upvote
Trump and MAGA have destroyed the good relationships and trust that the US had built throughout the world. Canada's Prime Minister wrote [1]:

"We have recognised from the beginning that America has changed, and that we will not return to our old relationship. Our government understood, before many, that America is altering all its trade relationships. Putting tariffs on its closest allies and charging for access to its vast market."

[1] _ https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2026/08/21/statement...

reply
sorry i am too out of the loop what is trumps beef with canada in the first place.
reply
[flagged]
reply
Being a global threat but "pretending" so well to be a good faith actor that people treat you and engage with you as a good faith actor, is literally the same as just being a good faith actor.

The US was a good faith actor, especially relative to its power. Now it is not. It is not good for the world's most powerful military and economy to stop "pretending" to be a good faith actor, and it is not something you should find any joy in.

reply
Above all the US was a predictable actor. Sure, its terms of trade were designed to favour US companies and maybe it wasn't fair that you had to be an exceptional diplomat to stay on amicable terms with them if you were at least notionally a radical socialist whilst the brutal dictatorship next door got a free pass on its excesses because it had defeated the radical socialists or was open to US investment and fully committed to keeping the oil flowing, but you knew what they wanted from you.

I mean, in a way Trump's tendency to back out of everything, good or bad and base his entire foreign policy relationship with your country based on who he last spoke to is predictable, but predictable in a way the only winning move with US relationships is not to play

I'll throw in China, which might want whats best for Chinese influence even more than it wants to sell you cheap consumer goods, but it's also very, very predictable in what it wants from any sort of international agreement with you and these days has an abundance of capital and the ability to sell you most things the US can sell you for less...

reply
Ah yes, Disney's Frozen philosophy. "Let's stop pretending having to much power is a curse."
reply
> All this is going to achieve is pushing Canada much closer to other countries

The world is watching this story just like the world watched Davos.

Last night will encourage further decoupling of the US for nations other than Canada.

idk if Trump 2028 will happen or not. I will say with conviction no matter who is in office by then will not rebuild trust around the world in their tenure. Too much damage is done to the US's reputation.

reply
> I will say with conviction no matter who is in office by then will not rebuild trust around the world in their tenure. Too much damage is done to the US's reputation.

The only way that the US can start rebuilding this trust is that the incoming Democratic President and Congress (assuming we are so lucky) immediately starts by prosecuting Trump and his family (and results in actual jail time, not just fines or small stays), zero out their government contracts, fire most of the people installed in government since 2025, expand the Supreme Court, and remove the fillibuster. I know people think ideas like that are extreme, but really, what else is going to convince the rest of the world that the US has cleaned up their act? It has to start at home first.

reply
That still will not convince anyone to trust the US. At any moment a new US president and congress can come in and do the same thing.

a de-nazification program similar to germany post-WW2, combined with a shredding and full rewrite of the US Constitution by western allies to bring it in line with estonia's as an example, in addition to clearing house with the Trumps is the kinda thing that would start building trust

reply
Why bring the constitution in line with Estonia's? What's special about them?
reply
I think the above person is correct, and you are on the right track.

I'm not hopeful for a full Constitutional Convention, but every possible effort by any means must be made to put into law every "unwritten norm" that the Trump administration took advantage of.

Impeachment is the mechanism to remove a rogue president, and the entire GOP is party to a "soft coup" against the Constitution of the United States. I agree it will take a complete societal rejection of MAGA and the Unitary Executive theory for allies to ever trust the US again.

reply
There is absolutely nothing that will end American democracy faster than jailing Trump. The moment it becomes clear that the cost of losing is personal jail time for you and your family, every politician in the game has to start playing for blood, and everyone with power has to chose rubicon or jail.

If Trump goes to prison, that’s when I leave, because that will be the moment historians point to as “no going back”.

reply
democracy is already dead of you cant jail trump when he does crimes
reply
The cost of losing is only jail time for criminals. Your alternative is a carte blanche for any number of crimes in office.
reply
My point isn’t “president should be above law”. My point is that, if Trump and admin go to prison on charges that are not so strong that it sways a large portion of the public and republicans, we’re fucked. Regardless of the underlying truth of the case, regardless of what I think is just or unjust, we’re fucked. Because unless it’s convincing enough that republicans also agree, then it’s death spiral.

So I’m hoping the justice department either doesn’t have enough of a case to convict, or has enough of a case that the whole country falls in line. The in between, it’s time to get out. Because shit will go downhill very fast.

reply
> The moment it becomes clear that the cost of losing is personal jail time for you and your family

That has always been clear, seeing how it is the default mode of operation for empires throughout history. The solution here is separation of powers: the ruler itself is bound by rules and institutions that provide a check on their power, and in turn those institutions protect the ruler after stepping down.

