I hope this will shock Canada out of its self imposed economic slumber. They are an incredibly resource rich country (no doubt why Trump wants them as a 51st state). Apparently there was “no social license” (Trudeau) to develop such resources. I think Trump just gave them all the social license they need.Size of tariffs suggest this is intended as a sharp shock rather than planned to be sustained.
Sustained will cause recession in Canada.
If only we had a Trump thread.....
If only Trump wasn’t President of the world’s richest most powerful country thereby having an effect on numerous aspects of many people’s lives by his unpredictable policies that are designed with just one aim which is to personally enrich himself irrespective of the consequences.If only we had a Trump thread.....
In Canada’s case I dont think it’s about the border. Fentanyl and immigrants are tiny in comparison to Mexico. A drop in the ocean. Something else is afoot. He keeps harping on about annexing canada but I cant believe hes that dense that he thinks tariffs will achieve that aim either.They’re doing it in response to what they perceive to be their own self-interest, but I very much doubt that the fallout will actually be positive for them.
It will be genuinely interesting to see what triggers a reversal on this from Trump - I would imagine that any minor concession or action from Canada on border security issues will be heralded as a major win and a cause for lifting the tariffs.
Targeted tariffs to specific markets apply economic pressure. It helps prod the hurt along.A response could be to announce that unlike the American bully they will not harm their own citizens by putting on tariffs that would raise the cost of goods on their citizens.
Its better to let the bully harm his own citizens so he can feel big. To join him in his stupidity only makes the Mexican and Canadian counterparts doubly stupid, no?
Some tariffs are a good thing. The Canadian ones are fine apparently, as are the ones the European Union puts on things too.A response could be to announce that unlike the American bully they will not harm their own citizens by putting on tariffs that would raise the cost of goods on their citizens.
Its better to let the bully harm his own citizens so he can feel big. To join him in his stupidity only makes the Mexican and Canadian counterparts doubly stupid, no?
Fairly sure it’s about personal enrichment for Trump. He doesn’t care about a negative impact on the US or world economy. He’ll cash in on a stock market slump today then cash in again when it reverses following another statement from him in a few days.As I’ve said though I’m no economist, so I’m very interested to see where the logic in this(for Trump and Co. ) lies.
I am just worried for the Mexican and Canadian citizens. Tariffs don't work and this would really hurt them.
I cant believe their leaders knowing tariffs harm citizens are going ahead with the plan to put tariffs on goods.
You know how that would play out- it would be trudeaus fault for being woke.Don't you worry yourself about us Daxy, it will be painful, but we'll get through it.
As for the bold text, are you fuckin' serious???
Trump is a bully and there's only one way to deal with those and I'd be pissed if our beloved leader Prince Trudeau did anything less!!
In an ideal and total fantasy world, I'd like to see them shut off the supply of oil, timber and electricity that the US gets so cheap and then see how the bully reacts to that when his faithful MAGA peeps feel the effects of increased prices, lack of services, closures and job losses.
He knows he can get away with pretty much anything. He was elected on that basis.Totally illegal but he knows he can get away with it like he did last time.
Very good.Popped up this morning on bookface. I'm not an economist, but this guy appears to have his head screwed on:-
A cogent and elegantly simple explanation into the inexplicably destructive negotiating processes of the president, by Prof. David Honig of Indiana University.
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.
Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."
Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.
The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.
The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.
One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.
There isn't another Canada.
So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.
Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.
Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run.
For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.
Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.
From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”
— David Honig
Popped up this morning on bookface. I'm not an economist, but this guy appears to have his head screwed on:-
A cogent and elegantly simple explanation into the inexplicably destructive negotiating processes of the president, by Prof. David Honig of Indiana University.
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.
Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."
Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.
The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.
The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.
One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.
There isn't another Canada.
So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.
Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.
Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run.
For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.
Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.
From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”
— David Honig
Not saying you’re wrong, but I’d say it goes further and deeper than that. He thrives off creating disharmony and discontent. This is a core hallmark of the malign. They take succour from the unhappiness and fear of others. Disruption is absolutely part of that, but It’s not the driving motivation imo. It’s ancillary to the main event.Disruption is his calling card.
I like that view. Is it also true that he inherited his money and even his limited sector experience was not particularly successful in it.Not saying you’re wrong, but I’d say it goes further and deeper than that. He thrives off creating disharmony and discontent. This is a core hallmark of the malign. They take succour from the unhappiness and fear of others. Disruption is absolutely part of that, but It’s not the driving motivation imo. It’s ancillary to the main event.