Riffing off my previous post about Trump (and us) being called a fascist over at “Lessons from the past about how to deal with American tariffs” I had ended it by admitting that I riled up the proprietor of Carbon Upfront!, Lloyd Alter over how Trump used the threat of a tariff against Canada and Mexico. And yes, I have to admit that I did kinda taunt Lloyd a bit. You see, while he is very knowledgeable about buildings, emissions, “greenery,” and embedded carbon usage of all types, he knows very little about politics. He also has a thin skin. So, I decided to riff off another American commenter (Lloyd is Canadian by choice).
I am really at a loss here as to why the U.S. would want to place a 25% tariff on goods and materials moving across the border between the United States and Canada and between the U.S. and Mexico. I keep hearing from different sources about how Canada, Mexico and the United States are allies. I have never known the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to cause such consternation as these tariffs appear to be causing.
Personally, as an American, I don’t want to pay more as a consumer for imported products and materials coming across the United States’ northern and southern borders. But isn’t that what’s effectively going to happen with these tariffs in place?
Unless there’s something I’m missing here, the only possible good that I can see coming as a result of these tariffs being imposed, is a lowering in emissions mucking up the common air that Canadians, Mexicans and Americans all share.
Yep, another person not understanding that Trump’s main skill, other than making his political opponents be on the 20% losing side of an issue, is that of being an astute business person who isn’t encumbered by the normal “politician/bureaucrat outlook.” Leverage/arbitrage isn’t just in his wheelhouse; it IS his wheelhouse.
So I filled in his “something’s missing here” – and that riled up Lloyd:
Summary: not enough people, as seen by Lloyd’s writing and the commenters here, understand that tariffs are not just about taxes against other countries’ products and services. It’s a tool that can be used in negotiations – and Trump used it to get what he thought was best for the US. Not everything, but enough.
It was a nudge and neither Trudeau and Sheinbaum didn’t “get it”…until they did. It was never about shutting out Canada and Mexico from the American marketplaces. It was always to get something else.
And for the record, both Trudeau and Sheinbaum understood that neither of their countries had any economic leverage against the US during the negotiations so threatening retaliatory tariffs were meaningless. However, Trump believed that it was necessary for both to act in their own self-interest that also served the US’s.
And no one here, I’m thinking, still understands. But then, again, most of you don’t play in the political realm at all. COJ1 [Conservative Commenter -Skip] got it, however.
And Lloyd made the premier mistake most people do when it comes to “allies” in this post Post-WWII-World Order. He decided to believe that “allies” are always allies and never the twain shall part. Status quo and all that rot even if geo-political events are turning everything upside down. It’s only because of Pax America that this period of time has lasted this long – and Alter doesn’t understand that a new Order is starting to reveal itself (maybe). Emphasis mine, reformatted:
You don’t beat your best partner over the head with a club and kick their entire economy into turmoil a a “negotiating” tool.
We have spent 40 years since Reagan integrating our economies and now nobody trusts anyone.
As Premier Doug Ford, a trump supporter said, “you stabbed me in the heart.”
I was not going to engage in comments [Note: he really should engage more often – he’d be a better debater if he did] but I have been in real estate development too and I know negotiations. I wouldn’t deal with people like this, I would rather leave money on the table.
I was not going to engage here but you guys take this all so lightly. “Just stop the drugs” but there are almost none and they are all carried by Americans. It is much bigger than that and the goalposts change every day.
So, a bit of a fisking by me was in order:
Lord Palmerston, a 19th-century British Prime Minister – “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
Translation: Every country should put ITS interests above any other country’s. Based on that, we can be friendly / frenemies with other countries but only when it suits our needs – and not theirs. Its a very important point that, because of Pax America, many have forgotten.
Your first problem is that you think that countries are always friends; reread that quote.
A nation should ALWAYS put their interests FIRST above other nations. Cooperate when there is a common interest but there are times when a “common interest” needs to be forged (or has been dissolved). Trump saw that a US self-interest / common interest need had to be forged – he got it. I’m also sure that both Trudeau and Sheinbaum got things “behind the scenes” as well to fulfill THEIR country’s self-interest as well.
The 25% tariffs were meant to get their attention – it certainly worked very well. Trump got what he wanted – beefed up border security by Canada and Mexico (although given that the cartels have better arms and more men that the Mexican govt has, and has highly corrupted it, what good will 10,000 soldiers be on our southern border, but it’s a start).
But Lloyd was having nothing to do with this – he blew his stack:
“I wouldn’t deal with people like this, I would rather leave money on the table.”.
I remember you once answered me that if a client wanted something THEIR way that you thought was wrong, you’d quit. That’s not a lot of negotiating.
His way or no way. He self-admits that he wasn’t a great architect. My reminding him that he’d quit instead of negotiating ANYTHING with a commissioning client (and their money) showed me he knows little about negotiating, either.
