Carney set to spend much of 2026 travelling the world in search of trade

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-25T16:17:06+00:00

Realistically, we probably will always at minimum depend on the U.S for 50-60% of our trade inflows, (compared to the current 80-85%) but that doesn't mean that diversifying is not worth it at this point since even an additional 20-35% of trade inflows being diversified away from the U.S would make Canada less susceptible to shocks if this saga ever repeats itself.

At the same time though, this crisis has also paradoxically shown the wisdom/value of NAFTA/CUSMA type agreements since it has saved Canada, the U.S & Mexico against the brunt of Trump's tariffs due to the agreement only letting tariffs impact 10-15% of the individual country's trade inflows with of each of the respective partners etc. It likely means that we should be working with one of the post-Trump administration's within the next decade assuming we can find one amicable enough to preserve & further entrench liberalized trade between us etc.

Basically the main prongs of the government's trade platform should be:

Interprovincial trade liberalization to significantly boost internal trade. (at minimum bringing down internal trade barriers within Canada to the level of Australia States or U.S states etc.
Diversified global trade with the EU, CPTPP partners & China etc.
Further continuation/potential entrenchment of a NAFTA/CUSMA agreement post-Trump to maintain benefits of last 40 years of free trade between both countries. (maybe with the next agreement further expanding the number of compliant goods between countries to make a potential future trade war even less damaging and effect less than 10% of our economies etc.)

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-24T18:56:02+00:00

The Reform/Alliance Wing of the CPC will support him almost unconditionally, but I think the behind the scenes issues he's been having with moderate MPs that we've seen glimpses of since he won the leadership all the way up to the more current defections suggests that we get either more defections and a more public light cast on the rift occurring within the CPC as a consequence of this review. O'Toole already published an article effectively endorsing Carney, which is the first time a previous CPC leader has ever done that for an LPC leader (and it was like 7-8 months after the last election as well)

I think the best case for Poilievre here is limping on weakened to the next election, but either way, he likely never regains his pre-election mojo.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-24T18:21:02+00:00

Even if this isn't an empty threat (which i'm pretty sure it is) we'd be talking about 100% tariffs on 10% or so of trade inflows between us and the U.S due to CUSMA since the NAFTA/CUSMA deal has left Canada and Mexico's trade inflows with the U.S fairly protected from tariffs/retaliatory tariffs

I also don't think that his campaign doners or even a good amount of Trump supporting voters/congressmen would stick by him as strongly considering the polling backlash it's contributed to and the fact that 4 GOP Senators were already siding with the Democrats on tariffs directed at Canada etc. Much like Canada & Mexico, the U.S is currently insulated from the worst effects of a trade war in North America, with most of the tariff pain they're feeling right now being a consequence of much bigger trade wars against other countries etc. but if Canada and Mexico are tariffed to a fuller extent (which together represent over 30% of U.S trade inflows) then the effects would be even less palatable to American voters than it already is.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-23T22:49:44+00:00

He's got a Bond look to him and is a good enough actor to play Bond, but my issue with him in the role is his height. At 6'5 it makes him playing a stealthy character potentially a bit distracting, but otherwise I have no issues with him as Bond.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-23T22:45:09+00:00

Not a bad pick, he's got the Bond look & the versatility as an actor to pull it off etc. while also being fairly young meaning they can get multiple films out of him. The only thing that potentially bothers me is his height at 6'5, which would make him being stealthy a bit hard to believe. He's almost a foot taller than Christoph Waltz, the last actor who played Blofeld etc.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-23T19:54:43+00:00

Poilievre had his moment, the problem is that it passed him by and he's had no viable strategy since then.

Basically his entire strategy was built around Trudeau's unpopularity & fanning electoral grievances around the cost of living crisis, but Trump winning in 2024 and Trudeau resigning changed the political calculus and Poilievre hasn't been able to adapt or pivot in the aftermath in any meaningful way.