It is Trump and the Republican party that chose to abandon that solution. There already is no going back from that choice.

reply
The United States isn't a monarchy, we fought a whole war to establish that. Our leaders aren't meant to be above the law. If our "democracy" can't survive putting even a President in jail for their crimes than it doesn't deserve to survive.

And I reject your premise that putting one's leaders in jail will only lead to an infinite spiral of partisan kangaroo courts because other democracies manage to hold their leaders to legal account without going into a death spiral.

And it's honestly weird and more than a bit disturbing how controversial that simple concept has become. I guess we really do want kings here.

reply
He’s seen by at least 50% of the population as completely valid. Any jail time, unless he does something egregious enough that even republicans support it, will be seen as political targeting and “sending a message” by at least 50% of the electorate. And guess what republicans will say? “Once we get in power, we’re throwing all democrats involved with his jailing into prison”, and the cycle will escalate.

“than it doesn't deserve to survive”. There it is, out loud. If you only support democracy when your side wins then you are just an authoritarian who wants democratic cover. You’re just as bad as Trump.

reply
"Republicans will jail the innocent if democrats jail the guilty" really says a lot
reply
You have to be insane to think it is that black and white.
reply
> “Once we get in power, we’re throwing all democrats involved with his jailing into prison”

You implied that Democrats would be jailed for following the law with this comment.

reply
> He’s seen by at least 50% of the population as completely valid.

This is laughable.

He never hit 50% in the popular vote, and that doesn’t count the ‘none of the above/don’t care’ non-voters. That was at the peak of the oligarch-funded campaign that saw record-smashing spending and advertising to gin up support.

His popularity immediately fell after the election and has been sliding the entire time he’s been in office. A majority of voters supported his impeachment shortly after he started the Iran war in back April and he’s even more unpopular now.

reply
> If you only support democracy when your side wins then you are just an authoritarian who wants democratic cover.

Yeah, no. Obviously not what I said, or what my comment implied, and you're not even trying to respond in good faith.

reply
No sorry I’ll be more nuanced.

Unless Trump does something egregious enough in the coming years that the case against him is rock solid, black and white, and heavy, any move to jail him and those around him is impossible to distinguish from political targeting. I have not seen evidence of something out of line enough, no matter what Reddit hive mind thinks.

So with the knowledge I have, I’d say any serious push to jail him and his team would be terrifying. If we get crystal evidence of bribery that holds up in court and is clear enough to sway a large swath of Republicans, then that’s great. Still a worse outcome than there not being something black and white to nail him with, but I think that case democracy survives. But not “trumped up” charges.

reply
It’s a good thing that they’ve committed many blatant and easily provable criminal acts then. The type you spend the rest of your life in prison for, if you’re not being protected by captured systems. Market manipulation, insider trading, embezzlement are all happening obviously and publicly, just to start. Bribery and corruption at many levels, illegal use of things like ICE, illegal detention, ignoring and abusing courts and the judicial system, whatever the hell they’re doing with crypto, the list is basically whatever crime you can think of. I understand you, and that it will mean republicans and their base won’t be swayed, which will create huge problems. But we’re well past the point that anything would ever sway them. There’s no easy way out now, the choice is being increasingly abused by them forever or taking the hits now to stop it. Pulling punches now will only ensure that it comes back 10x worse later.
reply
If I had to guess at anything it would be bribery, market manipulation, and crypto related business. The others I just don’t see even making it through, there is way too much room for interpretation of powers.

“Pulling punches now will only ensure that it comes back 10x worse later” and using punches will what, subdue? This is half the political power of America you’re talking about punching. Republicans will what, roll over? You think democrats win handily enough to end it?

It escalates the blood feud. The way out of a blood feud is de-escalation, amnesty, forgiveness, working together. Not demanding more blood, even if you think it is perfectly justified.

reply
His approval rating is somewhere between 30%-35% depending on the poll. So no it's not 50%.

> You’re just as bad as Trump.

No, Trump's 2nd term is in the running for most corrupt administration in American history. Even what Nixon did would just be another scandal for this administration that would leave the news cycle in a couple weeks.

He, or at least his officials and family need to be held accountable. That is the right, just and Constitutional thing to do.

reply
What if Trump retroactively pardons himself and his family for all possible crimes in the past 10 years, the same way Biden did?
reply
congress can impeach him, which makes those pardons null
reply
Biden didn't pardon himself afaik.

