Quote:

---

So overall you can't really say tariffs are cool unless you also say you are cool with rapid inflation. They are the same thing at a consumer level.

---

Price increases are not the same as inflation. Inflation is caused by printing money which results in price increases. Price increases from tariffs can disappear as rapidly as they appear when the loser of a trade war admits defeat. Inflation doesn't decrease rapidly and usually not at all because the money supply almost never decreases because government spending never decreases.

Poilevre I credit for at least being able to talk tough and sound credible, but he's got the wrong idea. Just drop your tariffs and shut down illegal drugs coming over to the US.

BREAKING:

Pierre Poilievre, Leader of Canada's Conservative Party:

“Trump stabbed America's best friend in the back. My message to the President is this: Canada will fight back”

🇺🇸🇨🇦 pic.twitter.com/19r7NBvvaC

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 4, 2025

Meanwhile, probably to be announced a few minutes after Trudeau shuffles out of office…

Lutnick said during an interview with Fox Business that Trump would likely look to meet Canada and Mexico in the middle with a focus on the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).https://t.co/zQJR3Mz3Sf

— The National Desk (@TND) March 5, 2025

DCAggie13y said:

---

I've been thinking about this question quite a bit and can't resolve it logically. If tariffs are always bad for the country that puts them in place, then why would any of these countries retaliate?

It seems their economies would thrive if they eliminated tariffs against us since that would make US imports cheaper in their country. So while US companies and consumers are paying higher prices, they do not need to inflict pain on their own society. So why are they all retaliating and harming their own economies in the process?

---

Because top economists have proven so, and studies have conclusively shown so.

VegasAg86 said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

If shooting people is bad, why should I shoot back if someone shoots at me?

---

Shooting yourself because someone else shot himself would be a much better analogy, based on the tariffs only hurt the country imposing them argument.

---

This is not a better analogy. Why would other countries impose tariffs that we know already exist against the US if it was always a net negative? They must be getting some benefit.

Quote:

---

Concerned moderates usually can't see past tomorrow. They'll support social security and then complain about deficit spending. They're the type of people that stand in the middle of the road and then are shocked when they get hit.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

Tariffs are not "always bad"

They are traditionally used when a nation is trying to encourage the growth of a certain industry domestically and discourage using foreign products as an alternative to help that domestic industry grow.

---

Wrong. They are ALWAYS bad for economy. The only people they are good for are politicians who pander to voters who do not understand economics.

infinity ag said:

---

DCAggie13y said:

---

I've been thinking about this question quite a bit and can't resolve it logically. If tariffs are always bad for the country that puts them in place, then why would any of these countries retaliate?

It seems their economies would thrive if they eliminated tariffs against us since that would make US imports cheaper in their country. So while US companies and consumers are paying higher prices, they do not need to inflict pain on their own society. So why are they all retaliating and harming their own economies in the process?

---

Because top economists have proven so, and studies have conclusively shown so.

---

So why don't any world leaders listen to top economists? Why are Canada, Mexico and China all making a poor economic decision?

twk said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

twk said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

twk said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok, so the simple answer is both trade and that Mexico-China-Canada take action against the gangs/fentanyl trade.

That seems…uncontroversial on its face as a demand.

---

Everyone in the US wants to shut down that trade, as do most people in Mexico and Canada. The real question is, does this tariff do much to advance that goal, because there certainly will be a cost. Time will tell.

---

It's got their populaces in a bit of a tizzy, to say nothing of their politicians. We will see, indeed. The Chinese have used fentanyl as some sort of latter-day revenge for the opium wars (an older piece) from what I have read/watched/heard, and really that is the party in interest that needs to be reckoned with.

If the Chinese shut it down…things change quickly.

---

Yes, Trump has managed to take the Liberals from down 26 in the polls to ahead by 2. It's certainly gotten people's attention, but not necessarily in a good way.

---

I don't care about their polls/elections. Their charlatans will either bend the knee or collapse their economy. Either way is fine. Had a conference call with a Canadian yesterday for work. Dude was straight up rattled. Made me laugh.

---

You don't care if Canada has a woke idiot like Trudeau, or someone willing to end all the green nonsense like Poilievre? That's some deep strategic thinking right there.

---

I'd much rather Canada have Poilevre but that's their choice in the end. If they want to commit suicide there is only so much you can do.