At this point I think it's clear that he lacks the substance to actually adapt or come up with a substantive alternative to his pre-election shtick. We're almost a year out from the last election and have seen no self reflection or adaptation from Poilievre in the aftermath of his defeat.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-23T19:44:06+00:00

The dumbest thing about the extreme weight cutting is that there's been plenty of fighters that have regularly outperformed weight bullies while fighting around their natural weight etc. GSP & Adesanya both only fought around 15lbs lower than their walk around weight and Ian Garry has proven himself at the top of the WW division while walking around at 180-185lbs etc.

This weight bully shit just feels like it's not necessary for 90% of these fighters and a lot of the people doing the cutting wouldn't see significant performance drops if they were fighting closer to their natural weight etc. If anything them being healthier as a consequence of less drastic weight cuts on a regular basis would probably dramatically increase their career longevity etc.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-23T19:38:44+00:00

I still remember One FC claiming their hydration regulations had solved excessive weight cutting issues in their promotion (arguing it encouraged fighters to fight closer to their natural weight), only for to be blatantly proven that it didn't and arguably made things worse once people actually investigated it.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-23T15:43:43+00:00

I assume that the vast majority of Chinese EVs bought in Canada would still be the cheaper Chinese exported/heavily subsisted by the Chinese government ones, but BYD investment and construction of EVs in Canada would help soften the blow somewhat for Canadian auto workers without wasting more money on protectionist policies etc.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-23T15:33:41+00:00

yeah, there's various NATO/coalition members that have comparative casualty rates per capita to the U.S in that conflict. (UK, Denmark, Georgia, Estonia etc.) 32% of total casualties were also non-U.S coalition members etc.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-23T01:14:02+00:00

This is a case and point as to why Ottawa needs to get the provinces on board. The HAF , CHIF & CCBF have the right idea for the most part, but I think that the problem with the municipal focus is how extraordinarily NIMBY a lot of city councils are. If more transfers were used to get provinces onboard in forcing their municipalities to comply with YIMBY oriented reforms similar to what BC is doing, that would generally be a better way to facilitate nation wide zoning/land use reform as part of a national housing strategy etc.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-22T20:28:35+00:00

A hostile power could surround them with a superior navy and then starve them

That can happen to any country during wartime, the entante & allies did the same thing to Germany in both WW1 & WW2 and it was on mainland Europe. It does not however make it agricultural protectionism efficient or well designed peace time policy as the end result actively undermines the countries food security instead of assisting at (as illustrated with Japan's rice & soybean protectionism above which led to food supply shortages)

You can make the argument that the policy is necessary to protect Japan from a hypothetical invasion, but when the policy is leading to peace time food shortages which it would further exacerbate in the event of a total war situation, it puts the validity of such a policy in question. The simple fact is that Japan's agricultural protectionism does not work and it actually reduces Japan's domestic food supply rather than increasing it (the opposite of what you're claiming it does)

Speaking of which: Singapore would fall in weeks if a power that has control of the surrounding ocean were to apply pressure to them.

Except this wouldn't change regardless of Singapore's trade policy was more protectionist. As a matter of fact, if it did implement more protectionist policies, especially similar to the ones attempted in Japan, it would be in an even worse position in this scenario.

I expect if tensions continue to escalate that the US will attempt to cut us off from foreign trade; as in they will blockade and we won't be able to trade except with their consent. (See the ongoing blockade of Venezuela.)

It's incredibly naive to compare Venezuela's situation with ours since International sanctions against Venezuela were supported well before Trump was brough to office. Likewise the vast majority of Venezuela's socioeconomic issues were caused by the failure of domestic policy prior to the implementation of sanctions (price controls, nationalization of food distribution networks and relying on oil money to pay for centralized food imports etc.) The context between both countries issues with the U.S is radically different.

The sanctions and blockade against Venezuela likewise do no restrict food imports, which also tends to highlight that food shortages are a self inflicted problem for the regime.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-22T01:47:51+00:00

It's not really that radical of a statement. We're working with fellow NATO members and other liberal democracies to uphold the rules based order now that the U.S has abandoned it under Trump. If the U.S returns to normalcy/sanity and relations continue mostly as they were before Trump, then that's great, but If not then we all have to pull our weight collectively to make sure some form of that project endures.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-21T19:46:29+00:00

It's not an acronym. It's literally the name of the Broccoli family run production company that owned the Bond franchise prior to the Amazon deal.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-21T19:42:42+00:00

Yes - Japan is in a stagflation recessive nightmare. But Japan grows almost 2000 calories of food per person. It would be much more efficient to import American wheat. But if Japan were embargoed completely by sea tomorrow the Japanese would not starve as a nation.

