That's basically it. The Chinese government views the rest of the world through Hobbesian self interest, but in the late 20th century financial way. They want your money, but lawfully.
The US has turned into something much more vindictive and unpredictable, including threatening to invade Canada.
>The US has turned into something much more vindictive and unpredictable, including threatening to invade Canada.
The thing about China is that they are basically hard on the up slope of their advancement as a society/economy/nation, just like US was post ww2.
US on the other hand, has flatlined to the point where we think stuff like trans athletes in sports are a drastic enough reason to elect a president who is a convicted Felon.
China is def gonna outpace US in the next 10 years as the strongest economy, but the interesting thing is gonna be is if they are gonna fall in the same trap as US does in 20 or 30 years.
The Chinese government’s territorial claims in the South China Sea show near-total disregard for international law. China has constructed heavily militarized artificial islands roughly 200 kilometers from the Philippine coast — and more than 1,000 kilometers from the Chinese mainland — in order to assert control over waters that, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and a binding 2016 ruling by an international arbitral tribunal, lie squarely within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone. China lost the case on the merits and simply rejected the ruling.
Hobbesian self-interest refers to the idea that human actions are primarily motivated by the desire for personal gain or advantage. This concept is central to Thomas Hobbes' political philosophy, where he argues that without a strong governing authority, individuals would act solely out of self-interest, leading to a chaotic and violent state of nature.
To me there is an even more important point than economics and geopolitics: the Chinese government is thinking about the long term sustainability of its population, and given how large it is it makes quite aligned with the rest of the world. Environment, health, education, science, etc. when comparing the trajectory and future plans of China and the US it is quite telling. Here are a few excerpts, guess if they come from Project 2025 or Xi Jinping 14 commitments:
- Adopting new science-based ideas for "innovative, coordinated, green, open and shared development".
- Improving people's livelihood and well-being is the primary goal of development
- Coexisting well with nature with "energy conservation and environmental protection" policies and "contribute to global ecological safety".
As an American I'm rooting for everyone else these days. Good for Canada. I hope the EU builds stronger trade with China too and America gets left in the cold to whither and die. Trump, Vance, Miller, Noem, Musk, Bezos all of them just forgotten about and completely irrelevant to the rest of the world.
I feel the same way about the US, but China is even worse. It’s basically what the US is becoming but still further down the road of authoritarianism. So I’m not rooting for it. EU, Canada, Japan etc are a better allay this point.
You realize there are a lot people (who aren't in the administration and didn't vote for them) that would be significantly hurt if all that happened. These people are your family, your friends, your neighbors, your coworkers. You hate Trump so much that you'd prefer to see all those people suffer than have him succeed?
I strongly disagree with most of what Trump says and does, but I can't root for an outcome that would make my kids' quality of life be much worse. I'd much rather see us right the ship.
China hasn't dropped bombs on foreign soil in over 40 years. The US killed a million Iraqis not that long ago.
I think this "China evil" framing is a smear, like how Republican conspiracy theories used to say Democrats are pedophiles. Guess where the real pedophiles were hanging out the whole time.
And the only thing that stopped in Xinjiang is the news coverage and press access.
I find it deeply ironic that for some, the vibes have shifted towards "hey maybe the CCP isn't all that bad" just because...what, the solar buildouts make them look more competent and long-sighted compared to your local upstart authoritarian party? Such is the nature of vibes, I suppose.
> The US killed a million Iraqis not that long ago.
There are an estimated 1 million Uyghurs in concentration camps currently [1], but you are correct - neither that, nor the invasion of Tibet, nor whatever process they used to turn a diverse part of a continent into a Han ethnostate [2], or block the NYTimes app from their phones, involved dropping bombs on foreign soil.
I'm really into geopolitics, and it's clear to see what's happening from the US side.
America still wants to play hegemon, but since Bretton Woods 2.0 didn't happen, they're going to lock up the entire North and South American continents from Chinese and Russian influence. And it'll be fierce.
The next salvo is going to be US statehood for Alberta and Saskatchewan. There is already partisan support within those provinces, and Trump is going to offer money to push it. If that happens, Yukon and the Northwest Territories are next.
(Side note: these are Republican voters, which gives Republicans the Senate for years to come.)
Venezuela wasn't about drugs or oil, it was about China. And it wasn't Trump's thing, it was the career DoD folks. (Venezuela is within medium-range missile range of 50% of US oil refineries. The US doesn't want foreign basing there or in Cuba.)
The DoD is pushing Greenland too as it'll be a centerpiece of Arctic shipping in the coming century. And Cuba, as it's both extremely close to CONUS and a choke point for the gulf.
You can see the plays happening if you watch. The Chinese-owned Panama Ports Company being forcibly sold to BlackRock, the increasing trade and diplomatic ties between China and South American countries, etc.
My bet is that a Democratic president would continue this policy, just with less rudeness and more "cooperation". The Department of Defense -- apolitically -- doesn't want China to have the US within arms reach.
Trump is going to try to speed run it, though.
---
edit: downvotes rate limit my account, so I can't respond.
> I would love to hear how you think Trump will manage to get Alberta and Saskatchewan to become US states within this century.
It's going to nucleate from within Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Are you an American? Because this feels like a very US-centric view. I know you're not advocating for this, but it feels like the predictions you've set out for Canada are hitting this intrinsic bias that people who are really into geopolitics always have - they always think about the world as a fully-informed chess game where everyone always makes optimal moves, and they're biased towards predicting sweeping world-changing events that rarely happen due to a multitude of issues. The few major events that do happen often end up unraveling in completely different ways than the internet had predicted.
The Albertan separatism thing is largely drummed-up due to American aggression towards Canada, it slots right into the news cycle alongside threats of annexation that Canada was getting not that long ago. That being said, even in a province as conservative as Alberta, it remains a fringe view, even though some politicians are now willing to say the quiet part out loud. Consider how hard Quebec had tried to secede on multiple occasions, and yet despite having a far stronger case and far more supporters, still failed every time. Talking about Saskatchewan is just trying to lump them in with the Albertans, where in reality that group is even more niche.
But then talking about Yukon and the Northwest Territories just makes this look like enthusiastic map-painting. The reality is, both of these places are overwhelmingly indigenous, and they'd have no reason to ever want to not be part of Canada. Also, they're both territories, which in many ways means they're ruled directly by the federal government, a.k.a. you won't be getting those short of a military invasion or completely ruining the rest of the country to the point where they can just cut it all up.
I kinda agree with you. The US policy won't change much. It is a set policy but not very well executed, simply because such a policy is not in the interest of existing power base, so someone new but crude has to be elected, and that's why he got elected not once, but TWICE.
My understanding is that US is going to shrink back a bit, takes care of its neighbours first, but keep its probing bases intact, so that it can slash some costs and be more flexible in next decades. China is going to reluctantly expand its power base gradually -- but I think it's going to be a slow expansion because any rapid one would either fail, or create a new power group within China, that may threaten the existing players.
Not sure about EU though, it better gear up quickly.
It's not bad analysis, I upvoted you, but what you're forgetting is that nothing ever happens. Venezuela was just typical American meddling, Cuba might happen (I'd bet against it) but neither the Canada nor Greenland thing is going to happen because it would be too dramatic for narrative continuity.
>There is already partisan support within those provinces, and Trump is going to offer money to push it. If that happens, Yukon and the Northwest Territories are next. (Side note: these are Republican voters, which gives Republicans the Senate for years to come.)
Disagree.
1. If any Canadian province becomes an American state (with electoral votes), the Republicans won't win an election for the next 100 years. Even if it's Alberta.
2. Alberta likely won't secede unless they get full statehood. Nobody wants to be another Puerto Rico.
3. I think if you did a referendum in Alberta today (even with full US statehood on offer), the votes to secede would number over 10%.
Remember, Quebec in 1995: 50.58% voted to stay, with a turnout of 93.52%. And they were all but ready to leave to the point of engaging in IRA-style terrorism.
Also, the famous failure of Brexit all but precludes any such referendums from getting serious wind in our lifetimes.
I think it's not majorly the DoD's push though (they aren't all that powerful, they are grifters), there are stronger geo-financial interests behind this.
I agree with your assessment. But I think the leaders pulling these strings are not fully appreciating the costs of this security.
Controlling all of these foreign lands is pointless if the country collapses then Balkanizes. The past decade has brought so many events that nobody thought could ever happen that we need to be rearrange our beliefs. It's very possible that those of us around in 10 years will see this time period as being part of the Second American Civil war.
The only thing keeping people almost pacified is the economy is not total dogshit yet. But that's tenuous at best.