If they pursue that path their country will literally split and fall apart at some point because the only way the Liberals plan works there is for Alberta and Sakatchewan to have to follow policies that make their lives hell while simultaneously losing their freedoms and all of their money being sent East. In a country where a Province can secede with a simple majority vote that's not sustainable.

Right now a lot of what is happening in Canada and around the world is shock. They are unaccustomed to the US being so openly brash and making it clear that our priorities come first because we have the cards. They need our economy far more than we need theirs. They need our military protection. We need very little from anyone else and the few things we do need Trump is very focused on securing or developing here in the US. In every one of these negotiations Canada can find a few ways to cause some short term minor pain to us but we can absolutely devastate them. It's like one of those slapping competitions where you have a scrawny dude who slaps the guy who looks like a brick house and it barely moves his skin and then the big dude knocks the scrawny dude unconscious.

Canada simply cannot sustain a trade war with us. It's absolutely devastating to them as everything they do is so dependent on the US in order to prosper. They can certainly survive but they are not remotely self sustaining. Remember that Canada has an economy smaller than Texas.

Part of this is messaging too. Trump is going to make examples out of a few countries and humiliate them. That sends a message to others that they don't want to be next on the list and realize that it's a lot better not to poke the bear. Trump also will always offer an out and a way to be a friend rather than a foe. Trump has his flaws but anyone who can't see how well he handled trade and foreign policy the first time that now thinks by employing the same tactics on steroids this time will lead to disaster isn't paying attention. The bold moves and unconventional and sometimes unpredictable behavior is part of the plan and it works.

Timing matters.

I don't think that there is anyone who would argue that our problems with Mexico are ten times worse than whatever issues we have with Canada. That being the case, the smart play would have been to focus on Mexico for a couple of months, let the Canadians get a new government elected (that is going to to some things we want simply as a matter of principle), then deal with any issues we have with Canada. Now, the whole Canadian election is going to be about standing up to the US (instead of Trudeau's failures), and we're likely to end up with a Canadian government that digs in its heels.

I sometimes get the feeling that some folks are more interested in seeing Trump humiliate foreign leaders than getting actual results. The two do not always go hand in hand.

DCAggie13y said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

DCAggie13y said:

---

I've been thinking about this question quite a bit and can't resolve it logically. If tariffs are always bad for the country that puts them in place, then why would any of these countries retaliate?

It seems their economies would thrive if they eliminated tariffs against us since that would make US imports cheaper in their country. So while US companies and consumers are paying higher prices, they do not need to inflict pain on their own society. So why are they all retaliating and harming their own economies in the process?

---

Because top economists have proven so, and studies have conclusively shown so.

---

So why don't any world leaders listen to top economists? Why are Canada, Mexico and China all making a poor economic decision?

---

Because they use common sense and know that for every "top economist" who says one thing, there are 2 top economists who say the opposite. That is academia.

But our Boomers here care only for their personal portfolios, nation be damned. Long term be damned, it is all about short term. Hence the angst against tariffs even though they know it is reciprocal.

twk said:

---

Timing matters.

I don't think that there is anyone who would argue that our problems with Mexico are ten times worse than whatever issues we have with Canada. That being the case, the smart play would have been to focus on Mexico for a couple of months, let the Canadians get a new government elected (that is going to to some things we want simply as a matter of principle), then deal with any issues we have with Canada. Now, the whole Canadian election is going to be about standing up to the US (instead of Trudeau's failures), and we're likely to end up with a Canadian government that digs in its heels.

I sometimes get the feeling that some folks are more interested in seeing Trump humiliate foreign leaders than getting actual results. The two do not always go hand in hand.

---

Maybe, we will see. Both sides are agreeing though about standing up for Canada so eventually the question becomes who is likely to better deal with Trump and there is little question that Poilievre is better suited for that. Trump had to come with the tariffs now as well as a part of the larger strategy and in the end the pressure is on Canada to make those choices. Trump will always be a bull in a china shop as well, there are certainly ways he does things that are different from what I would prefer but I'm more than willing to give him some rope to work with and I'm not betting against him on trade.

Also, remember that Canada is a Parliamentary system and unless one party gets a simple majority any government they have can be dissolved and new elections called again and again. Look at what happened in Israel for a couple of years when they were trying to push Bibi out and you had one government after another fail in short order. Momentum swings much more rapidly in those systems.