But... that's still perfectly legal, isn't it? All of these little backdoors the founding fathers added to the executive as some vestigial organ of monarchical power just because they couldn't trust the people in "we the people" maybe should be reconsidered. If we don't want presidents to be able to pardon themselves and anyone else without limit, there are ways to make that happen. Never even bothering to convict any president of a crime doesn't even attempt to fix that problem however.

reply
and do other countries really put their criminal official in jail? do they establish any kind of restitution to the victims?

can you really point to a single government where they dont illegally communicate outside of logged channels, or any such things, to scam the voters? or where they intentionally promise something they have zero intention of keeping, or lying about whether its possible. and of course some such things are not considered crimes because the very people who would then be violating the law would be the ones who MAKE the law.

the vast majority of politicians worldwide are super criminals doing things that if you or I did even 1/100 what they did, they would lock us up and throw away the keys.

reply
The US admin is basically Trump. Saying Trump will respect Canadian strength shows you are making the same mistake other people keep making in thinking Trump is somehow like them or is consistent enough to predict. I don't think Trump is a rational actor. He is a collection of ephemeral positions lacking coherence accumulated from random sources.
reply
I think the Trump admin is more complicated than just Trump, if only because he doesn't have enough marbles left to run the whole thing. That said, power, pain, and dominance are the one thing he does actually understand, and that's what Canada is showing him. It's as close as we can get to a signal that will reach him and the varying grades of fool he surrounds himself with.
reply
The problem is they're also stifling trade with China. We still have quotas on Chinese cars so that they don't flood the market with affordable cars to preserve our (yours and ours) inferior car industry.

It's basically what Canada is doing to the US with dairy, except with Chinese cars.

reply
What is going to happen is this lack of deal will accelerate the (inevitable) decline of the Canadian car industry, which will reduce objections to the Chinese imports leading to those quotas changing in an ever accelerating feedback loop.

From the US strategic perspective this is moving out of the frying pan and into the fire.

reply
I don't understand this and would like a clarification.

There are zero Canadian automobile assemblers; they are Canadian subsidiaries of American companies, with some parts manufacturers being here.

Assuming American companies (and companies from subordinates like Japan) leave, what would be the problem in having a similar relationship with China? Is it because their manufacturing is more integrated?

reply
The American, and other auto makers, only manufacturers in Canada because the Canadian and American auto markets have been integrated for over 80 years. Removing Canada's access to the American market basically makes Canadian auto manufacturing uncompetitive since Canada isn't a big enough market to sustain a domestic auto market.
reply
It's so obvious that you'd think its intentional.
reply
Canada having closer trade ties with China is also a case of "out of the frying pan and into the fire" for Canada.
reply
I think people forget that China is an authoritarian ethno state with a single leader for life.

But hey, they have cheap shit, so what better wagon to hitch your country to?

reply
I'm in the EU and my masters did hand over the car market to chinese cars and this was a very stupid move.

Some EU carmakers are fighting back but it's very hard when politicians managed to have energy price in the EU being about 7x higher than those carmakers in China do pay.

I'm not for tariffs but China is dumping and if we don't all want to end up being vassals of China, we should at least protect some of our industries.

And as "good" as chinese EVs are, I'm sorry but they're not anywhere near the quality of, say, what German cars used to be.

If western carmakers had been given a reasonable timeline to switch to EVs and reasonable energy price, the situation would be different.

EU carmakers may be saved by people preferring to buy cars from their own continent but that remains to be seen. The latest BMW EVs, for example (once you remove the spying / remote control issues: but that affects chinese EVs doubly so), are apparently very fine machines.

reply
> not anywhere near the quality of, say, what German cars used to be.

To be fair, German cars aren’t anywhere near the quality that German cars used to be, either.

reply
There is a huge difference between breaking partnerships by fast uni-directional policies vs. slow uni-directional or bi-directional policies.

EU and even USA should start doing something reasonable. Like introducing quota on how much overall can be imported/exported to protect local markets. Like lets say 40%.

Everyone gets a piece of cake.

But lets be honest, germany (my country) also never played fair. We gained quite a lot of export strength through the Euro and overall german politics.

And its not just the energy prices, it was quite clear what the energy prices going to be but no one really invested into reducing them early or fast enough at all. No one cared. BMW new factory in hungarie though does has a lot more reneablw and was able to continue production despite hungaries energy issue.

In China a person makes 500-1000 per month, in germany the same person makes a lot more.

China you have raw resources and cheap labor and cheap energy on EVERY SINGLE point of the process. From iron ore to the assembly itself.

And it doesn't matter much anyway because with the current and future grade of automatisation, a lot less money is getting directly to the people.

We need laws enforcing the rich to pay the taxes and/or invest A LOT more a lot faster and a lot broader.

We need real politics and not this garbage happening in germany or in the USA or in Russia.

reply
>and reasonable energy price

Nice Jedi Hand Wave there.

That's the issue.

China invested in producing cheap energy. Most of the rest of the world did not.

