Trade Wars and Tariffs

#327
#327
Orangeburst said:
sounds like hell of a plan..move away from oil and rely on CCP for electrification. Smart.
Click to expand...
yeah, the green angle of relying on outside, read far away, sources for our needs never made sense to me. really counterproductive.
 
#328
#328
BeardedVol said:
And yet it's still 1% of the total fentanyl trafficked into the united states. It's never going to be 0. Just like the human tracking is also never going to be 0 . Improvements on any of these issues can and should be accomplished without trying to beat the American consumer to death with increased costs for Canadian goods, and damaging the long-term relationship that we have with Canada.

Having a friendly nation that shares a 5,500 mile long border with us, and isn't inclined to work with enemy nations like China and Russia is worth more than far more than the ego of a president who doesn't even know who pays the tariffs that he wants to apply.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the point is ensuring it's not 10%, 20% or more than it is. If the rest of Western civ wants to be human/drug trafficking bazaars, that's their business, I guess.

There is no long-term damage potential, period. Canadians aren't stupid and know we're the security blanket that covers them; they know that we are NATO. They are not weighing any question of a choice between 'working with' Russia and China or the U.S., and never will. Relations will continue and if Poilievre is elected, I expect he and Trump will get along fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#329
#329
Vol8188 said:
Buffet is also a value investor. I couldn’t imagine he’d ever pay nearly 500x earnings. If anything he typically preaches against (his mentor Graham definitely did) new technology
Click to expand...
Value investing is only a part of what made Buffett wealthy.
 
#330
#330
OrangeTsar said:
But isn’t the refrain I hear CONSTANTLY repeated by liberals “if it saves just one life” 🙄
Click to expand...
That only applies if you are talking about defunding the cops; the exception being the FBI if they are going after Trump
 
#332
#332
NorthDallas40 said:
Lol just got a warning email from a supplier stating that due to the China tariffs they will be 100% passing any economic impacts directly thru to their customers. Any PO’s invoiced in the near future will include payment of any anticipated tariffs up front. LMAO 😂
Click to expand...
Opportunism will be rampant.
 
#334
#334
WebbCobb said:
What you describe is simply not true. No actions have been accelerated. On Saturday, Trump says there is nothing that can be done by Canada to avoid tariffs. Then, the market quivers and we agreed to about 13% more expenditure on the border and he agrees to delay illegal tariffs. That 13% is fairly trivial so you basically get what was already offered but by taking an approach that has shocked the market, and mobilized a country to avoid buying American products (about $430b exported Canada in 2022) or travel to the US (about $20b per year). So unnecessary
Click to expand...
Illegal tariffs?.

😂 OK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and kiddiedoc
#335
#335
NorthDallas40 said:
Lol just got a warning email from a supplier stating that due to the China tariffs they will be 100% passing any economic impacts directly thru to their customers. Any PO’s invoiced in the near future will include payment of any anticipated tariffs up front. LMAO 😂
Click to expand...
Been there and done that during Trump Admin 1.0.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#336
#336
BeardedVol said:
And yet it's still 1% of the total fentanyl trafficked into the united states. It's never going to be 0. Just like the human tracking is also never going to be 0 . Improvements on any of these issues can and should be accomplished without trying to beat the American consumer to death with increased costs for Canadian goods, and damaging the long-term relationship that we have with Canada.

Having a friendly nation that shares a 5,500 mile long border with us, and isn't inclined to work with enemy nations like China and Russia is worth more than far more than the ego of a president who doesn't even know who pays the tariffs that he wants to apply.
Click to expand...
For that to be true, you would have to know the total trafficked that was not seized from both borders.

43 pounds found along 5500 miles of one of the least monitored borders in the world. Wonder what was missed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and NCFisher
#337
#337
#338
#338
CobbVol said:
For that to be true, you would have to know the total trafficked that was not seized from both borders.

43 pounds found along 5500 miles of one of the least monitored borders in the world. Wonder what was missed.
Click to expand...
i posted articles from the CBC from years ago that even mentioned they are going global.
 
