this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
465 points (96.6% liked)

World News

39912 readers
2530 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

In a virtual speech at the World Economic Forum, Trump suggested Canada could become a U.S. state to avoid his proposed tariffs on imports.

The remark elicited gasps from the audience.

Trump claimed the U.S. does not need Canadian lumber, energy, or vehicles, vastly overstating the trade deficit between the two nations.

He reiterated his intention to impose tariffs, potentially as high as 25%, on imports from Canada and Mexico starting February 1.

Economists warn such tariffs would raise prices for U.S. consumers.

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Even if Canada would merge with the US, surely it wouldn’t become a state. We all know the importance of the Senate at this point, and how the two-senators-per-state rule affects things. At the very least, each province would want to become a state to get more senators, and it may be in the best interest of some of the larger provinces like Ontario or Quebec to subdivide to gain even more, if they can get away with it. Goodness knows the idea of splitting California has been floated by some to try to get something closer to senator-per-capita parity.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago

We all know the importance of the Senate at this point

Trump does not understand how anything in the U.S. government works, you must know that.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Ummmm.. we'll take the tariffs. Some offense, Americans. (jk love you guys)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Idk, some offense maybe. Not super pleased about half the US voting for a guy threatening to invade us.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Reminder that Tariffs dont work as a threat to other nations.

The selling price is the same for the seller, they already give the lowest price they can profit from because the modern era allows international distributors to find a demand anywhere, the buyers are the ones paying the import tax for the same goods.

If you were selling and then the buyer had a tariff you wouldn't just agree to take less money as a result.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's not strictly true, they don't "pay the tariff" obviously but they do have to balance profit margin and lost sales. Tariffs are likely to decrease number of sales which does hurt their bottom line, the question then is if they just take a loss in sales, cut into their profit margins trying to lower the price to the US (very unlikely the margins are nearly enough for this to be viable let alone preferable) or increase prices further to offset the lower sales. Probably will be mostly the former with raw material type goods and mostly the latter with high end finished goods.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Right, that's what I was thinking. Surely it hurts the seller. But it also hurts the buyer, so it's like 🙄 well done, Trump...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Isn't the point to make the domestic customers choose products from other nations? Why wouldn't that be a threat to the nation that is selling?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

I think it's a "threat" but not a very good one.

There might be 3 brands of toothbrush available to buy in the US but maybe all of them are manufactured in China. If you just tariff everything from China then US consumers will just pay more because there's no incentive for manufacturers to absorb the tariff.

It's a threat to Chinese toothbrush manufacturers because it creates an incentive for other manufacturers to pop up elsewhere, maybe someone will start manufacturing toothbrushes in the US. These toothbrushes would be cheaper than the tariffed ones for consumers to buy, but obviously more expensive than toothbrushes used to be before the tariffs.

In summary, because consumers are unlikely to buy less toothbrushes, they just end up paying more.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah but it only really works if it's targeted. Threatening blanket tariffs on countries that represent 60% of all imports (EU, China, Mexico, Canada) takes a bit of the impact away, it's unlikely domestic production could handle all that. Even if it could, why wouldn't American companies raise their prices as much as they felt they now could?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Idk but Trump just tried to threaten Canada with them so clearly some Americans don't know.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Sorry, you lost me there.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

So a huge state with an overton window to the left of the US?

But why have only one state when we can have more!

Use gerrymandering tactics to pack all the conservatives in one state, then split the rest in a 60/40 ratio, and make them all winner take all.

magats will lose presidency and the senate forever

How do you like them apples?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 days ago

Don't even talk about the possibility. Don't even weigh it up. He needs to be told and shown very firmly that this will never happen.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 days ago

Over my dead body, eh you hoser, tabarnak!

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›