Exactly! Carney has traded unimportant things. A pawn if you like. Only economic morons would say it's Elbows down. The Canadian consumer Boycott of USA, not our retaliatory tariffs, has been doing the most damage to the US economy from our Canadian perspective. Witness the whining from US governors, trade people, senators, and one ignorant ambassador. We are being "nasty". Yes!
This latest move on the tariff chess board shows Carney's confidence in our ability to stay Elbows Up! where it really is making a difference; that the important "things" in this trade war are actually what every single intelligent patriotic Canadian and owner of this country is already doing: boycotting Made in USA goods, US companies, and travel to the US. Tariffs are taxes the consumer ends up paying anyway but if I don't buy a made in USA thing-a-ma-jig, then I do not get taxed, I support my own wallet, and I do nothing to support the U.S. economy. Win-Win in an otherwise losing game of tariff wars. Elbows Up! And stay nasty! ❤️🇨🇦
The analogy of the 3rd period press was effective to me. No games, no tricks, Carney is ready for the full press. He wouldn't say it if he didn't know that talks are there. Canadian businesses benefit from the the new arrangement. That's what matters. It's not about sticking anything to Trump. It's all about keeping our economy on its rails.
We have to assume that Trump wants to walk away from CUSMA at the first opportunity. There will be significant opposition (from businesses) in the US for doing so. Canada (and Mexico) need to make sure that there as few arguments as possible to scrap CUSMA and provide our allies in the US business world the best cards we can. This move helps with that.
We also need to realize that the US is going to tariff its citizens going forward. They want the revenues from this enormous tax on US business and citizens. There is no going back, even if the economy in the US craters. Normally tariffs are a temporary measure to address a particular trade issue. This is no longer the case, the tariffs have become the objective in the US, and have stopped being the means to achieve an objective a long time ago. In this environment it is probably better to let the US tax their people as much as they like.
Great analysis that nails something most people miss: hardly anyone actually knows how complex negotiations work.
When people think “negotiation,” they’re thinking about getting $500 off a car or maybe a few grand off a house. That’s basically it for most folks. But those consumer transactions are completely different from multilateral trade negotiations between countries. With a car, it’s simple - you want to pay less, they want more, you split the difference, shake hands, drive away.
International trade talks are a whole different beast. Half the “wins” are things Joe public never sees … keeping access you already had, avoiding disasters, maintaining room to maneuver later.
The tariff thing is textbook example of this. Carney’s job isn’t to “beat” Trump in some hollywood movie negotiation scene. It’s managing an impossible situation with someone totally unpredictable while protecting what actually matters for Canada’s economy. When you’re dealing with trump, for who diplomacy is weakness and changes his mind every day, it’s hard to use a best practices playbook. And best keep your cards close to your chest.
The Conservative attacks show they either don’t get this complexity or they’re betting Canadians don’t get it. Either way, it’s not serious thinking about how government actually works… it’s just political theater treating international relations like reality TV.
We're doing pretty OK considering the volatility. If Poilievre can keep being an intemperate crybaby then should be smooth sailing for the LPC as well.
I think it was a strategic move to give Trump a wee win. Those tarrifs were small potatoes and won't be missed. Items like vintage clothes for example. We should understand, though, that the significant tariffs and threats to softwood lumber, the automotive manufacturing business, steel etc. are still hugely detrimental to jobs and our economy. I have to assume Carney and his team have their eyes on the big picture, long term.
Not at any time did Carney say he would wage a trade war with the US, let alone the intent of waging one and winning it. Not at any time did Carney claim that he would stop the US from imposing tariffs on us. (Ask any other country in the world if they think they can accomplish that.) Sensible Canadians did not expect Carney to achieve "miracles"; they expected minimization of economic damage under oppressive and illegal tariffs, diversification of trade, and preserving our sovereignty as a country. And it is the latter - preserving our sovereignty - that gave rise to "Elbows Up", from the moment Mike Myers threw them in the air on Saturday Night Live. We have one elbow up for Trump; collectively, Canadians also need to have an elbow up for MapleMAGA.
I think an analysis here depends on how much of Carney’s mandate is to minimize the economic damage from the USA, and how much it’s to push back against American aggression. Those are related, but distinct things.
This was clearly and unarguably the correct move for minimizing our economic damage. However, if voters end up grading Carney’s performance based on pushing back against American aggression it might turn out to be a political misstep
Normally a tariff is put in place to provide a financial incentive to people to make a different economic choice (in the US, buy US instead of Canadian/European). In the end you do not want to collect the tariff, because people would have made a different choice.
Carney could easily make the argument that a tariff is not needed in Canada because Canadians already made the choice the buy Canadian and do not need an additional incentive.
It will be interesting to see what Carney will do if Trump demands Supply Management concessions. What happens to the Liberal coalition, especially in francophone areas such as Eastern Ontario where dairy is considered part of the identity?
Exactly! Carney has traded unimportant things. A pawn if you like. Only economic morons would say it's Elbows down. The Canadian consumer Boycott of USA, not our retaliatory tariffs, has been doing the most damage to the US economy from our Canadian perspective. Witness the whining from US governors, trade people, senators, and one ignorant ambassador. We are being "nasty". Yes!
