Is the US going to Annex Canada? by force? or just destroy the Canadian Econ for fun

[liv2ski]

Lee, don't feel bad for us. Please kick us once we're down. Maybe then the dumb asses will get it.

[Trackhead]

If people want to read, here’s a good summary of import duties/tariffs Canada has imposed on imports from U.S., China, etc.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...81019d-eng.htm

[bennymac]

And the US normally has no tariffs on Canada?

[civilcoconut]

You would think the people making all the noise about how unfair the Canadians have been to the US as trade partners would have all of this compiled in one easy place to review. Weird.

Oh, I'm sorry, it's about fentanyl....

[Trackhead]

Seeking objective truth should be a goal in any discussion.

[riser4]

You would think the people making all the noise about how unfair the Canadians have been to the US as trade partners would have all of this compiled in one easy place to review. Weird.

Oh, I'm sorry, it's about fentanyl....

I think you answered your own question.

[LeeLau]

https://hts.usitc.gov/. Be aware. Big file

[Cono Este]

The Arab spring gave us untold death and war, we’re still paying for Obamas mistake.

Are we aiming to become Syrian type civil war?


This is ideological war that transcends borders now. Everybody around the world weighing In on american politics like it’s their own.

The fact canadiens are so angry proves they were overly reliant on us.

[Ted Striker]

Honest question: have you been diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder? Is it triggered by a change in ruling party?

[LeeLau]

Cono. Now you're descending into trolling

Multiple threats to annex a nation tends to cause that nation's citizenry (i) to react with distrust: (ii) to react with hostility. Would you not concede that to be a logical inference?

[skaredshtles]

Cono. Now you're descending into trolling Multiple threats to annex a nation tends to cause that nation's citizenry (i) to react with distrust: (ii) to react with hostility. Would you not concede that to be a logical inference?

I find it adorable that you are trying to engage Cono in a substantive discussion.

[Trackhead]

Open to discussion on following objective facts:

-Premiere Ford threatened to leave USMCA prematurely due to flood of Chinese auto parts into Mexico, hurting Canadian auto parts industry
-Canadas dairy tariffs rate quota have been under scrutiny since about 2000?
-dairy tariffs have been evaluated by third party ambassador/arbitrator, with 2/3 panelists thinking they weren't a violation of USMAC, the third party thought they were
-US won a prior dairy tariff dispute regarding USMCA
-Biden/Harris admin navigated this issue

-USMCA clearly has dispute resolution mechanisms in place.
-Canada has lost disputes, as has the United States.
-USMCA is up for renegotiation next year.

-US lost a dispute with Canada on timber with Canada regarding soft wood timber, this dispute has been ongoing for decades
-Canada interestingly owns a large number of US lumber mills, much due to lower labor costs and market diversification strategy
-In August 2024, under Biden, the US increased tariffs on Canadian lumber from 8% to 14%
-March 4, 2007 third party found Canada in violation of Soft Lumber Agreement in it's eastern, but not western timber industry due to subsidy by government
-Arbitrators again found Canada in violation an had Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec, and Saskatchewan pay additional 10% export charge

Tariff disputes have been ongoing for decades. Both the US and Canada have "violated" USMCA as determined by third party. Premiere Ford recently considered pulling out of USMAC due to Mexican violations.

In an effort to find objectivity, what am I missing in the current tariffs that has historical significance? It seems this shit has been ongoing for a very long time.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-off...y-restrictions
https://web.archive.org/web/20110721...51P86G20090227

[XXX-er]

The fact canadiens are so angry proves they were overly reliant on us.






Cono you are probably as stupid as trump you dumb fuck






2 billion a day in trade going both ways across the 49th it was a sybiotic relationship where everything from carparts to blueberries went back and forth across the border to the benefit of both countries or they would not trade






It was a good working agreement which took 6 months of negotiation which trump signed when he signed it it was the agreement which used to be the best agreement altho he may not actulay remember signing it





but now its the worst agreement so America is just gona take over Canada and claim its cuz of fentynal or whatever is on the go today and so what is really gona happen IS a covid like recession on both sides of the line and all over the world






but world is working on cuttting the USA out

[Trackhead]

Current US tariffs (prior to April 2nd) exempt items covered by USMCA, so not a violation of USMCA (yet)? Current tariffs account for $253 billion while exemptions in place.

https://taxfoundation.org/research/a...ffs-trade-war/

[XXX-er]

In an effort to find objectivity, what am I missing in the current tariffs that has historical significance? It seems this shit has been ongoing for a very long time.







it ebbs and flo's but ya decades lumber up here is on crown land wheras down there it is privately owned so lumber which is a commodity a truck load of 2x4 can be traded back and forth and even back again, back in the day my buddy bought a truck load in Coo's bay, shipped it to Williams lake where they produce assloads of lumber, shipped it back to Coos nay and tells me he made his 5%






I was cooking the mill manger a burger at a fucntion somewhere in the mid 2000's and i asked about a recent and probably short lived win on the tarrif file and he said quote oh yeah I don't even know why they bother to settle that I will tell what really screws us up is if the canadian dollar going up even 5 cents we are screwed quote





As oposed to the go big and try to fuck everybody over, the dairy and egg thing is supply managment so its 2 differnet systems, the small producer gets quota so the dairy farmer and egg farmers get a quota which provides stabilty to small farms , so I have a couple doz in my fridge cuz many small producers can weather an avian flu out break while 200 BIg producers can not






so I have a couple doz in my fridge and Canada has none to sell you, sure there is a huge tarrif on milk but only for the producer which goes over quota






so someone as stupid as Cono or trump would not understand any of this in any case this was all agreed to in a 6 month negotain which trump signed

[The AD]

PSA: "Canadien" is the French spelling. Typically "Canadian" is used by those writing in English.