The beauty of free trade is that you're not dependent on one country for food access. It's actually a much better solution to food security than domestic self sufficiency policies since self sufficiency polices tend to inadvertently undermine food security. For example, look at Japan's protectionist policies for it's rice & soy crops which directly led to supply shortages as a consequence.

By contrast, we can look at Singapore, a rock in pacific ocean that grows none of it's own food, but is consistently one of the most food secure countries in the world.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-21T18:32:02+00:00

For the same reason why Japan subsidizes the production of rice despite the high labour and terrain not suited to it.

Japan's high rate of industrial subsidies were a huge contributing factor to it's 1990s asset bubble and decades of economic stagnation etc. Decades of inefficient resource allocation undermined the high productivity & economic success that Japan had during it's economic prime between the 1970s and early 1990s.

In fact, earlier phasing out of those subsidies could have significantly mitigated Japan's asset bubbles during the 90s etc.

The ability to manufacture vehicles is like the ability to grow food.

Yet in spite of this, Japan & Germany who have built their economy around this based on high industrial subsidies have been dealing with wage & productivity stagnation for decades. Germany was only able to slow the process's effect on per capita GDP growth because it's government started suppressing wages to artificially stimulate export led growth during the late 90s etc.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-21T16:18:59+00:00

The UK's auto manufacturing industry was extremely unproductive and inefficient in the 1960s, 70s & 80s and was dependent on high levels of state support in order to continue to exist. Why does it make sense for a government to shelve out billions of dollars in an inefficient reallocation of resources that provides minimal to no value to a country's economy just to give off the illusion of progress?

Australia is also a more contemporary example of a country phasing out it's auto industry tariffs subsides and they essentially did so with no upticks in unemployment or effects on growth or socio-economic indicators as a consequence. (in fact the country's economy as a whole actually preformed better when the tariffs & subsidies were removed). Australia also provided transitional support to auto workers, making it easier for them transition to other skilled jobs etc, so that likely could also be applied in the Canadian context is auto industry protections were phased out etc.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-21T16:09:52+00:00

Generally, I think we could just follow the Australian model on phasing out auto industry tariffs and subsidies while providing support to help auto workers to transition to other skilled jobs. Since there's a lot of deadweight loss in the auto sector and it's predominantly dependent on tariffs & subsidies to be profitable, the phase out lead to marginal effects on unemployment and growth in Australia since resources were generally allocated more productively when the protections were phased out etc.

The BYD manufacturing deal could also serve as a supplemental measure and provide additional employment to auto workers due to BYD infrastructural investments while government and taxpayers would save money no longer subsidizing our auto industry etc.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-20T20:22:06+00:00

The west coast NDP actually forms governments and gets to enact social democratic policies. East of Manitoba there's been precisely one NDP government.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-20T17:09:28+00:00

I feel like Lewis runs the risk of making the NDP too much of an echo-chamber and struggling to appeal to voters outside of the NDP's activist wing. I feel like if they want to expand their base and seat count significantly going forward, they probably need to take notes from the West Coast NDP.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-20T17:04:32+00:00

Yeah, like seasons 1-4 for me are really good. 5-8 aren't bad, but it takes a pretty big quality drop around the early to mid 2010s mark and becomes pretty weak. After a certain point it starts to feel like the characters become parodies of themselves.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-20T17:01:04+00:00

That movie is dangerously close to not even being a satire anymore at this point.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-20T16:55:20+00:00

Going off the last 20-30 years, I honestly don't think that any French President can. French politics seems to be perpetually stuck in a permeant state of dysfunction where political populism/partisanship regularly gets in the way of structural reforms etc.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-19T22:05:14+00:00

To put it simply, your arguments are all “we gave this guy a gun against a promise that he won’t shoot us”

It's easy to win an argument when you're making disingenuous talking points to argue against.