There's going to be a post-trump power vacuum. It will likely be much more bloody than our current situation.
> The next salvo is going to be US statehood for Alberta and Saskatchewan. There is already partisan support within those provinces, and Trump is going to offer money to push it.
The polling puts it at 20% support and 80% opposed. This is not going to happen. As a Canadian who was born in Alberta and has lived in Alberta all my life, I will be remaining in Canada.
There is some small amount partisan support but not public support, massive difference. It might cost them the next election.
They aren't republican voters - there is sizable difference between the Canadian right and the US right. I think many Americans make this mistake (and Canadians too) - the republican positions on many things aren't that tenable to center of right (Canadian spectrum).
Also - There aren't many more things that are more toxic in Canada politics than Trump and Annexation. He single handedly handed the Federal election to the Liberals - it was the Conservatives who were going to win until he but his thumb on the scale.
Well, I downvoted because I think your views are ill-informed and stupid, not because I think you're advocating for this. You fundamentally don't understand Trump and his ilk - he's petty, vindictive, vain, greedy and a bully. Everything runs on narrative and personal dealings, NOT any sort of rational goals or strategy. Ascribing these things to him is like pretending my cat is scheming about something when it jumps on a window. No bud, they're much simpler creatures.
Venezuela happened because it makes him look good on TV, that's it. There's no grand strategizing, it's a petty, vain person doing shitty things to make himself look great. He believes he is entitled to rule as an absolute monarch and acquiring territory (Greenland, Canada, etc) is just a way for himself to make himself more grand. Sorry, no grand strategy there either. I'll go further and say that part of what makes him so successful is that there's a large contingent of people that can't see him as he is and instead engage in this strategy larp like your various theories.
"Canada recorded 45,366 new zero-emission vehicle registrations in Q3 2025, accounting for 9.4 per cent of all new vehicle registrations in the quarter, according to the latest report from Statistics Canada."
"Of the total, 26,792 units were battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), while 18,574 were plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). "
So this would represent about 1/4 of current annual EV sales.
It’s a complete sea change. I feel Canada only set tariffs on cars out of some deference to the US auto industry. I don’t want to use slippery slope thinking, but this to me smells like rolling out a Canadian auto market that is not dependent on the US.
For the average family, being able to spend significantly less on a car is a big deal.
It’s just the beginning is my guess. If BYD or CATL commits to a factory /assembly in Canada I would expect limits to be raised on this as progress is made. Or if this goes well we could see limits raised as China drops Canadian product tariffs further.
If you're selling 49000 electric vehicles, and the tariff reduced from $CAN 50k (estimated cost of a new electric vehicle; 100% tariff tax) to 3k (6%), saving your customers $2.3B, that seems significant to me?
I'm only trying to give a feel for them numbers, I did check the average selling price for a new BYD
As an outsider (EU citizen), the message it sends is that they’re willing to negotiate more with China, on a product that would hurt Tesla sales. No, it won’t move the global needle, but the warmer positioning towards China is interesting.
The thing I am wondering is if there was an unwritten agreement to build Chinese BEV plants in Canada. This would give China access to the US market without tariffs and would give Canada manufacturing jobs.
Shitty napkin math says china is saving about $1-$1.5B, so I agree, I'm not seeing the needle more here. What _does_ make sense is that this agreement will continue to evolve over time. What _doesn't_ make sense is the 10-40% battery capacity loss because of temperature, for EVs in canada. I think newer EVs manage temperature issues like this better than older models, but I am unfamiliar with chinese EVs so I can't speak to them.
Good. Carney also remarked our relationship with China is now more predictable with our relationship with the states (wild shade coming from him) just to really make it clear to certain parties why this is happening.
Cheaper car options in this country will be nice, and I say this as a certified car hater who's yet to own one despite pushing 40.
Who wants to be a trade partner with the US these days? I honestly ask people who aren't fully indoctrinated or already have ties established?
Its a dependency that I have to think almost all countries/businesses are evaluating. How do you do business and set up long term supply chains in a country can't trust that the economic policy of today exists in 3 months, they are actively trying to undermine their currency and the system of law is under heavy pressure to the point of failure.
It is tough to be supportive of the United States under this administration or that the future state of the US will be more sound. Having their formally closest trade partner looking over to China for trade is a massive signal.
The trade off is the market is large and strong financial (availability of capital) foundation - but I fear thats changing.
I think the niche for EV's in Canada will be regional-ish transportation... I would love to see a network of chargers that fully cover the Trans-Canada Highway, but there are still some pretty significant gaps, for example Hwy 17 - If even one of the stations goes down you'd be stranded.
But in that niche I can really see cheap EVs taking off. I know several people who live in Toronto whose cars have never been more than ~80 KM from home, and rarely been over 100 KM/h. That's a perfect EV user.
And a huge plus would be to get rid of the monster American trucks & SUVs that take four parking spots and two lanes at a time...
As a Torontonian that last part is honestly what I'm most excited about. Massive American cars simply do not belong in most of our streets in this city, and if this starts the long process of getting them out that's going to be amazing. I've seen Cybertrucks zooming down streets that are about a Cybertruck and a half wide and it's an untenable situation.
I bought my first car in SF, a 2016 Spark EV. Tiny subcompact, 135 km range, perfect for our family of 4 (including dog + daughter).
I literally can't buy any subcompact car these days in USA or Canada, since Spark (petrol) was discontinued in 2022, Prius C (subcompact hybrid) discontinued, and Bolt EV (bigger but still small) discontinued and will be replaced with something even bigger.
Looking forward to inexpensive BYD Seagulls flooding Canada and hopefully encouraging dealers to bring in existing subcompacts that they sell everywhere else in the world.
Try to gas up at night in Saskatchewan without a coop card. Had to pitch my tent next to someone's field and gas up in the morning after being unable to prepay at 3 gas stations. In a similar situation with an EV I would've knocked at doors in the morning and politely asked to charge on one of their outlets. I bet I would've been offered breakfast and made friends while my vehicle slowly charged.
A bit of nuance: yes, Carney said that but he didn't just offer up the opinion unprompted - it was in response to a direct press question about if China or the US is a more predictable partner right now.
And even then, he didn't lead with "China is!" but wandered his way into offering the assessment.
The context makes his comment on this seem less nakedly provocative (not that it'll matter either way - the headline will be the headline, and the Trump admin will use it however they see fit as usual).
You do realize that this will impact the car industry and jobs in Canada, right? Even a not-so-good deal with the usa would be much better that this overall!
I mean Canada's largest trading partner is the US, which also has many examples of large scale human right abuses.
As a Canadian, it's not really relevant to me that a country we trade with isn't liberal, and I don't agree with the premise that China is inheriently anti-west. Anti-western values, yes, but China does not threaten west violently in anyway that I can see. They mostly threaten western dominance economically.
IMO, Canada should just do what's best for its citizen, which is get good trade deals, and ensure that our values don't morph into something unrecognizable. What other countries do in their own borders is largely irrelevant.
China doesn't do friends - thats for sure. However if you have a transactional trade relationship with clear boundaries that don't get undermined due to random temperaments you can build on that. The other is impossible to build on - especially threatening to own the country.
The idea that any country does 'friends' is, frankly, incredibly naive. Besides, Carney doesn't want to be friends with China, he wants to open up the market between the two countries. Of course, everyone here was better off when the trade flows crossed the natural north/south border, but this dependence created a weakness in a situation where our neighbourly hegemon decided to not be so neighbourly anymore. Turns out we weren't friends either.
Between the US and China, one is right now making active threats to invade and annex Canada, the other is not. "Who should we forge ties with" seems pretty obvious.
Geopolitical / economic activity doesn't happen on the basis of friendship.
The US has exploited Canada for decades. Sometimes it's been somewhat beneficial for some part of the Canadian working class. Other times not.
China will do the same. Just from a further distance.
Americans who like to convince themselves that the US has been doing charity work for us are delusional. They've benefited from discounted resources and cheap labour.
Now China will benefit from that instead, and the US will look internally for cheap labour of its own. American workers who think they'll get a good deal out of cutting Canada out of the equation... again, delusional. Their necks are first on the chopping block. First through paying more at the cash register because of tariffs, and next because the Trump admin will be coming after their salaries next.
The US government has really handled this poorly. Let's take one of our closest allies and push them into the arms of our biggest rival. All while helping boost that rival's total exports to record numbers. And boosting their universities to top positions in world rankings. Just brilliant, guys. "Make America Great Again" sure seems like it was intentionally tongue-in-cheek.
US has thrived economically for 5 decades after becoming an import economy.