And he made the claim that I took this “lightly”? Again, it shows his determination that politics is not in his wheelhouse even as his “my ideas should be used to change the world” attitude REQUIRES at least some modicum of the field he needed to play in as an architect/developer. Perhaps that why he quit being both because, perhaps, he believes it is “beneath” him? Emphasis added again because SubStack comments won’t let you do much formatting (unless I haven’t discovered it yet):
Trust me, I don’t EVAH take politics lightly because I know how important it is (and most people don’t) and this post is ALL about politics. So are the negotiations that Trump starts and usually from starting points that most people, especially those used to only “just politics as normal”, have no idea how to respond or think about someone who comes at it from an entirely different orientation.
One only has to look at the rabid Democrat Class and how they are responding and you get the gist of what I mean.
You, and the others, responded exactly as I thought you would. MY first reaction to the tariffs against Canada and Mexico, however, was “I do wonder exactly what he wants but it isn’t about financially punishing either country – it is something else (and I was partially right)”. He just wanted to put in a bit of chaos, get attention knowing that both countries would be too blinkered to see his other possibilities, and then get what he wanted because the price of not negotiating was so high for them.
Trust me, when some locales (like mine) and small industries would bear some burden, the outsized different between the US economy and others, it would not be hurtful to ours as we have far more alternatives to switch to. When US Senator Schumer tried to shame me by shaking a Canadian beer and a Mexican avocado, I laughed as I don’t drink alcohol and I don’t eat guacamole.
The real target, btw, was China was the 10% and removal of “de minimus” [on the long standing dismissal of customs/importation fees on “lower value” products-think China’s Temu] exception if you’re not tracking.
So I decided to throw him another curve to see how hard he’d scratch his head:
So, I’ll ask – do you know what Trump wanted when he said that the US should take over Gaza? Another country has already bought into the idea of “the Riviera of the Red Sea”. It won’t be the last country in on this deal nor the last time and he’ll still get what he wants…do you know what that is, Lloyd?
It’s like Mexico and Canada now paying to guard our borders (just like he got Mexico to pay for “the wall” in his first term – just not in the manner that most that had too much tunnel vision to focus on.
…Oh, this too – do you understand what the end result of the “Riviera of the Red Sea” would be?
Yeah, not much head scratching done by Lloyd – kneejerk time:
I know that very well, I was working for a real estate developer in the 90s and built a condo in Jaffa, going every month to get rocks thrown at me by the Haredim (Orthodox Jews) who said I was building on an ancient cemetery. This will not end well.
I know also that in a world full of enemies, you don’t start by f***ing over your friends, which is what Trump is doing to Canada. Bad plan.
So I turned that around on him. BTW, the trade imbalance number were researched – I didn’t take Trump’s number directly:
“you don’t start by f***ing over your friends”
So what was the financial harm done to Canada, as you claim Trump has done by the threat of a tariff? Is it a financial harm to have the trade imbalance, to the tune of $65 to $100 billion, favoring Canada?
And Canada is only spending 1.37% GDP as a NATO “partner” – it isn’t even doing the old standard of 2% much less the 5% that is the newer standard. But it assumes that the US of A will protect it against a surging China as well as Russia over the Arctic?
Certainly, Trump was correct as Mexico has been allowing illegal aliens to traverse its nation to enter the US in not following our laws. Add to it, allowing its cartels (that have almost turned Mexico into a failed [narco]state to bring in illegal drugs. With that, isn’t that the case that Mexico was screwing over “its friend”?
In the end, no tariffs were enforced – I’d say there was no harm.
>> This will not end well.
So if you are not in favor of Trump’s opening gambit for Gaza, what is your solution? And how does that ever compare in context and proportionality in the religious politics (which Gaza/Israel is ALL about) to the Haredim?
So he’s got his knickers wadded up and in a knot – over NOTHING. The 25% tariff was announced, Trudeau called, they hammered out a deal that had NOTHING to do with taxes. and both sides stood down with no tariffs enforced. Trump got what he wanted – the Northern border more secure than what it was (and yes, my State of NH has been seeing an increase of incursions by illegal aliens lately) and Canada, in part is going to be paying for it with additional men and resources put on the border.
SideNote: I need to call the Eldest and see if anything is changing – he lives 5 minutes from a “main” border checkpoint with Canada.
And to be frank, his anecdote of being pelted by rocks by Jewish ultra-orthodox believers had nothing to do with “the Riviera of the Red Sea” – yet again, avoiding an answer. It’s as if he can’t play checkers or wargame anything out.
Yet, Trump’s opening move did get the response he wanted. Egypt announced that they would be interested in changing Gaza along side the US. Don’t know where this will go but when you compare his opening statement (“We will own it”) gets others laughing and others irate. In either case, however, he’s “jiggled” them to think outside the boxes they’ve put themselves into since 1946.
After all, if Egypt is controlling part of Gaza, it won’t be Hamas that will. And Egypt, outside of earning smuggler vigorish, does not want the Palestinians living in their territory as the Palestinians have been nothing but trouble wherever they go
And of course, nothing back from Lloyd.
As expected.
