Summary

Trump announced that 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico will take effect on February 1, though a decision on including oil remains pending.

He justified the move by citing undocumented migration, fentanyl trafficking, and trade deficits.

Trump also hinted at new tariffs on China.

Canada and Mexico plan retaliatory measures while seeking to address U.S. concerns.

If oil imports are taxed, it could raise costs for businesses and consumers, potentially contradicting Trump’s pledge to reduce living expenses.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    1 year ago

    If oil is excluded the truly boss move on Canada & Mexico’s part would just be to introduce a 25% export premium on those products while the tariffs are in effect.

  • Anamnesis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    1 year ago

    A friend of mine works for an electric semi truck company. The vast majority of their parts are manufactured in Canada and Mexico; they’re just assembled in the US. His mom voted for Trump and really wants him to move back to Ohio so he can have space and be close to family. He wanted to go back, too, and had a transfer and promotion within the company set up before the election. Now there’s a company-wide freeze and his transfer is gone. The company’s internal financial projections are not good.

    His mom refuses to recognize that she just voted for her son to stay in Seattle indefinitely, even though he wants to move back. She keeps thinking that any day now, the economy will be so booming that his company will be doing great. He can’t talk to her about it anymore.

  • kreskin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    1 year ago

    Its Americans trying to buy food who will be hit with a 25% tarriff, not Mexico. And Mexican farmers wont see a dime of that revenue, if anything they will see a decline in revenue as people stop buying the products. It all goes to the US treasury.

  • Steve Dice@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    Someone make this into that Gru meme:

    1. Slap a 25% tarrif on goods coming from your 3 biggest economic allies
    2. Economy will strengthen due to American consumers preferring American made alternatives
    3. There are no American made alternatives
    4. There are no American made alternatives
    • Snowclone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      WAY more. We import a lot of food from Mexico as is, and the immigration and ethnic clensing the Trump goverment is engaging in is already forcing farmers to watch their crops rot on the ground with no one to harvest them. So we’re following in the great tradition of Stalin and Pol Pot, we have a dumb fucking asshole with a hard on for ‘‘strong man tactics’’ demanding we change how we get food in many extreme ways immediately, you know, instead of gradual change, so we’ll all get to see what an artifical famine looks like! Do you think Trump will let other nations send us emergency rations so we won’t die? Or will he confiscate them at a dock or border and have them dumped into the ocean so he doesn’t look weak? North Korea knows.

    • mycelium underground@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can’t believe some people think that putting tariffs on a country means the country will just give the government 25% of everything and the merchants of that country are not just going to raise the prices to match the new expenses(or maybe even a little bit more since they have a good excuse to change prices).

      I guess I can stand to eat a bit less, we can call it the economic collapse of the US diet! Just think of all the profits from the diet books! To bad they are going to cost 30% more now that my Mexican publisher is paying a tarrif to bring the books into the US. That’s OK, spending more money on the book just means that you won’t be able to afford as much food, making the diet work even better!

      • tekato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can’t believe some people think that putting tariffs on a country means the country will just give the government 25% of everything and the merchants of that country are not just going to raise the prices to match the new expenses(or maybe even a little bit more since they have a good excuse to change prices)

        I’m not sure anyone believes that. The point of tariffs is that merchants will have to increase prices to keep the same profit, causing people to purchase less of the product and look for cheaper alternatives (those without tariffs).

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Many Americans thought the foreign country paid the tariffs, so forgive me if I disagree that my country is capable of that level of thought.

        • Snowclone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unfortunately, a lot of people are saying they think the county of origin pays the tariff and not the importer.

  • x00z@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just like the war on drugs, you’ll be able to buy black market tacos in alleys.

    • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It wouldn’t be so bad if we didn’t get fucked by proxy of America electing an old senile fascist.

      I am Canadian and I will feel Trump’s presidency for a while

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I love how old the orange asshole looks in the photos. Hopefully things just work out in our favor soon. It could be a permanent sleep or maybe a nice golf ball to the forehead or choked on a pretzel. I think we should probably place some …legal… Bets on how it all goes down? It shouldn’t that that long. I remember when my Grandma looked like that and we buried her a few months later.

      • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep, Vance is in a way more dangerous than Trump. Trump might throw wrenches in the fascists’ plans by either blurting them out proudly thinking it was his idea or by being too afraid of being unpopular (which he is obviously obsessed with) and taking back some of the changes due to public pressure. Vance on the other hand will be just a hand puppet for Putin and/or Musk.

    • Bosht@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Man have you seen him speak? I don’t know what concoction of drugs he is on or if he’s just showing his age but he’s definitely not the rager he was 5 years ago. Seems tired and much less coherant. Makes me optimistic he might be in mental decline more than I theorized previously. But if we go by the ‘asshole’ rule he’ll outlive most of the Senate just out of stubbornness and hatred. We definitely need a quick solution.

      • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Those were the days. We all wished for that pretzel to have been a little bigger, a little dryer. But somehow it didn’t work out. But, it could happen again! Lightning can strike twice in the same spot. Or lightning can strike in two or more spots separately non-dependently.

    • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      He doesn’t give a fuck about anything. It’s so tiring that people assume that he is rational and he cares.

  • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you are a non-Trump voter in a red state, especially if you work for the flagship company or industry in that state, I would like to apologize on behalf of all Canadians for what our government is about to do. We don’t want to do it but it is the only way to deal with a bully.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The way you increase productivity is via exports, not artificially increasing the cost of goods. A sin tax is when you want to stop people from doing things so you make it more expensive. If you want to increase American cement production, you subsidize production.
      Adding a tarrif to Canadian cement imports increases cost for imported cement, and encourages domestic producers to increase costs to match. If the competition just got 15% more expensive, there’s no reason for me to not raise my prices 14%.
      If the government comes in and says they’ll pay me $15/ton of cement I produce, that encourages me to produce more cement and lower the price to sell it. Now I’m producing more, and I need to hire another machine operator and the economy grows because the lowered cost of cement makes people more willing to do things that need cement.

      Tariffs are really only good for counteracting other countries subsidies. If Canada were paying manufacturers $20 a ton to produce cement, then applying a $20/ton tarrif makes the prices unbiased.

      It’s why our agricultural subsidies are viewed poorly by food scarce nations: we lower the overall market cost for food, and they can’t afford to subsidize their own production, and returning equilibrium on imports would starve people, so they’re trapped in a cycle of being dependent on imported subsidized food while living next to fallow farms.

      Canada and Mexico aren’t subsidizing their export industries, and a lot of what we’re trading is in things we can’t or don’t want to handle. You can’t increase American uranium production, off the top of my head.

      We had a position of trade strength, which meant that we could afford to import more than we produced because our intangibles were worth more, and what we exported was worth more. Import steel and export tractors. Now we’re saying we want to stop importing steel, making it harder to export tractors, so that we can bring back low paying dangerous jobs.

      If you want to see productivity grow trumps way, go get a job as a farmhand picking spinach. Because his policy is basically that we need less engineers and more farm hands.

        • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tariffs only makes thing more expensive for everyone.

          Let’s say you import steel at X$/ton and it cost Y$ locally where X < Y. You add a tariff T to make the imported steel on par with local steel.

          Local steel still is as expensive and any production that uses imported steel now cost more.

          Nothing went down in price, only up.

          Now, there is a discussion to be had about buying local, but the immediate effect is that things will cost more even if manufacturers switch to local steel because they pay more for the same quantity no matter what.

          This is a simplified version of the situation, but it explains the issue.

            • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Picking local versus imported has no effect whatsoever on the price of the transformed product.

              Business will find the source of primary resources that is the cheapest for their needs. Best case scenario, local is what’s used already and prices won’t change.

              Otherwise, the transformed product will cost more because either the businesses pay the new inflated price for imported resources or they switch to a local resources which is more expensive. Prices will raise no matter what.

              Guess which one we’ll see happening?

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Video game consoles are sold at a loss on occasion because the marginal cost of game sales is extremely high. There’s no associated product to pair with cement that would drive you to sell it at a loss.

          My point was that yes, it will drive people to local businesses, because they will be cheaper. Local businesses have no reason to keep their prices the same if the competition just got more expensive however.

          I’m glad you found my comment informative. I’d hate to think I was talking to someone who wanted to say their opinion and then got defensive if someone disagreed with them. It’s a sign of someone with at least a wrinkle or two that they’re open to discussing their thoughts.

          For more insight from people even more knowledgeable than me:

          https://www.businessinsider.com/what-are-tariffs

          https://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-trump-tariffs-immigration-deportation-grocery-prices-wealth-taxes-policy-2025-1

          https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-end-of-north-america

          https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So do either of those strategies apply to the manufacturing of physical goods as are being tarifed?

              Do you think that Ford is going to sell cars at a loss to make money on service contracts now that their costs are rising because some parts are fabricated in Detroit, assembled in Windsor, and then shipped back for installation in Flint? If it didn’t make sense to sell at a loss before, why would it make sense to do so now?

              Do you think that there’s money to be made on getting people hooked on buying wheat perks?

              We’re not talking videogame DLC, we’re talking about food, manufacturing materials, electrical power, and physical goods. The price of these things are going up, just like they went up with previous tariffs. This is a super easy case, because he did it to a lesser extent before, and it didn’t do what he’s saying it will. There’s no reason to believe that making the bad choice more vigorously will make it suddenly have a different outcome.

                • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Dude, go reread my first comment. I specifically mention tarrif as a counter to restore market balance after manipulation. These aren’t being used to counteract an anticompetitive subsidy. Raising prices to restore equilibrium and raising prices to disrupt it are very different things.

                  I know you want this to be something that works, but there’s a reason why reputable economists think this is just the worst idea.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the problem is that these tariffs are, for the most part, untargeted. They aren’t a “tax” on “specific imports”. They’re a blanket tax on all imports from many countries.