This whole export/import balance is such a lame reasoning...yes you've spent a certain amount of $...and got plenty of stuff in exchange. In the words of some economist I've read "by Trump's reasoning my barber is also taking advantage of me because I cut my hair every month and he never buys anything from me".
Last but not least, services are never included in these trade balance arguments. How much money flows to US through their financial and IT services alone...?
The trade balance as a number shouldn't matter, but offshoring critical manufacturing capability and production ecosystems does.
China has at least 2 key advantages in manufacturing -- cheaper labor and laxer regulations. If the US were to embrace and extend robotics and automation more vigorously that first point could become moot. Also the second point as far as labor regulations go, and if environmental regulations were properly priced then that too would be moot.
The trade deficit argument is mostly nonsense, but it's being made disingenuously anyway so the actual merit doesn't really matter to the people making it. Trump is a big fan of tariffs because they give him negotiating leverage to make deals beneficial to his own interests and those of his cronies. There is no national interest involved, this is an administration devoted purely to grift. Any benefit to the country is purely accidental.
Its only the first 50K that get 6%, still pretty interesting as being physically so close to the US could cause people in the US to get their first look at Chinese cars.
Chinese car companies face far more ruthless competition than western ones so could end up making better cars as a result, imo.
There are over 100 brands in china selling electric cars
exactly this - once people realize how far ahead Chinese manufacturing is, they'll put pressure where it's needed to either a) allow more to be imported, because people want nice things, or b) bring the manufacturing process over, like they did with the japanese cars
Chinese EVs are already way ahead of most western EVs - really, you need to see some of the cars the likes of Zeekr, Lynk & Co, Denza and Xpeng are releasing.
Having lived/worked in China for 6 years and knowing how most companies there operate and the way they cut corners so things look shiny on the outside but are crappy on the inside, I have very little confidence in any Chinese brand, especially not any of the newer brands. I would not buy a Chinese EV even at a lower price point.
There are a couple of exceptions to the above -- DJI and Anker are two companies I do trust -- but those are companies who have had a very strong focus on Western markets for years now, which forces them into a whole different level of QA. And they make much simpler products than EVs. Xiaomi _could_ potentially a trusted EV brand, they've been around a long time, tried to be the "Apple of China" and certainly came closer than other brands, but while I'd buy a phone from them I wouldn't buy a car from them.
This is entirely incorrect. You cannot permanently import or register a vehicle which has not undergone homologation. None of these vehicles have been certified to meet US safety standards and they cannot be imported permanently.
I suppose you realize the people running those manufacturing companies won't be hurt much at all, everyone who scrapes by trying to making a living work for them will hurt a lot when they get fired.
This is what happens when you abandon your allies and soft power. The US is about to find out that their economy isn't capable of surviving in 2026 without the soft power they've had since WWII. Steven Miller is also about to find out that, no you can't just "take what you want" and expect the rest of the world to do nothing.
This is for about 50k cars a year that are priced about 35k CAD or less. It's a small amount compared to Canada's 2mil car sales a year, but it is quite significant in the message it is delivering to the world about Canada being willing to diversify their economy in the wake of hostility from conventional partners. It'll be quite interesting how normal partners react.
This is exactly why its so hard to compare though; government contracts, emission credits and direct subsidies are all quite different and weighting them is highly subjective.
While Americans very frequently complain that the Chinese state subsidizes various industries, I am astonished that they do not see any similarity with the fact that I never heard of any really big investment project in USA, e.g. the building of any new big factory or new company headquarters, that was done otherwise than after receiving very substantial tax reductions of various kinds from the local government of the place chosen for the project. In many parts of Europe those kinds of tax reductions would be illegal, being considered a form of state aid for a private company.
And yet virtually all European lawmakers get $ from governments threatening to cut jobs.
Many countries actively lose money for those jobs, Serbia is an example. They go to extreme lengths to underbid competition for stellantis factories and get a net negative impact.
If you can't survive without taxpayers paying the bills, just die ffs.
The battle is already lost as far as China owning the future markets for EVs and probably energy in general. It doesn't seem conceivable anybody else could match their scale, efficiency and technology advantages.
If you're going to fight economically, might as well do it in areas that aren't (a) a lost cause (b) going to hurt you economically since you'll have to settle for worse and more expensive products and (c) the alternative supplier's country isn't threatening to literally invade you and surrounding nations.
Yes, it's a modest step, but my guess is that those BYD cars will sell like hot cakes and demand will go through the roof. By popular demand, the government will have to lift that limit. That's all China needs to destroy american car manufacturing.
The announced limit doesn't seem like enough volume for BYD to roll out a dealership network, but maybe they do it in anticipation of higher limits in the future.
Volvo could be an immediate beneficiary. The Canadian EX30 was going to be cheaper because they could make them in China, but after the 100% US/Canada tariff was announced they had to switch to ones produced in Belgium iirc.
edit: Something I just read that I haven't seen reported elsewhere is that the imported EVs have to cost $33,000 or less. The EX30 currently starts at about $54,000, so... maybe not.
North American manufacturers are not serious about making electric vehicles for the non luxury segment. The one exception is the Bolt and it's not being made in canada.
Fuck em they are fighting EV mandates while complaining that Chinese manufacturers will undercut their EV sales. They can go to bankruptcy for being liars.
I live in Ontario and support auto workers but not their lying employers.
> That's all China needs to destroy american car manufacturing.
I don't think China can be held responsible for America voting for Donald Trump, one of whose main goals in life has been the destruction of every trading and soft-power partnership that the US has built over the past 80 years.
2024 was the most recent data in the statscan (official government source) page I took that from - though that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't 2025 data somewhere.
Besides which Canadian manufacturers have been extremely reluctant to make EVs, so I really don't see that there's a domestic "EV market" we should be protecting.
I'm also curious to see if we will see more "no drive zones".
We see this in other domains: I recently talked to someone from an asset inspection (think flying around bridges to check for fractures) company. They can't use DJI drones because of security concerns.
What has astounded me about all this is the extent to which so much of our industry fall crisply into one of two groups: 1. Chinese stuff is cheap incompetent rubbish anyway, anyone near it is by definition a loser, so who cares? 2. Chinese stuff is perfect, amazing and we should just stop doing everything and buy what they're selling. They'll totally open factories here and give us jobs too!
The actual reality, which people like your asset inspection firm are dealing with, is the Chinese have leapfrogged the west in so many important respects, but to preserve security we have to live in an expensive technological backwater since the leaders of our society are so resistant to internal disruptive competition that may result in other people displacing them.
The Mercosur-EU trade deal, the India-EU trade deal and this China-Canada trade deal. A pattern perhaps? A frantic search for reliable trade partnerships, or just random noise?
Sure the details were negotiated in 2019, but it isn't even in effect yet. It still needs to be approved by legislative bodies on both sides of the Atlantic. Which will probably happen sometime this year.
In case you're not aware, Chinese cars have the same or even better quality than US, European and Japanese cars. Their electric vehicles are cheap and high quality, it's really impressive.
No country can compete with China on even footing in regards to car manufacturing, despite the frequent denials, they offer extremely good products, at costs no European or American company can compete with.
> As a general rule, motor vehicles less than 25 years old must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in order to be imported permanently into the United States.
Without homologation there is 0 chance you'd be able to import and register one of these.
Others have covered the problems with this. However if you live in certain US cities that are close to Canada there may be a work around.
Actually move to somewhere across the border and live in Canada. As a US citizen living in Canada crossing into the US for visits, even fairly long ones, has little or no hassle and you can bring your Canadian car.
For example if you are in Detroit, move to Windsor, Ontario. Outside of peak congestion times it is 10-20 minutes to get to or from Detroit. That's quick enough that this could work out even if you do almost all of your activities outside of your home in Detroit.
BTW, there are also cities on the south border of the US where this works (with Mexico, not Canada!), but in many of those the cities on the Mexican side have somewhat of a crime problem so you would have to be a lot more cautious in picking a place to live there.
Assuming they don't conform to US safety standards (and aren't easily made to conform), your best bet is to aim for this provision:
> Nonresidents may import a vehicle duty-free for personal use up to (1) one year if the vehicle is imported in conjunction with the owner's arrival. Vehicles imported under this provision that do not conform to U.S. safety and emission standards must be exported within one year and may not be sold in the U.S. There is no exemption or extension of the export requirements.
There's certainly a question of if it's personal use if your canadian friend leaves their vehicle at your place and you drive it around. But your friend can certainly get it over the border and I don't know how much enforcement you'll get after that. You will want the vehicle to return to Canada before the year is up.
> Assuming they don't conform to US safety standards (and aren't easily made to conform), your best bet is to aim for this provision:
Canadian and US car safety standards are very closely aligned, other than some pretty minor differences. (e.g. DRL required in Canada, TPMS required in the US, etc.)
