$USD=$1.46CADI don't get it....why?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
$USD=$1.46CADI don't get it....why?
we need the nominees in officeIndeed.... The only real explanation is that they have protection from DC to a certain extent.
Somehow you didn't grasp my initial post - which clearly shows that 8 European countries - amounting to the same population as the USA - have a 250% higher export volume then the USA. And these 8 face the same competitors and restrictions as the USA and also have far higher labor costs then the USA.Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact the most Asian countries do not have unions and higher labor costs. That's why for a number of decades up to and including today that it is cheaper to produce products that are no longer inferior to US stuff and export it to us. How else do you figure the demand for exported stuff over US stuff? It's cost, not quality.
And was victorious
Ummmmmmmmmmm, we still have a very high trade deficit. Democrats plan has alway been to pay a living wage to US workers while importing all kinds of items from other countries using slave labor and then defending that policy and attacking Trump for it.Fun Fact:
US Trade Exports have increased by 400% since 2000-2001. This seemingly exponential growth in our exports would seemingly suggest there would be no need for tariffs.
Trump is neglecting far more effective tools by which he could hammer Canada, China, Mexico, and the EU with. That increase over the past two and a half decades suggests tariffs aren't the best way to handle this. As someone has explained it to me, with far more knowledge on trade than I:
"The exponential revenue growth of our exports over that period of time outstrips the revenue we would gain by tariffs.
But now that we have implemented those tariffs, the US will see fewer imports, which will decrease US exports.
It would simply be better not to place tariffs on US exports at this point. The decrease in imports would likely trigger net job losses stateside."
In short, he said, "he should leave our imports/exports alone."
As for what more effective methods there are, I'll leave that up to you.
You miss the whole point of governance. Period, full stop.Given that they’re only there to stop the drugs, you’re on your own with immigration, as it should be. It's up to YOU to stop undesireables from getting in, not Mexico, Canada or anyone else.
Because unlike them, we are attempting to control what goes on within our borders. But to hear you say it, we have to regulate the problems of other governments too.Incidentally ever since Canada beefed up our border protection, we’ve kept a LOT of fentanyl and cocaine OUT of Canada. And guns.
You miss the whole point of governance. Period, full stop.
It is the responsibility of every government to control the behavior of their respective citizens.
You have ZERO clue how this works.
It's $78 billion. Relative to our output of exports, that's relatively small.Ummmmmmmmmmm, we still have a very high trade deficit.
So, why not even or a $78 million surplus? Why is that we always have to accept the short end of the rope?It's $78 billion. Relative to our output of exports, that's relatively small.
So, did you forget that governments have legal systems for a reason? To prevent criminal behavior? The job of a government is to provide a stable environment for its citizens to live in without restricting their basic freedoms. Mexico has its own immigration laws; we do, and Canada does. All basic acknowledgment that governments wish to regulate what goes on internally by controlling what comes in externally.No it is not. Who told you that bullshit? Oh yeah - Trump!
The job of government is to provide a stable platform, infrastructure, healthcare system, education and protection of personal and private property rights, so that the population is free to achieve their full potential.
Because the revenue from our exports easily outstrips any negative consequence of a trade deficit.So, why not even or a $78 million surplus? Why is that we always have to accept the short end of the rope?
The very concept of "law" means governments do control what the people do.It is not the responsibility of government to "control" anyone. The government is controlled by the people - not the other way around.
or notGiven that they’re only there to stop the drugs, you’re on your own with immigration, as it should be. It's up to YOU to stop undesireables from getting in, not Mexico, Canada or anyone else.
Incidentally ever since Canada beefed up our border protection, we’ve kept a LOT of fentanyl and cocaine OUT of Canada. And guns.
![]()
'Can't trust the numbers': Security concerns persist at Alberta-U.S. border as CBSA touts successes
One former Canada Border Services Agency officer suggests much more is flowing across the international boundary than is officially known.calgaryherald.com
![]()
Sarnia border officers capturing more illegal drugs and guns
Border seizures of certain illegal drugs at the Sarnia, Ont. Blue Water Bridge are trending upward. Since 2019, the amount of cocaine seized at the crossing has more than tripled.www.ctvnews.ca
I want to think these tariffs are serving some greater purpose other than simple retaliation.
No offense taken. Actual economists have very different views on how (and whether) tariffs work. They also worry whether there are unintended consequences from utilizing tariffs.I mean no offense, but I'm pretty sure a broad and general tariff on all imports would result in one hell of a bad depression. Tariffs raise prices, that is what they do. Big time inflation!
It was designed as being highly unrealistic precisely to help us figure out the pros and cons. It’s a hypothetical. It isn’t a recommendation.And IMHO your hypothetical is unrealistic.
I would imagine some of the bigger more powerful nations would absolutely retaliate. But my question doesn’t get that far. Even absent retaliation, my hypo was designed to ask whether tariffs are a good policy, even in the least complicated situation.Maybe not every country, but many countries gov't will retaliate against us.
The very concept of "law" means governments do control what the people do.
You can stop trying now. You failed.
No offense taken. Actual economists have very different views on how (and whether) tariffs work. They also worry whether there are unintended consequences from utilizing tariffs.
To be clear, if they can’t agree then I (not an economist) am not a likely source of the better policy.
It was designed as being highly unrealistic precisely to help us figure out the pros and cons. It’s a hypothetical. It isn’t a recommendation.
I would imagine some of the bigger more powerful nations would absolutely retaliate. But my question doesn’t get that far. Even absent retaliation, my hypo was designed to ask whether tariffs are a good policy, even in the least complicated situation.
Actual economists across-the-board have agreed that tariffs are inflationary and a bad idea.
Ever hear of the Marshall plan?I mean no offense, but I'm pretty sure a broad and general tariff on all imports would result in one hell of a bad depression. Tariffs raise prices, that is what they do. Big time inflation!
And IMHO your hypothetical is unrealistic. Maybe not every country, but many countries gov't will retaliate against us.