At root, economics is about turning energy into goods and services. If the root industrial input of your competitor is cheaper than the cost of that same root industrial input to you, you're gonna need some incredible efficiencies elsewhere in that production pipeline to pull even.

At this point, the EU should be all about keeping the other major powers at arm's length, (economically and militarily), while pursuing renewable electrification with all deliberate speed.

That should be everyone else' strategy going forward as well by the way. Without cheap energy in the next global economic phase, your nation or bloc is dead in the water.

reply
I have close the zero faith that the EU would be able to make the cultural changes necessary to move to self dependance.

Especially with being well behind in the current AI arms race. You need the opposite of a "workers utopia" to do all the things the EU needs to do, and do them fast.

They either stay with the US or become a vassal of Xi Jinpeng.

reply
you dont really need to get involved in the ai arms race though. a late comer will still benefit from better designed at higher volume lower energy chips, and good enough open weight models.
reply
reply
Did the parent say clean energy or cheap energy? Obviously yes, coal.

Though coal has dropped as a percentage of their portfolio fairly dramatically, and in absolute twh has been stable since 2010, with other energy sources growing.

reply
These two things (investment in green energy and coal) can be true at the same time.

China dominates global clean energy investment, accounting for more than half of the $1.1 trillion invested worldwide between 2019 and 2025, while the United States contributed approximately $236 billion, representing less than a quarter of the total. - https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/energy/articles/china-spen...

reply
No idea why you got flagged here, you've pretty clearly said reasonable things.
reply
I've even clicked the flag link by accident. I don't take it personally, regardless of the outcome.
reply
> quality of, say, what German cars used to be.

They are 80% there for 30% the price as a consumer it’s a tremendous deal

reply
Ask why does China have cheap energy. Indeed, why was China able to save Trumps ass by halving its oil imports and preventing a catastrophic meltdown of oil-driven economies?
reply
> This was totally the right move, if for no other reason than it's the only thing that this US admin will respect in the long run.

Unfortunately, Canada (where I live) will feel way more pain from this than the US. I am not sure Trump will have respect for this at all, but the alternative was to put in a permanent trade deal that significant disadvantaged Canada.

reply
I know that this is insanely complex with everybody protecting their own economies, but I think this is where middle powers working together more strongly could help. Imagine that Canada, the EU, and Britain worked together as an economic NATO, where a tariff attack on one is a tariff attack on all. It would hurt the US much more to bully one of these economies.
reply
UK used to have that kind of protection up until a few years ago, but they decided it was not worth it.
reply
Canada and the EU already have a trade agreement since 2016. The UK economy is about 1/5th that of the EU, not enough to move the dial, and they kind of went off in the opposite direction around that same time...
reply
You'd need n^2 "NATO"'s then, because EU has implemented many really shitty policies too and someone would want to fight back against that too. UK may do the same.

And we already have an actual NATO example, where one member attacks countries around the world, one of those countries fights back, threathening to attack american bases even in europe if needed... and now other nato members might get involved in a war that was started by one of it's own members, that no one else really wanted, and side on the side of the agressor ( https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/nato-chief-reaffirms-allianc... ). To turn back into economics, what happens when EU declares an "economic war" against china, china retalites (by eg. banning exports of something we really need)... does canada go along and threathen it's own economy? Or do they form a new "NATO" with "everyone-else except EU"?

reply
There is also the factor that Canada has been propping up unsustainable dead end industries on a massive scale for years, and that this will make any pain from such a situation, deal or no deal, that much worse.

Most obviously Southern Ontario is living in a dreamland where inexplicably ICE autos remain a viable industry ad infinitum.

Some forced reality, by any means, will in the long run prove to be welcome.

reply
That will continue with only cars made in Canada not having Canadian tariffs. You make 100,000 cars in Canada everything above that amount is subject to tariffs.
reply
The last ~60 years have been a process by which the North American auto industry has been so heavily integrated that there is no such thing as a car made entirely in one country or another, especially in the Detroit–Windsor corridor.

Canada has manufacturers that the US doesn't (and won't for at least 5 years) and vice-versa.

reply
Autos are more obvious than the dairy industry, even though Trump claimed a couple of days ago that the reason there was an imminent deal is because Canada allegedly agreed to eliminate dairy tariffs? Trade negotiations have stalled almost certainly because Canada isn't actually willing to give up dairy tariffs.
reply
Besides dairy, one of the last major quota based protected industries in Canada was the taxi industry. It's interesting to compare and contrast the two. It used to be that if you could put together enough of a down payment to get a loan to pay $1M for a taxi license or for a quota allocation for 20 cows you'd be set for life, as long as you were willing to put in long hours. We had no qualms throwing the taxi drivers under the bus, but are willing to go to the mat for those dairy producers. Is it because taxi drivers were mostly brown skinned?
reply
Food is much more important on Maslow's hierarchy than taxis.
reply
Which is why Canadians wanting a protected monopoly is especially interesting. Usually when something is considered important we want everyone to have access to it, not only the handful of elites who get legal control over it all.