This latest move on the tariff chess board shows Carney's confidence in our ability to stay Elbows Up! where it really is making a difference; that the important "things" in this trade war are actually what every single intelligent patriotic Canadian and owner of this country is already doing: boycotting Made in USA goods, US companies, and travel to the US. Tariffs are taxes the consumer ends up paying anyway but if I don't buy a made in USA thing-a-ma-jig, then I do not get taxed, I support my own wallet, and I do nothing to support the U.S. economy. Win-Win in an otherwise losing game of tariff wars. Elbows Up! And stay nasty! ❤️🇨🇦
The analogy of the 3rd period press was effective to me. No games, no tricks, Carney is ready for the full press. He wouldn't say it if he didn't know that talks are there. Canadian businesses benefit from the the new arrangement. That's what matters. It's not about sticking anything to Trump. It's all about keeping our economy on its rails.
We have to assume that Trump wants to walk away from CUSMA at the first opportunity. There will be significant opposition (from businesses) in the US for doing so. Canada (and Mexico) need to make sure that there as few arguments as possible to scrap CUSMA and provide our allies in the US business world the best cards we can. This move helps with that.
We also need to realize that the US is going to tariff its citizens going forward. They want the revenues from this enormous tax on US business and citizens. There is no going back, even if the economy in the US craters. Normally tariffs are a temporary measure to address a particular trade issue. This is no longer the case, the tariffs have become the objective in the US, and have stopped being the means to achieve an objective a long time ago. In this environment it is probably better to let the US tax their people as much as they like.
Great analysis that nails something most people miss: hardly anyone actually knows how complex negotiations work.
When people think “negotiation,” they’re thinking about getting $500 off a car or maybe a few grand off a house. That’s basically it for most folks. But those consumer transactions are completely different from multilateral trade negotiations between countries. With a car, it’s simple - you want to pay less, they want more, you split the difference, shake hands, drive away.
International trade talks are a whole different beast. Half the “wins” are things Joe public never sees … keeping access you already had, avoiding disasters, maintaining room to maneuver later.
The tariff thing is textbook example of this. Carney’s job isn’t to “beat” Trump in some hollywood movie negotiation scene. It’s managing an impossible situation with someone totally unpredictable while protecting what actually matters for Canada’s economy. When you’re dealing with trump, for who diplomacy is weakness and changes his mind every day, it’s hard to use a best practices playbook. And best keep your cards close to your chest.
The Conservative attacks show they either don’t get this complexity or they’re betting Canadians don’t get it. Either way, it’s not serious thinking about how government actually works… it’s just political theater treating international relations like reality TV.
One of your best columns.
We're doing pretty OK considering the volatility. If Poilievre can keep being an intemperate crybaby then should be smooth sailing for the LPC as well.
I think it was a strategic move to give Trump a wee win. Those tarrifs were small potatoes and won't be missed. Items like vintage clothes for example. We should understand, though, that the significant tariffs and threats to softwood lumber, the automotive manufacturing business, steel etc. are still hugely detrimental to jobs and our economy. I have to assume Carney and his team have their eyes on the big picture, long term.
Not at any time did Carney say he would wage a trade war with the US, let alone the intent of waging one and winning it. Not at any time did Carney claim that he would stop the US from imposing tariffs on us. (Ask any other country in the world if they think they can accomplish that.) Sensible Canadians did not expect Carney to achieve "miracles"; they expected minimization of economic damage under oppressive and illegal tariffs, diversification of trade, and preserving our sovereignty as a country. And it is the latter - preserving our sovereignty - that gave rise to "Elbows Up", from the moment Mike Myers threw them in the air on Saturday Night Live. We have one elbow up for Trump; collectively, Canadians also need to have an elbow up for MapleMAGA.
Fully agree with you.
I want to highlight this quote of yours: “The honest truth that’s worth reiterating is we are a small country dealing with a hegemon.”
Carney did say that our strengths (integration with U.S. both economically and for security and defence) have become our vulnerabilities.
You punch the bully in the face once, and then you start cleaning up your own mistakes.
Exactly!
I agree with everything you said- first time:)
A thank you for bringing reason to your comment. Agree 100 percent.
At least Carney has experience outside politics, as opposed to the opposition leader, who has no experience EXCEPT politics.
I think an analysis here depends on how much of Carney’s mandate is to minimize the economic damage from the USA, and how much it’s to push back against American aggression. Those are related, but distinct things.
This was clearly and unarguably the correct move for minimizing our economic damage. However, if voters end up grading Carney’s performance based on pushing back against American aggression it might turn out to be a political misstep
Normally a tariff is put in place to provide a financial incentive to people to make a different economic choice (in the US, buy US instead of Canadian/European). In the end you do not want to collect the tariff, because people would have made a different choice.
Carney could easily make the argument that a tariff is not needed in Canada because Canadians already made the choice the buy Canadian and do not need an additional incentive.
It will be interesting to see what Carney will do if Trump demands Supply Management concessions. What happens to the Liberal coalition, especially in francophone areas such as Eastern Ontario where dairy is considered part of the identity?
Not to be forgotten, these tariffs would have to be paid by Canadians. Axing the tax if you will.
https://open.substack.com/pub/rshaw72/p/head-on-a-swivel-canada-head-on-a?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=57wcxu