Sure. If you want to pay the 247% tarriff, there’s nothing stopping you from doing this. US import duty applies when you cross the border, calculated on the vehicle’s origin (China), not purchase location.
This is only correct if you're not planning on ever registering the vehicle. And good luck with the paperwork to prove that during import. This is a great way to waste a bunch of money and get your shiny new car crushed
I expect that this relatively small quota is a good faith opening the door to Chinese product but the main core goal will be deeper, comprehensive Chinese investment, such as securing BYD/NIO/etc car factories in Ontario.
PRC slashed tariffs on Canadian ag in reciprocation, which unlike Canada on PRC EVs is uncapped. Meanwhile EV cap only raises based on PRC auto investments and plenty of ways US can throw cold water on that. Either way, this more bargaining chip for Canada vs USMCA renegotiation next year. Like it would be nice to get chinese EVs, or even shoring some of their manufacturing in CA to keep auto sector going, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it being geopolitically sustainable. Imagine US flexes, PRC pulls out, and early adopters get screwed.
I don't think it will change anything for Tesla, unless it lowers their costs through lowered tariffs somehow.
TBH, Tesla is in a tough position with their EVs in NA. They can't really build a cheap enough crossover/suv to compete directly with ICE RAV4, and virtually anything they do at >$50k would negatively impact their existing product sales. The base Model 3/Y are too expensive compared to ICE and have met tepid reviews because of their slightly odd mix of price and features.
So they've chosen instead to focus on autonomy and car hiring. I can't blame them for that. There's a huge potential for recurring revenue in that space and they've been positioning themselves to be in an excellent position to capture a lot of it over the next five years.
> They can't really build a cheap enough crossover/suv to compete directly with ICE RAV4, and virtually anything they do at >$50k
Doesn't the Model Y start at 40K? That's more expensive than the base model RAV4, but the Tesla is probably aimed at a slightly different market segment too. My guess is they could compete head-to-head on price if they needed to, but they don't think the math works out better that direction yet.
They can only compete with a subsidized product with their own subsidized product. The car company that exclusively makes EVs went all-in on the party that promised to destroy EV subsidies. Who's he going to beg to, California? They hate him too.
Tough part with China is that Tesla could fully replicate all chinese EV businesses and still be more expensive without government subsidies and currency devaluation.
Interesting - will this open a back door to having Chinese EVs on US roads? I would assume some sort of kei truck loopholes would have to be found to solve state-level registration or insurance requirements.
Wouldn't them creating artificial scarcity be just another way to keep prices at the same level as tarrifs, but with the huge margins going to the private sector instead of the public?
This feels like a poor long-term play for a short term political win. Canada has a robust automotive supply industry to US auto manufacturers, and this industry could be in long-term risk in an attempt to hurt relations with freer, traditionally more conservative nations. It’s not a shock but it is always disappointing to see major political decisions made for the benefit of the next election cycle.
> in an attempt to hurt relations with freer, traditionally more conservative nations
I don’t think those are the salient characteristics of the US from Canada’s perspective in this development, and because of that I don’t think of your analysis of this as motivated by short term political considerations is correct. Instead, the current US government’s unexpected decisions to turn the thumbscrews on Canada exposed Canada’s economic dependence as a vulnerability, and the Canadian government is at least trying to signal a capability to become less dependent in the future in the hopes that reduces their vulnerability as perceived by the US government. That vulnerability existed before and will outlast the current US government.
I largely agree, but there are conflicting goals which makes it hard to evaluate if this really is a bad long-term play. Canada has environmental commitments, and giving the population access to cheap EVs will help meet those goals. I don't think this decision is just a short-term political win, there is potential for it to help with the longer term vision of Canada. But I do agree, this is bad for the local automotive industry in Canada.
The message here is that western Canadian agricultural & energy interests are of potential more strategic value than a dying technically backwards auto sector led by three moribund regressive manufacturers who have shown their willingness to show their belly to Trump anyways.
As an Ontarian, I'm saddened. But I don't think the Big3 deserve anymore state support. They've pushed it too far.
Just earlier this week they were running editorials against the gov't on EV mandates. Again. Ok, here you go. Don't want to make EVs? Only want to sell giant Canyoneros?
It's ok. China will service that market. Have fun becoming irrelevant. If consumers really don't want EVs, like they said earlier in the week, then there's nothing to fear. Right? Right?
More that Ontario auto is projected to have no value since Trump has explicitly signaled he wants to kill Canadian auto and reshore to US. If Ontario auto is going, no sense in losing also agriculture especially if oil also going in 5-10 years if VZ ever works to US favor. The only hedge is to save Canadian auto is hoping for some sort PRC JV where Canadian plants keep some jobs and grab some margins, possibly a lot of margins (i.e. no truly cheap EVs) since PRC inputs cheap. Best case scenario is Canada has meaningfully cheaper EVs, but not Chinese cheap, get to hold onto some auto work, have access to worlds largest ag buyer, maybe free up an extra million barrels of oil to export since US will want VZ heavy instead of WCS from Alberta. Although US has many other ways to punish Canada.
I remember renting a house once and the gas water heater went out. The landlord replaced it... with another cheap-ass gas water heater with a pilot light.
"they're more reliable" he said
maybe he's right, but it definitely used more gas which he didn't pay for.
EDIT: oh wait, we had a gas heater problem too. It wouldn't heat the house. (same landlord) When the service guy came over, he tried working on it, but eventually threw a huge fit. <LandLord> this is a piece of crap, it is the original heater from the house, too old and decrepit to get going again. You just have to replace it.
I think the service guy was actually a decent, upstanding guy and he knew what he was doing.
Landlord put in a new heating system, and lo and behold... the house actually got warm easily and the gas bill dropped over half.
I get that this is seen as a "practical" move north-of-the-border, but understand, this is the kind of move that guys like Trump, Putin, and Xi all require. They want this kind of thing to happen, because it shows the real issue was never one of democratic values and human rights. If Canadians valued that then their PM wouldn't be inking a deal with China in response to what Trump is doing. There would be some sort of deal with Europe, perhaps, but not China.
The next time the Canadian government brings up some sort of issue with the treatment of Canadians by ICE or some other kind of issue, you can bet that the horse trading will involve a reference to the fact that this deal happened.
That's already more-or-less the rationale in Trump's dealings with Europe: for all of the complaining about Russia as a threat or the sanctity of NATO and how the Greenland affair threatens all of that, there was a solid 15-year-long run where the continent was more than happy to buy petroleum products off the Russians while ignoring escalating human rights violations in Russia along with incursions into South Ossetia and the Donbas.
He picks up on these sorts of deals as hypocrisy based in realpolitik, and will exploit it.
The US just kidnapped a head of state. It attacked Iran a little while ago. No matter to Canada or Europe though—that’s not them. But Greenland? Oh my, that’s not the Second or Third World. That’s us.
Values? Values talk. Only.
People will belly-ache about the bogeymen Russia and China. And it will work because they’re bogeymen. Not because of values. Values is just a mutually self-reinforcing delusion.
Trump doesn't care about values at all, he cares about money more than anyone else does. I find it laughable you can even talk about values whilst having that main in charge of your country.
And so what if he turns around and goes "ha your values are worthless". Trump is a literal paedophile and a literal rapist. Why should we accept being brow beat by such a man? So? We're moving on without you.
> Trump doesn't care about values at all, he cares about money more than anyone else does.
That's exactly what I'm saying. He's going to use this sort of deal as an example to Canadians that when it all comes down to it, they're no better than he is. He's going to say that you're perfectly fine talking trade deals with authoritarians who are literally abducting Chinese nationals on Canadian soil and doing God-knows-what with them [0], so long as the money is right.
I think that Canada has to de-leverage trade with the US is what the take away should be. Not that this trade deal itself is going to change all the balances -- its that there are other players who can start to trade - reducing dependence on the US. The compounding effects are damaging as are switching costs.
The laughing party is the person taking the tariffs and living large off them. The American consumer is suffering.
In reality, the vast majority of Canadian exports are energy and potash, neither of which have any kind of tariffs applied.
Because if they did, Trump's supporters would lose their shit completely. Gas prices would go through the roof and farmers would be in big big trouble.