I suppose that explains why Canadian's won't allow the staple foods to also be supply managed, only accepting it for luxury foods (and once tobacco) that wouldn't cause a crisis if they disappeared, but on that realization we're back to dairy being more like taxis than essential calories.

reply
The dairy cartel is very strong in Canada (similar to the maple syrup one). They are deeply embedded in the government.

It'd be like trying to convince the US to reduce their Corn cartel. Except the corn industry keeps prices low, paid for by the American tax payer and demand mandates, and the Dairy cartel keeps prices high so consumers pay for the lack of competition.

reply
Plausible.

The Quebec PM did say that if the dairy industry wasn't happy they wouldn't put US alcohol badk on the shelves, which would have effectively killed the whole thing.

While a factor I doubt this is the whole story though.

reply
> While a factor I doubt this is the whole story though.

No story can be told in a HN comment. No story can be fully told in words.

However, having spent much of my existence around the Canadian diary industry it is clear that it has always been the biggest sticking point in US and Canada relations. Not just today, but that's been the case for my entire life.

reply
[flagged]
reply
deleted
reply
> you have never been able to buy American milk in canada.

That’s not really true. The US has 5% of the quota, tarrif free. Which they don’t even fully use. But, to be sure, it does get used. You absolutely can buy American milk products in Canada.

The problem is that they have to go through the processors to satisfy the processors' own quotas so by and large the meager 5% isn’t worth the operational complexity vs just buying milk locally for the processors. The US wants to be able to go directly to the grocery stores.

reply
[flagged]
reply
Can you please stay within the site guidelines when commenting on HN? Your last several comments have been breaking them in various ways.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

reply
You probably wont regardless. milk itself wants to be drunk pretty quickly after being produced, and thus pretty close.

what changes is parts that arent so visible - milk powders, sugars, proteins, etc, that are inputs into ultraprocessed foods like a cheezit

reply
It’s a cool story but one only has to go to Statistics Canada/Agri-food Canada to see exactly how much US milk is imported into Canada. Hint: it is substantially more than none.
reply
Milk vs. dairy products. I'm sure there's plenty of cheese/dairy based products. But liquid milk?
reply
Canada imports roughly 65 million litres of fluid milk from the USA each year.
reply
Canada produces ~9-10 billion litres of milk a year. 65 million is less than a percent. That also doesn't mean 65 million of litres of liquid milk ends up on store shelves, that could be going into other products. It's extremely hard to find non-Canadian liquid milk on Canadian store shelves.
reply
> 65 million is less than a percent.

I mean, what were you expecting? Like before, they only have access to 5% of the market tarrif-free, and, in practice, cannot even use all of that due to the practicalities of 5% not being all that operationally useful to the Canadian processors. The US hasn't been bemoaning these tariffs for longer than I've been alive (and I'm quite old by HN standards) because the market is flush with their goods...

> It's extremely hard to find non-Canadian liquid milk on Canadian store shelves.

Hard is a long way from never. Yes, the volume is negligible, but known to be non-zero. Although we'd really have to understand the makeup of the milk to know how common you consuming it is. If every jug has a tiny drop of US milk in it then the chances of you encountering US milk on store shelves is actually quite high. It is highly unlikely that any jug will be 100% US milk. It is not like anyone is going to take the time to painstakingly separate it into a separate tank before bottling. Milk is milk.

reply
As a Canadian, I am willing to suffer if it means long term benefits.

Carney is very popular for a reason.

reply
No deal is better than a bad deal.
reply
No deal is a bad deal. Just for an indefinite term.
reply
Is anyone else getting that feeling about hearing the world "deal" so much that it's losing any meaning whatsoever?

What exactly does this word mean? It definitely doesn't mean a stable set of agreements that can be relied upon to ensure a stable future business environment. That's not in the cards.

What I suspect Carney is doing, and fully support as a Canadian, is running down the clock. An agreement is America isn't worth anything without leverage to back it. The main goal is to stall to delay the damage as much as possible while diversifying away our economic dependence on the US. There is no other long-term goal - everything else is just appearances and showmanship.

reply
I'm sure many Canadians are fine with a "bad no deal" if it means not negotiating with an unreliable partner that consistently engages in threatening Canada's national sovereignty.
reply
This implies that the US respects the agreements it signs
reply
Trump’s deals also are of indefinite terms. Ask the Saudis - their big nuclear deal fell apart within a day as Trump added new conditions out of thin air.
reply
You can't respect someone who doesn't respect their self. It's a mistake to attribute personality features to countries, but not to their leaders.