[XXX-er]

not that it matters much but then it would be French Canadien so the real french don't really like to acknowledge the Quebecois and if they speak to a real french person the real french person will reply in hinglish




In any case 40 million people 20% speaking french all wanting universal HC/ Dental plan/ drugs plan, are you americans really ready to annex Canada ?





Maybe tonight watch the french version of Red Dawn

[LeeLau]

I find it adorable that you are trying to engage Cono in a substantive discussion.

He was a fellow finance dork. Not the only one who's lost their way so I feel sympathy.

If it helps, when I still do occasional work now when approaching negotiations with US counterparties most are now looking at tightening up force majeure insurrection type clauses. Also building in payment terms that are more front end loaded due to uncertainty. This is pretty SOP for dealing with parties in less stable regimes

[LeeLau]

Open to discussion on following objective facts:

-Premiere Ford threatened to leave USMCA prematurely due to flood of Chinese auto parts into Mexico, hurting Canadian auto parts industry
-Canadas dairy tariffs rate quota have been under scrutiny since about 2000?
-dairy tariffs have been evaluated by third party ambassador/arbitrator, with 2/3 panelists thinking they weren't a violation of USMAC, the third party thought they were
-US won a prior dairy tariff dispute regarding USMCA
-Biden/Harris admin navigated this issue

-USMCA clearly has dispute resolution mechanisms in place.
-Canada has lost disputes, as has the United States.
-USMCA is up for renegotiation next year.

-US lost a dispute with Canada on timber with Canada regarding soft wood timber, this dispute has been ongoing for decades
-Canada interestingly owns a large number of US lumber mills, much due to lower labor costs and market diversification strategy
-In August 2024, under Biden, the US increased tariffs on Canadian lumber from 8% to 14%
-March 4, 2007 third party found Canada in violation of Soft Lumber Agreement in it's eastern, but not western timber industry due to subsidy by government
-Arbitrators again found Canada in violation an had Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec, and Saskatchewan pay additional 10% export charge

Tariff disputes have been ongoing for decades. Both the US and Canada have "violated" USMCA as determined by third party. Premiere Ford recently considered pulling out of USMAC due to Mexican violations.

In an effort to find objectivity, what am I missing in the current tariffs that has historical significance? It seems this shit has been ongoing for a very long time.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-off...y-restrictions
https://web.archive.org/web/20110721...51P86G20090227

As you correctly point out there's always been disagreements. All have been handled under USMCA arbitration or dispute resolution processes.

Some sectors are outside the treaty and are under WTO rules.

The difference now is the threat to sidestep the treaties completely (hence my reference to breaching the USMCA. Also various subtreaties eg the Auto Pacts). Also the magnitude of the tariffs threatened is far larger.

The first round of tariffs announced then with drawn when Canada countervailed was a breach. The round of tariffs on Canada and MX auto parts and autos are almost likely a breach but nobody is sure as the Whitehouse EO was too general so it'll be up to the US Dept of Trade interpretation.

[DougW]

"Current US tariffs (prior to April 2nd) exempt items covered by USMCA, so not a violation of USMCA (yet)? Current tariffs account for $253 billion while exemptions in place.

Is that true? How about the steel and alum tariffs? those tariffs can't be inaccordance with NAFTA 2.0Though back in 2018 that same thing was done so you can say that the US doesn't just bend its trade agreements it routinely breaks them. So what is the point of having a trade agreement with the US? Unless you , Canada , intends on really bending it future as soon as can get mostly out from under America's boot.

[Trackhead]

So objectively, as of April 1, (per current knowledge/interpretation) a violation of a national treaty between Canada/US has not occurred.

I'm not a lawyers nor an expert, but I find the topic (interesting) and would rather discuss current truths versus emotions. At present we have 70 pages of mostly emotions and hysteria (justified), but it adds nothing to understanding the true threats.

[LeeLau]

"Current US tariffs (prior to April 2nd) exempt items covered by USMCA, so not a violation of USMCA (yet)? Current tariffs account for $253 billion while exemptions in place.

Is that true? How about the steel and alum tariffs? those tariffs can't be inaccordance with NAFTA 2.0Though back in 2018 that same thing was done so you can say that the US doesn't just bend its trade agreements it routinely breaks them. So what is the point of having a trade agreement with the US? Unless you , Canada , intends on really bending it future as soon as can get mostly out from under America's boot.

If (Big IF) you accept the Whitehouse argument that steel and aluminum tariffs were justified on "national security concerns" then there was no treaty violation.

It's impossible to tell though as the Whitehouse hasn't said what was the relevant "national security concerns".

So technically not a treaty breach.

[Trackhead]

DougW,

I'm not sure if steel/alum tariffs are exempt from USMCA or not. I put a question mark there to pose it as a question.

In terms of what's the point of a trade agreement? Well, Doug Ford gathered up all the Premiers and wanted to Trudeau to break USMCA and kick Mexico out, so nationalism comes into play. Even Trudeau mentioned "keeping all doors open" on the idea of a trilateral trade agreement. I don't blame them for wanting to do that to protect their own interests. It only seems logical.

[Cono Este]

Lee, for gods sake, who knows what he’ll say tomorrow. Why care? Def. Don’t trade off it.

[LeeLau]

Cono - maybe civil war! Or nuke Antarctica for the LOLz