PRC just underpricing competitors is frankly retarded cope at this point, the reality is PRC industrial policy also simply permanently drives structural costs down. They're not spending billions in pork barrel jobs program that need reoccurring injections that rarely prioritize manufacturing efficiency. Pretty much every industry where PRC took the value-engineer hammer (initially with subsidies) has stayed cheap (eventually without subsidies). Like it's been 20 years, PRC competitiveness hallowed out a lot of western industrial base already, but their goods remains cheap. They're not subsidizing in perpetuity, their manufacturing is just stupid efficient and producers are willing to live on less margins because before even competing with western incumbents, they're competing with other Chinese competitors foremost and it just so happens survivors of PRC involution is by process of elimination, the most competitive.
- I'm still not over how great it feels to have confidence that Carney has a strong understanding of the economics of these political manouvers. Not only is he not a !@#$ing moron, he's a deeply experience economist more than he's a politician.
- Stratification of trading partners is nothing but good.
- This feels like safe toe-dip. Both sides have agreed to terms that are temporary, meaning there is no surprise rug-pull moment. Which is something the Americans are using more and more to keep everyone so !@#$ing wound up.
- This could be a long-term play for China: establish a presence in the North American auto market. The U.S. is right there. (Watch the Americans ban Chinese EVs from border crossing)
- Even better long-term play: establish North American manufacturing. How about Ontario builds Japanese and Chinese cars, turns CAMI and others into a Roshel or other military vehicle plant, and says good riddance to the American auto makers that have been rug-pulling long before Trump got into politics.
- A great opportunity to start improving trade lines for Canola. Possibly a trial balloon for other primary and secondary resources?
- Canada cannot stand on its own geopolitically. We must be closely tied to a major power. Intuitively that choice is the EU But I fear that China can move much faster and we'll find ourselves de-facto in their sphere while the EU is still debating this and that.
I don't love that Carney is relatively conservative-leaning for being Liberal, but I do really appreciate the fact that he's professional, competent, and stable. He speaks like (what I see as) a regular person and he's not there to whip supporters into fervent chanting.
I'm absolutely relieved that Poilievre didn't win the election (or his original seat). Setting aside just how far to the right he is, I've heard him described as an idiot both by another MP and by someone (who is himself pretty conservative) who met him at some social event.
Canadians are incredibly pissed at Trump and his criminal TechBros. This change here is largely due to that.
Trump threatening invasion of Greenland is also aimed against Canada; the USA would have more and more military bases threatening Canada, so Trump's anti-Greenland policy is heavily aimed at threatening Canada rather than China or Russia. One can see how he helps Putin versus Ukraine - one can not trust Trump.
> It's for just 50k vehicles, which means that the first 50k that get sent will be all Luxury high margin electric vehicles. [...] Why would anyone use there quota for cheap stuff?
If you find a better primary source, you'll see that the lower price vehicles are the only thing allowed at the low tariff rate:
The deal covers vehicles priced at $33,000 or less, and other cars sold at that price are already manufactured offshore
You absolutely have a point, I just don't see how this is functionally different from western/US policy, especially from the perspective of e.g. BRIC nations:
We have ample evidence that US intelligence siphons data from literally every meaningful company it can tap, is willing to share that data with partners abroad and uses such things without even public sanction against targets picked by the president (see Venezuela).
Sure, the US is still the devil you know, but if Americans want to claim the moral high ground then at least credible pretending is required, and under the current administration we wont even get that.
I have never before felt pressured about what I can or cannot protest about in Europe by China, but I can’t say the same about our most powerful ally, who has threatened every sector of our society – political or non-political – with consequences if we do not act and speak as they do. China absolutely does not care about our society the same way as that.
> And it may sound paranoid but remember that China was caught operating their own "police" force around the world not long ago
Have you heard about ICE? That one's not a paranoid thought. It's a very real personal police designed for oppression. I'd much much rather chineses EVs flooding the market over Teslas.
These two concerns do not need to be mutually exclusive. Either one can be recognized as a threat to our liberties without diminishing the severity of the other.
The more relevant discussion is the lack of policy/legislation to prohibit government agencies from sidestepping the 4th amendment and purchasing access from private corps, like Flock, to surveil individuals without a warrant. It’s ICE today, maybe DEA tomorrow, and the FDA in some broken future. In a decade or two, when nearly all vehicles are inherently advanced optical sensors with wheels, what stops auto manufactures becoming real-time surveillance companies, like Flock?
> Have you heard about ICE? That one's not a paranoid thought. It's a very real personal police designed for oppression.
Oh, come on. ICE may be behaving badly right now, and you might be mad at them, but that's not an excuse for flights of fancy. Stay grounded in the truth. ICE is not "personal police designed for oppression," they're police designed to enforce immigration and customs laws (ICE literally stands for "immigration and customs enforcement").
> The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) removals program contributes to upholding the integrity of Canada’s immigration system by removing people who are inadmissible to enter or stay in Canada.
> ... The CBSA also prioritizes the removal of failed refugee claimants who entered Canada irregularly between points of entry. These cases are prioritized due to their significant impact on program integrity and on Canada’s asylum system.
I'm under the impression that Canada has historically actually been much more strict with enforcing immigration laws and deporting people than the US had been.
Everyone knows. But America is has made it very clear it has no allies, this means every middle power is near obligated to re-position themselves to be roughly in the middle between the two super-powers.
Perhaps in an ideal world, we trade mostly with allies and nations that are ideologically aligned with the US. Unfortunately, the current president is doing everything he can to weaken alliances with those nations and cripple those trade relations.
The hallmark of patriotism is caring more about the surveillance from the other side of the lake than the bugs that are likely planted in your living room.
Please don't make sweeping claims about what HN “is”.
The HN is a large group of people with a range of views that maps to a normal distribution on most topics, with a slight skew to left-libertarianism. It's common for people to notice "too much" of what they dislike on HN, and then to think the site is dominated by that thing.
No, not of the kayfabe goals that serve as rallying cries for his dwindling band of cultists. But rather success of the goals of our adversaries who helped put Trump in power and seem to primarily inform his policy.
(edit to answer the question below, as throttling has set in: China, obviously)
There are a massive amount of new EVs in Quebec, which isn't exactly tropical. Part of it is subsidies, $2K for new EV, and $600 for charging. The other thing is the crazy scale of hydroelectric production in that province, some of which gets exported as far as Baltimore. So electricity is very available and reasonably cheap in QC.
We'll see how BYD's handle the bone chilling Montreal winters... Unless they're an absolute flop, I can see some fairly solid future prospects.
(I live in Ontario, but I've been to Le Belle Province quite a bit ;) )
As an EV driver from Ontario it's amazing crossing over, or even getting close to the border, the EV situation is just so much better.
That said, while hate Tesla the company ... I'll take their chargers over the patchwork of various apps & cards I have to install in order to make use of things there. There's a notable absence of Tesla stations there, but a lot of variety of other things and I had bad luck installing half the apps and it was not fun trying to set that all up while standing in the -20C cold in a gas station parking lot while just trying to get to the ski hill.
The vast majority of Canadians live near the US border. The weather is not tropical but it is quite normal compared to a lot of US states and northern Europeans.
EVs and cold climates are a bit of a mixed bag. On the one hand, if you want to road trip with snowy 30 mph headwinds, the charging times will be meaningfully worse. Not impossible, but definitely noticeable.
On the other hand, the traction control is fantastic and they tend to have the best preconditioning features so that you never have to get into a cold car for your commute.
For a lot of people, that second paragraph is far more important than that first for at least one of the cars in their household inventory.
I (Canadian) drive a Polestar 2. Chinese manufactured car by Chinese company Geely (tho with Volvo DNA).
It's the best winter driving car I've ever owned. A set of Michelin X-Ices on it's amazing. I've been driving for 35 years and I've never driven something with better winter handling, including Subaru I used to own, etc.
One of the more popular locations for the Ford Lightning is Toronto. They seem to do fine. Canadian politics echoes American politics a bit, but they are not quite so ideological about EVs as we are.
I’m assuming this is downstream of trumps move in Venezuela? Canada suffers the most from US access to Venezuelan oil. On top of all the prior rhetoric and moves by his admin.
What concerns me is why does the west think China is trustworthy? Why are we all fighting one another? Culture is important. China knows this, and is unequivocally Chinese relative to the Europeans.
It has nothing to do with Venezuela, and the move has been long time coming. It's not 'on top of all the prior' rhetoric, it is _ALL_ the rhetoric.
Let me be clear: here in Canada, the idea we are ever going to have anything like the same relationship with the United States again is held by a small and shrinking minority. And with every day, with the shit show that's happening down south, this becomes more true. The old adage is true, trust takes years to build and seconds to break.
As for China, I doubt anyone among the Canadian leadership, and most people here, "trusts" China, but it has nothing to do with trust but with cold hard calculus of who we can sell our stuff to. China is a big market, and speaking of trust, China has not threatened us with annexation. Words matter, as do deeds.