Similarly, people who don't have self-respect don't respect others.

reply
I think you're right that this will be more painful for Canada, economically, but I'm not so sure about "way more". But politically, it will be much more painful for the US side of the negotiation than for the Canadian side. The Carney administration is on much firmer political ground than the Trump administration. Time is on Carney's side.
reply
>The Carney administration is on much firmer political ground

I don't think so. Time really isn't on Carney's side either.

Carney's new tariffs fall on those who, in aggregate, did not vote for him. The average Carney voter has been very vocal about wanting to pursue this tactic- that's why they elected him. (That average voter is an Eastern retiree whose holdings are generally in real estate, so they don't care about any other economic sector beyond that which keeps their property values high, especially compared to the feel-good Elbows Up stuff.)

But Carney's currently having trouble just keeping the country together at this point. That's why he's approving projects he really doesn't want to approve out West, like those oil pipelines, because the West has credibly signaled that that they might just ban Carney and his Eastern voting block from making law and collecting tax from them if development of their part of the country is hindered any further. But if it's not hindered, they'll grow in political power, which is also an inherent threat to Ottawa's power (just not immediately).

And yet here Carney is- for the second time now- imposing more economic roadblocks that drive up consumer prices and put more people out of work for no reason other than his voting block wanting it that way. "Just retaliate" might be the least bad option for Carney to pander to that voting block, but every concession to them drives the country closer to separation, and that has time pressure too.

reply
I think you're mistaken about the effect that the Albertan premier's artificially manufactured "independence" campaign is having on the electorate.

Outside of the small fringe communities that support it, the reaction of the broader country has been to actually shift MORE into hardline stances against the US, as the effort is seen largely as an American manufactured thing.

Additionally, I'd advise to take with caution perspectives from any sources that would characterize the province of Alberta as "the west".

reply
>the broader country

Not really, though. Despite what even a good chunk of Canadians (or yourself) might think, the country doesn't end at Toronto.

If the government wasn't worried about the effects, they wouldn't be in any hurry to approve the infrastructure projects; they've been in the works for a very long time, stalled out. Urban Easterners claim to believe the planet will explode if they're built, and the governments they elect act accordingly, but it's really just a power thing.

Additionally, I'd advise you to not think you know better than the people that actually live here.

reply
This sort of rhetoric leads me to believe you've been enmeshed in the online and more um.. "engaging", rhetoric on this which no doubt paints a very compelling narrative.

The government's actions are much better explained by a sudden actual, panicked focus on actual development of the economy towards some combination of diversification and domestic demand - after the governing party's leader was replaced by arguably a much more results oriented PM after having been governed for a while by a much more vibes oriented PM.

Opening up the pipeline projects required more than just "conceding" to Alberta, it required negotiating with BC and the native tribes that would have a say in the path and ensuring they got the concessions they needed. Boring work. Not really meme material and doesn't make the headlines.

Between all the things the government has been doing - the oil sector work, the acceleration of military procurement, the various bilateral trade agreements, and work on easing internal trade restrictions, acceleration of internal projects - it's easy for some interest or another to cherry pick a particular set of events and use them to paint a narrative.

These narratives would be more compelling and maybe work better at other times, but the issue currently is that the American president is just so effective at drowning out any of these. There's nothing quite so unifying as an obnoxious tyrant rambling on about your country in disrespectful terms.

The commentary (mistakenly) assuming my nationality could probably have been left out of your response :)

reply
To me, it seems like you have a myopic view of the situation that is overweighting the importance of a political movement that has high salience for you, but fairly low salience for most of the electorate.
reply
I'm so tired of Albertan exceptionalists grabbing attention. They annoy their neighbours no end (including far too many Albertans I know).
reply
a loud minority in rural Alberta is not "the West"
reply
It's all relative. I'm sure you're right that Carney will lose some support because of this, but he'll also gain and solidify some other support. And he has lots of room to give. We haven't had leadership in the US as popular as the current Canadian leadership for over 15 years. Whereas the Trump administration's approval is so low that the only question is whether there is even any room lower to go.
reply
> Unfortunately, Canada (where I live) will feel way more pain from this than the US. I am not sure Trump will have respect for this at all, but the alternative was to put in a permanent trade deal that significant disadvantaged Canada.

It's unfortunate and in some ways unfair. I hope the Canadian economy will move towards more open trade partners and will proposer.

The thing that I really struggle to understand is what the grand vision behind this is. A logical consequence of the tariffs is that Canada, Europe and other American allies focus more on those who are willing to trade with them, including China.