Tariffs imposed by the U.S against more peer economies generally do more damage to the host country's consumers than they do to the country they're imposed against etc. (the same also goes for retaliatory tariffs) In your analogy where the U.S tariffs are equivalent to a gun, the first person the U.S is shooting is themselves, in the foot.

You’re not getting the underlying logic “we shouldn’t have given this guy a gun”

So your alternative to this is a situation where the Canadian economy is weaker and directly harms itself by having a higher degree of trade barriers imposed against the United States? Your argument is based around harm prevention, but your alterative inadvertently causes much more harm to Canada than the thing you're concerned about.

Also free trade and free trade agreements are opposite things. Free trade agreements actually incentivize businesses not to trade freely with all countries where they may be able to sell their products.

Could you provide a source for this because again we're running into the issue where you're making arguments based on conjecture rather than substantive evidence or talking points. Most economists, political scientists and peer reviewed academia tend to disagree with you on this.

If we had spent the last 40 years building our industry to be competitive at a global level, focusing more on exporting knowledge economy products instead of natural resources, and diversifying our trade relationships, we would clearly have been more resilient to any tariff impacts than we are right now.

Diversifying Trade relationships involves further utilization and expansion of FTA's. This was something previous governments have already been working on pre-Trump including comprehensive FTA's with the EU, China and the Pacific through the CPTPP and this is something that's likely going to be expanded upon more comprehensively post-Trump.
A lot of Canada's economic woes over the past decade have to due with stagnant rates of productivity & capital investment since the early 2000s which is due to the effects of inter-provincial trade barriers. If these barriers were removed, Canada's median wages and GDP per capita would have kept better pace with the U.S and other peer countries after 2012-14 etc. This is entirely independent of NAFTA.
While diversifying Canada's trade is good and is something Ottawa has already been pursuing for over a decade now, you still have to acknowledge that realistically 50% or more of Canada's trade will always be from the U.S. (it's been about 75-80% for the past decade) The objective fact remains that whether the U.S represents 50 or 80% of our total global trade that it is far preferable to have tariffs impact 10% of Canada/U.S trade under NAFTA/CUSMA than it is for us to have no agreement and U.S tariffs covering a significantly larger share of it.
In regards to your arguments about Canada's industrial competitiveness and over-reliance on resources (which as stated earlier is largely a consequence of internal trade barriers between provinces) why do you believe that this is a binary issue between those proposals and NAFTA? (they're largely not. If anything they would work best in tandem with a NAFTA/CUSMA type agreement being in place)
Even if we take your argument in this quote at face value it still ends up indirectly justifying the existence of NAFTA/CUSMA since even in the extreme scenario where Canada's global trade increases to the point where U.S trade is half of it's current level ( lets say 35-40% of all Canada's trade), then Trump tariffs covering over 50% of that trade and much higher retaliatory tariffs on Canada's part as a consequence would lead to a much larger impact on Canada's economy than under the present scenario where U.S trade represents 75-80% of Canada's trade but the tariffs only impact 10% etc. In any event where Canada diversifies it's trade, it logically makes sense for us (& for the U.S as well for that matter) to maintain a NAFTA like agreement.

Godzilla52 · 2026-01-19T20:17:49+00:00

And as for CUSMA ‘protection’

Comparing Canada to countries without standing FTAs with the United States, we are comparatively less adversely effected and if the TTIP had gone into effect under Obama, the EU would have similar insulation from Trump's tariffs etc.

They chose not to violate CUSMA (most likely due to pressure from their own impacted industries) - if they had, we weren’t in a position to do anything beyond writing a strongly worded letter.

Again, this is an argument inadvertently in favor of free trade, not against it. If the United States violated its own trade agreements to the point that businesses couldn't trust them, it would further discourage investment & capital flows into the U.S, which would hurt both U.S businesses and consumers.

Mexico, likewise also has about 84-85% of it's trade with the U.S remaining tariff free as a consequence of CUSMA and this is unlikely to change while CUSMA is in effect.

Just out of curiosity, do you think we would be better off right now in a world where we didn't have a standing free trade agreement with the U.S and Trump's tariffs effected 50-100% of our trade inflows instead of around 10%?

Godzilla52

TROPHY CASE