Culture is important, but has relatively little to do with geopolitics. Europe had thousands of years of shared history and values, and 2 world wars.
well, the president of the united states of america and the human slimeball he sent as an ambassador to Canada have been threatening our sovereignty for a year. Hope this helps.
Up until a while ago, I'm pretty sure that the consensus was that China not trustworthy. And then, Trump plays his cards and the consensus is now that the US are even less trustworthy. So here you go.
> Up until a while ago, I'm pretty sure that the consensus was that China not trustworthy. And then, Trump plays his cards and the consensus is now that the US are even less trustworthy. So here you go.
But that doesn't make China trustworthy, which this move implies.
It seems like there's some "narcissism of small differences" kind of thing going on here. Trump may not share Canada/Europe's values to the same degree of prior US presidents, but China does not share those values at all and never has. It's really questionable judgement to throw your lot in with China if you're not happy with the leadership of the US.
Because of the Chinese/Russian asset that got into the highest leadership position of the western world, and is now using that position to create and inflame fighting amongst ourselves. We had it too good, for too long, people got too entitled, became out of touch with what actually made our society great, and our adversaries took advantage of that.
As an American, I am truly sorry to all of our allies and friends who didn't even get to vote on the matter.
While we (Canadians) certainly aren't happy with Trump's attack on Venezuela, Trump's threats against Canada, reneging on deals with Canada, threats against Greenland, and attacks on the US's domestic rule of law probably all carry more weight in this decision than that.
Despite the issues that Trump has caused Canada still does more trade with the US, on more favourable terms, than China...
A Canadian satire site has the headline "Canada chooses lawful evil over chaotic evil":
* https://thebeaverton.com/2026/01/canada-chooses-lawful-evil-...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragon...
Edit: A comment in /r/canada:
> TBF I would much rather work for Lex Luthor than The Joker if I had to choose one.
That's basically it. The Chinese government views the rest of the world through Hobbesian self interest, but in the late 20th century financial way. They want your money, but lawfully.
The US has turned into something much more vindictive and unpredictable, including threatening to invade Canada.
Lawfully? How many IPs have they stolen from universities and companies across the world?
56 replies →
>The US has turned into something much more vindictive and unpredictable, including threatening to invade Canada.
The thing about China is that they are basically hard on the up slope of their advancement as a society/economy/nation, just like US was post ww2.
US on the other hand, has flatlined to the point where we think stuff like trans athletes in sports are a drastic enough reason to elect a president who is a convicted Felon.
China is def gonna outpace US in the next 10 years as the strongest economy, but the interesting thing is gonna be is if they are gonna fall in the same trap as US does in 20 or 30 years.
14 replies →
The Chinese government’s territorial claims in the South China Sea show near-total disregard for international law. China has constructed heavily militarized artificial islands roughly 200 kilometers from the Philippine coast — and more than 1,000 kilometers from the Chinese mainland — in order to assert control over waters that, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and a binding 2016 ruling by an international arbitral tribunal, lie squarely within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone. China lost the case on the merits and simply rejected the ruling.
had to look it up:
Hobbesian self-interest refers to the idea that human actions are primarily motivated by the desire for personal gain or advantage. This concept is central to Thomas Hobbes' political philosophy, where he argues that without a strong governing authority, individuals would act solely out of self-interest, leading to a chaotic and violent state of nature.
lawful in the sense they value stability. their stability.
To me there is an even more important point than economics and geopolitics: the Chinese government is thinking about the long term sustainability of its population, and given how large it is it makes quite aligned with the rest of the world. Environment, health, education, science, etc. when comparing the trajectory and future plans of China and the US it is quite telling. Here are a few excerpts, guess if they come from Project 2025 or Xi Jinping 14 commitments:
- Adopting new science-based ideas for "innovative, coordinated, green, open and shared development".
- Improving people's livelihood and well-being is the primary goal of development
- Coexisting well with nature with "energy conservation and environmental protection" policies and "contribute to global ecological safety".
[flagged]
3 replies →
The US? No, Trump.
29 replies →
Compared to the current US... china is currently a grade A student who sometimes bullies their the neighbors younger child
As an American I'm rooting for everyone else these days. Good for Canada. I hope the EU builds stronger trade with China too and America gets left in the cold to whither and die. Trump, Vance, Miller, Noem, Musk, Bezos all of them just forgotten about and completely irrelevant to the rest of the world.
I feel the same way about the US, but China is even worse. It’s basically what the US is becoming but still further down the road of authoritarianism. So I’m not rooting for it. EU, Canada, Japan etc are a better allay this point.
9 replies →
You realize there are a lot people (who aren't in the administration and didn't vote for them) that would be significantly hurt if all that happened. These people are your family, your friends, your neighbors, your coworkers. You hate Trump so much that you'd prefer to see all those people suffer than have him succeed?
I strongly disagree with most of what Trump says and does, but I can't root for an outcome that would make my kids' quality of life be much worse. I'd much rather see us right the ship.
2 replies →
[flagged]
6 replies →
[flagged]
3 replies →
China hasn't dropped bombs on foreign soil in over 40 years. The US killed a million Iraqis not that long ago.
I think this "China evil" framing is a smear, like how Republican conspiracy theories used to say Democrats are pedophiles. Guess where the real pedophiles were hanging out the whole time.
And the only thing that stopped in Xinjiang is the news coverage and press access.
I find it deeply ironic that for some, the vibes have shifted towards "hey maybe the CCP isn't all that bad" just because...what, the solar buildouts make them look more competent and long-sighted compared to your local upstart authoritarian party? Such is the nature of vibes, I suppose.
It has been almost 46 years since China last dropped bombs on Vietnam.
> The US killed a million Iraqis not that long ago.
That estimate is about as reliable as western estimates in how many died during TS 1989 (but you did mention "foreign soil", not Chinese soil).
> The US killed a million Iraqis not that long ago.
There are an estimated 1 million Uyghurs in concentration camps currently [1], but you are correct - neither that, nor the invasion of Tibet, nor whatever process they used to turn a diverse part of a continent into a Han ethnostate [2], or block the NYTimes app from their phones, involved dropping bombs on foreign soil.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Chin...
[2] Spare me the "56 different ethnic groups!" - 91% is Han, the next highest is 1.4%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_China
6 replies →
That first link is a back button capturer.
I didn't have any issues. Running FF w/ UblockO and Privacy Badger.
I'm really into geopolitics, and it's clear to see what's happening from the US side.
America still wants to play hegemon, but since Bretton Woods 2.0 didn't happen, they're going to lock up the entire North and South American continents from Chinese and Russian influence. And it'll be fierce.
The next salvo is going to be US statehood for Alberta and Saskatchewan. There is already partisan support within those provinces, and Trump is going to offer money to push it. If that happens, Yukon and the Northwest Territories are next.
(Side note: these are Republican voters, which gives Republicans the Senate for years to come.)
Venezuela wasn't about drugs or oil, it was about China. And it wasn't Trump's thing, it was the career DoD folks. (Venezuela is within medium-range missile range of 50% of US oil refineries. The US doesn't want foreign basing there or in Cuba.)
The DoD is pushing Greenland too as it'll be a centerpiece of Arctic shipping in the coming century. And Cuba, as it's both extremely close to CONUS and a choke point for the gulf.
You can see the plays happening if you watch. The Chinese-owned Panama Ports Company being forcibly sold to BlackRock, the increasing trade and diplomatic ties between China and South American countries, etc.
My bet is that a Democratic president would continue this policy, just with less rudeness and more "cooperation". The Department of Defense -- apolitically -- doesn't want China to have the US within arms reach.
Trump is going to try to speed run it, though.
---
edit: downvotes rate limit my account, so I can't respond.
> I would love to hear how you think Trump will manage to get Alberta and Saskatchewan to become US states within this century.
It's going to nucleate from within Alberta and Saskatchewan.
https://globalnews.ca/news/11615147/alberta-separatists-prai...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_separatism
This has been spoken about for years, but look at how much the conversation is starting to come back up recently:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/alberta-primetime/article/al...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-separation-po...
I see a dozen other articles about this published in the last week.
If Trump adds fuel to this fire, it's going to take over the headlines. The DoD is definitely whispering it into his ear.
Also, the downvotes are silly. I'm not advocating for this. I'm just pointing out what the US is doing and why it thinks this way.
Are you an American? Because this feels like a very US-centric view. I know you're not advocating for this, but it feels like the predictions you've set out for Canada are hitting this intrinsic bias that people who are really into geopolitics always have - they always think about the world as a fully-informed chess game where everyone always makes optimal moves, and they're biased towards predicting sweeping world-changing events that rarely happen due to a multitude of issues. The few major events that do happen often end up unraveling in completely different ways than the internet had predicted.