If I put a 2/3y contract in place with an American supplier, there's a fair chance that I might have to deal with 10-50% tariffs at some point during the contract. This does make (long)-term business deals with the US risky.

reply
There is no grand vision. Trump has an irrational love of tariffs. He just likes them, they feel right to him. It is entirely that we have a presidential system with an executive that is capable of too much unilateral action, and we elected someone to that office who is unfit for it.
reply
Does the admin’s affinity for tariffs have anything to do with Lutnick? His “former” firm bought tariff credits from companies for pennies on the dollar - huge upside if you knew what was coming.
reply
Trumps been talking about tariffs since the 80's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEDVdSclDqg
reply
I'd say that's more effect than cause.
reply
I do think that Trump is irrationally attached to protectionism, but I also think that tariffs have at least 2 concrete benefits for him: 1) as a tool of economic coercion to achieve geopolitical ends, and 2) as a form of corruption to solicit de facto bribes in exchange for exemptions.
reply
When you are forbidden to expand taxation on the people with money, because "ideology" and your country is accruing debt at historic levels, tariffs are about the only revenue source that you have that won't make the oligarchs angry.
reply
I don't think this has anything to do with revenue or the national debt. They don't seem to care about that at all.
reply
Trump is one of oligarchs.
reply

  > The thing that I really struggle to understand is what the grand vision behind this is.
Religious zealots and the new barons want to go back to the Gilded age. If that means the house needs to burn down first, the house will burn down first. In the mean time, there is lots to gain from crises.

This is something so far removed from the way normal, constructive way people (have to) think and behave with each other as a prereq to participate in society that they will inevitably fail to see this parasitical dynamic, because there is no way they can relate to that from their own frames. Even when we learn about this we will instinctively dismiss it. It doesn't fit our frame of reference, so we decide this can't be true.

reply
Perhaps, but Canada will emerge stronger. The US doing to flip Congress by a margin of 2 and just lock in Trump insanity until something really bad pops.
reply
> it's the only thing that this US admin will respect in the long run

They don't respect anything. They stand for nothing. Their only concern is to pay lip service to Trump's crazy ideas.

reply
Trump's crazy ideas

s/Trump.*ideas/Line their own pockets/

For example, the first tariff wave was a huge transfer of wealth from citizens to corporations in the OBBBA. First, the income from tariffs was projected to offset the tax cuts for the rich and corporations. Then, when the Supreme Court found them unlawful, the money had to be returned. But first the corporations let consumers pay the tariffs by increasing product prices, but now it is the same companies who get the tariff refunds. And since they are obviously not going to give the money back to the customer, it lined their pockets.

reply
They stand for Project 2025 and the Maralago Accord, and the ideology behind them. So far they followed both projects quite closely. Trump is a tool they have to manage to reach their goals

Also, of course, extracting as much money from the state as possible

reply
Had to look up "Maralago Accord": https://marketwise.com/investing/what-is-the-mar-a-lago-acco...

Wow, a global Great Depression II really does look like it is in the cards.

reply
FWIW it’s what Vance has been hinting at multiple times in recent public statements, and what Bessents seems to be following
reply
Those people always assume like the US can do stuff in a vacuum. And they always underestimate how smart other economies will respond to the chaos. Most big economies are in a better position than the USA.
reply
As I’ve said from the beginning, just ask yourself: what would Putin want?

Every baffling, self destructive move Trump makes, basically always aligns to a long stated goal of Russia.

reply
Putin wanted Trump to decapitate the Iranian regime?

Let's be serious, that has nothing to do with the Canadian situation, which has more than enough going on without needing to imagine things.

Edit to add: the extent to which many of you will apparently blame anything and everything on Putin is extraordinary. Just because the sun shines on Putin as well does not mean he made it do so.

reply
But it has turned out positive for Russia. Not enough patriot rockets for Ukraine, sanctions against Russia lifted and higher oil prices.
reply
Clearly Putin is playing 4D chess /s. Having all the main export infrastructure blown up by Ukraine is also part of the plan.
reply
sure, but ukraine is not able to stop its own export infrastructure from being blown up, or defend itself from north korean missiles anymore.

europe and east asia whove been helping to fund and arm ukraine are also taking the real pressure from iran and the US halting energy exports from the gulf.

the oil price for high enough to where russia gets paid the same amount despite having most of its infrastructure blown up, vs having its infrastructure blown up and also the oil proce being low.

reply
Yes, it has that effect. It is just IMO unlikely that this was planned and steered by Putin. If he was that smart he either would not have started the war with Ukraine or would have won the war with Ukraine.

