found, it doesn’t seem like any journalists asked the question or write about the why that is.

Which leads me to think it’s baloney.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The US isn't even the biggest NATO spender as a percentage of GDP. Poland is over 4%.

Trump wants out of NATO anyway.

I’d want out too if a number of member countries ignored their commitments. I’d view it as pretty meaningless. Try to think of it from the American view.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

As has been mentioned (it does bear repeating over and over on here and everywhere…) no matter what outcome Canada should quietly start the diversification strategy for all things economy.

I think the big question is is Canada willing to pay for it. Getting to the West coast from Alberta makes sense but trade between Manitoba west and Ontario east is more expensive than North south corridors.

In doesn’t make economic sense relative to free trade. Now with an uncooperative neighbor there may be subsidies available to do it

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I’d want out too if a number of member countries ignored their commitments. I’d view it as pretty meaningless. Try to think of it from the American view.

So if they want out, why are they so insistent Canada spend the 2%? So much so they are punishing us economically? Just ####ing leave then.

And if they want to remain in NATO, why aren't they punishing the other 8-10 countries in NATO that don't spend the 2% threshold?

It's almost as if the tariff has nothing to do with NATO.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Nobody seems to be able to answer the question of why spending has to be delayed and any articles I found, it doesn’t seem like any journalists asked the question or write about the why that is.

Which leads me to think it’s baloney.

Takes time to spend $16b.

They could commit the money tomorrow, but it’s not about that. Throwing $16B at it without any actual plan on the best way to spend it would be a huge mess.

Blair said they could conceivably hit it in two years.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Nobody seems to be able to answer the question of why spending has to be delayed and any articles I found, it doesn’t seem like any journalists asked the question or write about the why that is.

Which leads me to think it’s baloney.

Spending smartly vs just spending seems like a simple answer to me

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Nobody seems to be able to answer the question of why spending has to be delayed and any articles I found, it doesn’t seem like any journalists asked the question or write about the why that is.

Which leads me to think it’s baloney.

I think the answer is they could just throw an extra $15 billion at defence or whatever, but in order to do it in a way that makes sense rather than just saying, "we'd like to place an order for $15 billion in new fighter jets ASAP, thanks", it takes some time to ramp up. Like, part of that increase in spending is going to be on people in a whole bunch of different roles, which takes time to recruit and train those people and place them within the military infrastructure in a manner that actually helps achieve defense objectives.

I mean they could meet the obligation immediately by just saying, "I'd like to buy 1 new standard issue rifle, please, and I'd like to pay 15 billion dollars for it", but that would be extremely dumb.

[Mr.Coffee]

All good points