The Albertan separatism thing is largely drummed-up due to American aggression towards Canada, it slots right into the news cycle alongside threats of annexation that Canada was getting not that long ago. That being said, even in a province as conservative as Alberta, it remains a fringe view, even though some politicians are now willing to say the quiet part out loud. Consider how hard Quebec had tried to secede on multiple occasions, and yet despite having a far stronger case and far more supporters, still failed every time. Talking about Saskatchewan is just trying to lump them in with the Albertans, where in reality that group is even more niche.
But then talking about Yukon and the Northwest Territories just makes this look like enthusiastic map-painting. The reality is, both of these places are overwhelmingly indigenous, and they'd have no reason to ever want to not be part of Canada. Also, they're both territories, which in many ways means they're ruled directly by the federal government, a.k.a. you won't be getting those short of a military invasion or completely ruining the rest of the country to the point where they can just cut it all up.
I kinda agree with you. The US policy won't change much. It is a set policy but not very well executed, simply because such a policy is not in the interest of existing power base, so someone new but crude has to be elected, and that's why he got elected not once, but TWICE.
My understanding is that US is going to shrink back a bit, takes care of its neighbours first, but keep its probing bases intact, so that it can slash some costs and be more flexible in next decades. China is going to reluctantly expand its power base gradually -- but I think it's going to be a slow expansion because any rapid one would either fail, or create a new power group within China, that may threaten the existing players.
Not sure about EU though, it better gear up quickly.
It's not bad analysis, I upvoted you, but what you're forgetting is that nothing ever happens. Venezuela was just typical American meddling, Cuba might happen (I'd bet against it) but neither the Canada nor Greenland thing is going to happen because it would be too dramatic for narrative continuity.
15 replies →
>There is already partisan support within those provinces, and Trump is going to offer money to push it. If that happens, Yukon and the Northwest Territories are next. (Side note: these are Republican voters, which gives Republicans the Senate for years to come.)
Disagree.
1. If any Canadian province becomes an American state (with electoral votes), the Republicans won't win an election for the next 100 years. Even if it's Alberta.
2. Alberta likely won't secede unless they get full statehood. Nobody wants to be another Puerto Rico.
3. I think if you did a referendum in Alberta today (even with full US statehood on offer), the votes to secede would number over 10%.
Remember, Quebec in 1995: 50.58% voted to stay, with a turnout of 93.52%. And they were all but ready to leave to the point of engaging in IRA-style terrorism.
Also, the famous failure of Brexit all but precludes any such referendums from getting serious wind in our lifetimes.
1 reply →
I think it's not majorly the DoD's push though (they aren't all that powerful, they are grifters), there are stronger geo-financial interests behind this.
im in alberta currently.
there's less talk about separation here than there is in Washington for splitting out to form cascadia.
I agree with your assessment. But I think the leaders pulling these strings are not fully appreciating the costs of this security.
Controlling all of these foreign lands is pointless if the country collapses then Balkanizes. The past decade has brought so many events that nobody thought could ever happen that we need to be rearrange our beliefs. It's very possible that those of us around in 10 years will see this time period as being part of the Second American Civil war.
The only thing keeping people almost pacified is the economy is not total dogshit yet. But that's tenuous at best.
There's going to be a post-trump power vacuum. It will likely be much more bloody than our current situation.
> The next salvo is going to be US statehood for Alberta and Saskatchewan. There is already partisan support within those provinces, and Trump is going to offer money to push it.
The polling puts it at 20% support and 80% opposed. This is not going to happen. As a Canadian who was born in Alberta and has lived in Alberta all my life, I will be remaining in Canada.
There is some small amount partisan support but not public support, massive difference. It might cost them the next election.
They aren't republican voters - there is sizable difference between the Canadian right and the US right. I think many Americans make this mistake (and Canadians too) - the republican positions on many things aren't that tenable to center of right (Canadian spectrum).
Also - There aren't many more things that are more toxic in Canada politics than Trump and Annexation. He single handedly handed the Federal election to the Liberals - it was the Conservatives who were going to win until he but his thumb on the scale.
4 replies →
I would love to hear how you think Trump will manage to get Alberta and Saskatchewan to become US states within this century.
15 replies →
Well, I downvoted because I think your views are ill-informed and stupid, not because I think you're advocating for this. You fundamentally don't understand Trump and his ilk - he's petty, vindictive, vain, greedy and a bully. Everything runs on narrative and personal dealings, NOT any sort of rational goals or strategy. Ascribing these things to him is like pretending my cat is scheming about something when it jumps on a window. No bud, they're much simpler creatures.
Venezuela happened because it makes him look good on TV, that's it. There's no grand strategizing, it's a petty, vain person doing shitty things to make himself look great. He believes he is entitled to rule as an absolute monarch and acquiring territory (Greenland, Canada, etc) is just a way for himself to make himself more grand. Sorry, no grand strategy there either. I'll go further and say that part of what makes him so successful is that there's a large contingent of people that can't see him as he is and instead engage in this strategy larp like your various theories.
"Canada has agreed to allow an annual quota of 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles into the country at the tariff rate of just 6.1%"
https://electricautonomy.ca/data-trackers/ev-sales-data/2025...
"Canada recorded 45,366 new zero-emission vehicle registrations in Q3 2025, accounting for 9.4 per cent of all new vehicle registrations in the quarter, according to the latest report from Statistics Canada."
"Of the total, 26,792 units were battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), while 18,574 were plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). "
So this would represent about 1/4 of current annual EV sales.
> He said there would be an initial cap of 49,000 vehicles on Chinese EV exports to Canada, growing to 70,000 over five years.
I always wonder why people settle on a number like 49,000 when 50,000 is sitting right there, looking you in the face.
7 replies →
In a country with 42 million inhabitants this doesn't seem like a big change even for canada, let alone for the global economy.
It’s a complete sea change. I feel Canada only set tariffs on cars out of some deference to the US auto industry. I don’t want to use slippery slope thinking, but this to me smells like rolling out a Canadian auto market that is not dependent on the US.
For the average family, being able to spend significantly less on a car is a big deal.
56 replies →
It’s just the beginning is my guess. If BYD or CATL commits to a factory /assembly in Canada I would expect limits to be raised on this as progress is made. Or if this goes well we could see limits raised as China drops Canadian product tariffs further.
6 replies →
If you're selling 49000 electric vehicles, and the tariff reduced from $CAN 50k (estimated cost of a new electric vehicle; 100% tariff tax) to 3k (6%), saving your customers $2.3B, that seems significant to me?
I'm only trying to give a feel for them numbers, I did check the average selling price for a new BYD
Cars last ~25 years, 49,000 * 25 = 1.2 million Chinese EV’s on the road in a steady state.
Not such as huge shift in total, but EV’s are still a small percentage of total vehicle sales in Canada.
17 replies →
I think the precedent is big. It does seem like an attempt to adjust of their sudden drop in EV sales last year -
https://www.thestar.com/news/canadian-ev-sales-fell-off-a-cl...
> In a country with 42 million inhabitants this doesn't seem like a big change even for canada, let alone for the global economy.
The premier ("governor") of Ontario, where GM, Ford, Toyota, etc, have manufacturing plants feels otherwise:
* https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-canadian-el...
1 reply →
As an outsider (EU citizen), the message it sends is that they’re willing to negotiate more with China, on a product that would hurt Tesla sales. No, it won’t move the global needle, but the warmer positioning towards China is interesting.
The thing I am wondering is if there was an unwritten agreement to build Chinese BEV plants in Canada. This would give China access to the US market without tariffs and would give Canada manufacturing jobs.
Wait till Canadians find out how good Chinese cars for their price.
1 reply →
This is a “0 to 1” change in international relations. This doesn’t bode well for Trump’s trade war.
Shitty napkin math says china is saving about $1-$1.5B, so I agree, I'm not seeing the needle more here. What _does_ make sense is that this agreement will continue to evolve over time. What _doesn't_ make sense is the 10-40% battery capacity loss because of temperature, for EVs in canada. I think newer EVs manage temperature issues like this better than older models, but I am unfamiliar with chinese EVs so I can't speak to them.
4 replies →
How are plugin hybrids considered zero emission?
EV sales are going to rapidly expand with Chinese BEVs. They are much cheaper and cost competitive.
Good. Carney also remarked our relationship with China is now more predictable with our relationship with the states (wild shade coming from him) just to really make it clear to certain parties why this is happening.
Cheaper car options in this country will be nice, and I say this as a certified car hater who's yet to own one despite pushing 40.