#341
#341
SpaceCoastVol said:
Illegal tariffs?.

😂 OK.
Click to expand...
Maybe not the right parlance but what I mean is that Congress has the authority under the US Constitution to set tariffs, not the President. Also, we have a trade deal in place (signed in Trump’s first term) that is supposed to dictates import/export conditions.
 
#342
#342
NCFisher said:
Yes, and the point is ensuring it's not 10%, 20% or more than it is. If the rest of Western civ wants to be human/drug trafficking bazaars, that's their business, I guess.

There is no long-term damage potential, period. Canadians aren't stupid and know we're the security blanket that covers them; they know that we are NATO. They are not weighing any question of a choice between 'working with' Russia and China or the U.S., and never will. Relations will continue and if Poilievre is elected, I expect he and Trump will get along fine.
Click to expand...

You do realize that it's American citizens that are selling, paying for, and consuming the narcotics that enter the country right?

There will never be a scenario where illegal drugs are imported, grown, manufactured and sold in the United States, as long as there is a market for them.

Starting a public trade war over the comparatively miniscule amount narcotics that cross the Canadian border into the US, is, and always will be a moronic course of action.
 
#343
#343
BeardedVol said:
You do realize that it's American citizens that are selling, paying for, and consuming the narcotics that enter the country right?

There will never be a scenario where illegal drugs are imported, grown, manufactured and sold in the United States, as long as there is a market for them.

Starting a public trade war over the comparatively miniscule amount narcotics that cross the Canadian border into the US, is, and always will be a moronic course of action.
Click to expand...
I do, and oppose it being a purchase option.
Okay; still oppose that being a purchasable option and favor limiting it.

I didn't notice a trade war with Canada was happening. Over a drug that a miniscule amount of 2mgs is a fatal dose. And let's stop omitting the human trafficking.

We know factually that cartel operations have increased there and with the emphasis on the MX border, is only likely to accelerate Canadian trafficking if that border is ignored. Again, what amount of drug & human trafficking is tolerable before hitting the go! button and not allow an area - that will much more difficult to control - become a more substantial problem?
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
#347
#347
NCFisher said:
Bad take and assuming blue font implied.
Click to expand...
50/50. I think fentanyl is horrible and we should find/destroy all we can. That said, I also agree (some) Americans want it and are going to get it however they can. We can spend tons of money to seize what's going to be a small amount at the northern border, which is good. But it's not going to solve America's fentanyl crisis. More will be produced here. The southern border is a way bigger deal.
 
#349
#349
gcbvol said:
50/50. I think fentanyl is horrible and we should find/destroy all we can. That said, I also agree (some) Americans want it and are going to get it however they can. We can spend tons of money to seize what's going to be a small amount at the northern border, which is good. But it's not going to solve America's fentanyl crisis. More will be produced here. The southern border is a way bigger deal.
Click to expand...
Sure; it (northern border security) doesn't have to solve the problem, but it's not a binary choice, we can walk and chew gum at the same time to prevent a growing trafficking problem along the northern border.

And again, lest this become too drug-centric, border security is national security. Whether for narcotics, human and sex trafficking, terrorism, get on the subsidy rolls, or just looking for a job, we should know who's coming in.
 
#350
#350
NCFisher said:
Sure; it (northern border security) doesn't have to solve the problem, but it's not a binary choice, we can walk and chew gum at the same time to prevent a growing trafficking problem along the northern border.

And again, lest this become too drug-centric, border security is national security. Whether for narcotics, human and sex trafficking, terrorism, get on the subsidy rolls, or just looking for a job, we should know who's coming in.
Click to expand...
Agreed. All I'm saying is the southern border is a way bigger deal than up north, which currently has better security.

Now, I will say if we can somehow make a real impact to the southern border, we better make sure we're watching all other avenues for entering. Water is where we're most challenged, I'd guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol423, NorthDallas40, LouderVol and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top