The war with Ukraine is currently doing huge damage to Russia. Maybe Putin wants to be more securely in charge of a diminished Russia. IMO again, I doubt that.

reply
Please read the discussion before you comment. Infrastructure damage is because of Ukraine's actions, not because of trump. We were discussing trump's actions benefiting Russia. Not saying it's on purpose, probably incompetence.
reply
The discussion is if Trump is Putins puppet or not. Seems like you agree with fidotron that is is just incompetence, so you should not have argued against him.
reply
Yes? The US is currently running out of oil. The strategic reserve has been drawn so low it is in danger of failing. The US economy is being propped up by an AI bubble, and the folks currently in charge of Iran are even more tied to Russia than the previous regime. And oh, by the way, when the US can’t draw down from the reserve any longer they’ll be forced to ease sanctions on Russian oil.
reply
the US is also daring canada to shut off the taps on the oil the US actually uses for its own gas
reply
We have fewer weapons to sell to Ukraine since we have expended a huge amount and are pulling a carrier out of Asia due to the debacle. I'm pretty sure Putin/Xi are happy to see us enter yet another Middle East quagmire.
reply
> Putin wanted Trump to decapitate the Iranian regime?

This is impractical. There is a hierarchy of thousands of Mullahs that ascend when you kill off one. There is no "head". It's a distributed hierarchy or hydra, rather than an effective dictatorship. ofc, Trump wanted to appease Bibi and Trump fired most of the advisors who object to his bad ideas, so it was a perfect storm for a global quagmire.

reply
I don't think you need to be so specific about it. It's more about the overall goal: weakening the United States as much as possible. And if that means embroiling them in a pointless war and wearing down their stockpiles... Well, you can see how that would be advantageous.
reply
Biden gets Russia and Ukraine stuck in a quagmire in Ukraine, so Putin retaliates by getting the U.S. and Iran stuck in a quagmire in the Middle East. Wars are won by the countries that stay out of them. The Russia-Afghanistan war played a very significant role in the downfall of the Soviet Union.

The irony is that China is the big winner from all of this, simply by staying above the fray and making trade deals with all the countries that more bellicose superpowers start fighting. When your adversary is making a mistake, let him.

reply
Putin got stuck in Ukraine, not sure what Biden did
reply
His strategy was to give Ukraine just enough weapons to prevent annihilation without giving them so many weapons that would allow them to win. Hence, quagmire. The weapon sales also came with conditions like not allowing them to strike deep within Russia itself, all of which prolongs the war without leading to a clear victor.
reply
But Russia and Putin can end the war at their earliest convenience. Your perspective discounts the agency of the aggressor, places all agency in weaponry (as opposed to the will of the defenders) and doesn't acknowledge that the Biden approach offered a continuous off-ramp that should have been taken. I'm not sure how allowing Russia to not suffer defeat means that they must continue their barbaric war against Ukraine.
reply
The Iran war is good for Russia. Regime "decapitation" does not harm Russia, oil going up is good for then. America being weakened and stuck there is good for then too.
reply
Putin wanted the US military presence in the middle east to be severely crippled, which it is now.

He would also want the munitions stockpile to be depleted, which it is now.

Though I do agree, not literally every move Trump does is on a string from Putin and the Iran war isn't one; it sure still is mighty convenient all the same to make the US military look weak and incompetent.

reply
I'm confused. Is he a Putin's puppet or Netanyahu's? He can't be both: these two don't align.
reply
> He can't be both: these two don't align.

They could be both pulling at the strings, often in different directions with varying success. It could even be tracked by the people going in and out of favor with the admin: MTG, Carlson, Gubbard riding high? Russia's pull is stronger. Them becoming pariahs reduced to criticizing the Iran war from the peanut gallery? Israel has taken over.

reply
My actual argument is that the theory that he's a puppet being pulled is not a serious one. Much like a chocolate for hunger, it's just an intellectually lazy explanation for people who look for intellectually lazy explanations.
reply
That's a valid theory.
reply
With each other maybe? In practice they are very aligned.
reply
They are only aligned in that certain parts of the western elites hate both of them.

They represent two completely opposite poles, geopolitically. Not horseshoe theory compatible: they are mutually exclusionary.

reply
Would Putin want Germany to cancel the shut down of its nuclear power plants as Trump urged it to. [1]

The Green Movement in Europe, which Trump opposes, was best thing to happen to Putin.

As far as I can see, where Trump goes wrong is the same place the social democrats go wrong: believing in economic fallacies. In Trump's case that would be the belief that tariffs are beneficial.

He also on rare occasion aligns with very socialist leaning politicians like Elizabeth Warren, like when he sought to prevent private equity from buying up housing — which totally misdiagnoses the cause of the housing shortage. But it's these economic fallacies that makes Trump popular for the same reason social democrats are popular. The vast majority of people don't understand economics.

[1] https://youtu.be/eKEycjREgPE

reply
The most ironic thing is that Chernobyl basically solidified that Europe would be dependent on Russia for the next 30 years.
reply
It’s curious how tariffs are always a bad move for the US, but always a good move for other countries.
reply