Who wants to be a trade partner with the US these days? I honestly ask people who aren't fully indoctrinated or already have ties established?
Its a dependency that I have to think almost all countries/businesses are evaluating. How do you do business and set up long term supply chains in a country can't trust that the economic policy of today exists in 3 months, they are actively trying to undermine their currency and the system of law is under heavy pressure to the point of failure.
It is tough to be supportive of the United States under this administration or that the future state of the US will be more sound. Having their formally closest trade partner looking over to China for trade is a massive signal.
The trade off is the market is large and strong financial (availability of capital) foundation - but I fear thats changing.
Anybody who knows what a huge market US is, filled with tons of millions of people that spend big, even when financially unsound.
2 replies →
It's a bit more than a quarter (25.6%) of the whole world's GDP, so pretty much everyone.
1 reply →
Same reason everyone wanted to get into the China market. The size of the market and potential to make money.
I think the niche for EV's in Canada will be regional-ish transportation... I would love to see a network of chargers that fully cover the Trans-Canada Highway, but there are still some pretty significant gaps, for example Hwy 17 - If even one of the stations goes down you'd be stranded.
But in that niche I can really see cheap EVs taking off. I know several people who live in Toronto whose cars have never been more than ~80 KM from home, and rarely been over 100 KM/h. That's a perfect EV user.
And a huge plus would be to get rid of the monster American trucks & SUVs that take four parking spots and two lanes at a time...
As a Torontonian that last part is honestly what I'm most excited about. Massive American cars simply do not belong in most of our streets in this city, and if this starts the long process of getting them out that's going to be amazing. I've seen Cybertrucks zooming down streets that are about a Cybertruck and a half wide and it's an untenable situation.
27 replies →
I bought my first car in SF, a 2016 Spark EV. Tiny subcompact, 135 km range, perfect for our family of 4 (including dog + daughter).
I literally can't buy any subcompact car these days in USA or Canada, since Spark (petrol) was discontinued in 2022, Prius C (subcompact hybrid) discontinued, and Bolt EV (bigger but still small) discontinued and will be replaced with something even bigger.
Looking forward to inexpensive BYD Seagulls flooding Canada and hopefully encouraging dealers to bring in existing subcompacts that they sell everywhere else in the world.
The other is the two car family. One can be EV, leaving the other for trips.
Try to gas up at night in Saskatchewan without a coop card. Had to pitch my tent next to someone's field and gas up in the morning after being unable to prepay at 3 gas stations. In a similar situation with an EV I would've knocked at doors in the morning and politely asked to charge on one of their outlets. I bet I would've been offered breakfast and made friends while my vehicle slowly charged.
A bit of nuance: yes, Carney said that but he didn't just offer up the opinion unprompted - it was in response to a direct press question about if China or the US is a more predictable partner right now.
And even then, he didn't lead with "China is!" but wandered his way into offering the assessment.
The context makes his comment on this seem less nakedly provocative (not that it'll matter either way - the headline will be the headline, and the Trump admin will use it however they see fit as usual).
You do realize that this will impact the car industry and jobs in Canada, right? Even a not-so-good deal with the usa would be much better that this overall!
[flagged]
"sends money" doing a lot of lifting here
The enemy of my enemy...
I mean Canada's largest trading partner is the US, which also has many examples of large scale human right abuses.
As a Canadian, it's not really relevant to me that a country we trade with isn't liberal, and I don't agree with the premise that China is inheriently anti-west. Anti-western values, yes, but China does not threaten west violently in anyway that I can see. They mostly threaten western dominance economically.
IMO, Canada should just do what's best for its citizen, which is get good trade deals, and ensure that our values don't morph into something unrecognizable. What other countries do in their own borders is largely irrelevant.
2 replies →
[flagged]
China doesn't do friends - thats for sure. However if you have a transactional trade relationship with clear boundaries that don't get undermined due to random temperaments you can build on that. The other is impossible to build on - especially threatening to own the country.
This is an eye opening event.
8 replies →
neither does America, and they're much closer and dangerous to us at this time.
6 replies →
The idea that any country does 'friends' is, frankly, incredibly naive. Besides, Carney doesn't want to be friends with China, he wants to open up the market between the two countries. Of course, everyone here was better off when the trade flows crossed the natural north/south border, but this dependence created a weakness in a situation where our neighbourly hegemon decided to not be so neighbourly anymore. Turns out we weren't friends either.
predictability != friendship
And America currently does neither.
Does the US “do friends?” Does France? Does any country?
7 replies →
Between the US and China, one is right now making active threats to invade and annex Canada, the other is not. "Who should we forge ties with" seems pretty obvious.
4 replies →
Geopolitical / economic activity doesn't happen on the basis of friendship.
The US has exploited Canada for decades. Sometimes it's been somewhat beneficial for some part of the Canadian working class. Other times not.
China will do the same. Just from a further distance.
Americans who like to convince themselves that the US has been doing charity work for us are delusional. They've benefited from discounted resources and cheap labour.
Now China will benefit from that instead, and the US will look internally for cheap labour of its own. American workers who think they'll get a good deal out of cutting Canada out of the equation... again, delusional. Their necks are first on the chopping block. First through paying more at the cash register because of tariffs, and next because the Trump admin will be coming after their salaries next.
[dead]
The US government has really handled this poorly. Let's take one of our closest allies and push them into the arms of our biggest rival. All while helping boost that rival's total exports to record numbers. And boosting their universities to top positions in world rankings. Just brilliant, guys. "Make America Great Again" sure seems like it was intentionally tongue-in-cheek.
The exports argument is so bloated.
US has thrived economically for 5 decades after becoming an import economy.
This whole export/import balance is such a lame reasoning...yes you've spent a certain amount of $...and got plenty of stuff in exchange. In the words of some economist I've read "by Trump's reasoning my barber is also taking advantage of me because I cut my hair every month and he never buys anything from me".
Last but not least, services are never included in these trade balance arguments. How much money flows to US through their financial and IT services alone...?
The trade balance as a number shouldn't matter, but offshoring critical manufacturing capability and production ecosystems does.
China has at least 2 key advantages in manufacturing -- cheaper labor and laxer regulations. If the US were to embrace and extend robotics and automation more vigorously that first point could become moot. Also the second point as far as labor regulations go, and if environmental regulations were properly priced then that too would be moot.
5 replies →
The trade deficit argument is mostly nonsense, but it's being made disingenuously anyway so the actual merit doesn't really matter to the people making it. Trump is a big fan of tariffs because they give him negotiating leverage to make deals beneficial to his own interests and those of his cronies. There is no national interest involved, this is an administration devoted purely to grift. Any benefit to the country is purely accidental.
The decision for slapping 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs was made by the Biden administration in 2024.
Yes and Canada followed through in matching because the USA was our strongest ally and we had a unified auto industry.
That is no longer the case through the actions of the new US Government.
Accordingly it no longer makes sense for Canada to mirror US tariffs against China.
Its only the first 50K that get 6%, still pretty interesting as being physically so close to the US could cause people in the US to get their first look at Chinese cars.
Chinese car companies face far more ruthless competition than western ones so could end up making better cars as a result, imo.
There are over 100 brands in china selling electric cars
exactly this - once people realize how far ahead Chinese manufacturing is, they'll put pressure where it's needed to either a) allow more to be imported, because people want nice things, or b) bring the manufacturing process over, like they did with the japanese cars
It's 50,000+ users to learn from. Chinese companies have gotten pretty good at learning.
With their capacity, they could perfectly replicate and improve a Rivian (popular in the US) and still sell for $15k less.
Until US bans PRC cars on US soil... pretty easy to make the case based on surveillance / NSL. Won't take much for BYD to become next DJI/Norinco.
Chinese EVs are already way ahead of most western EVs - really, you need to see some of the cars the likes of Zeekr, Lynk & Co, Denza and Xpeng are releasing.
Having lived/worked in China for 6 years and knowing how most companies there operate and the way they cut corners so things look shiny on the outside but are crappy on the inside, I have very little confidence in any Chinese brand, especially not any of the newer brands. I would not buy a Chinese EV even at a lower price point.
There are a couple of exceptions to the above -- DJI and Anker are two companies I do trust -- but those are companies who have had a very strong focus on Western markets for years now, which forces them into a whole different level of QA. And they make much simpler products than EVs. Xiaomi _could_ potentially a trusted EV brand, they've been around a long time, tried to be the "Apple of China" and certainly came closer than other brands, but while I'd buy a phone from them I wouldn't buy a car from them.
1 reply →
Could you explain some specific ways in which they are ahead?
7 replies →
Could? They are already much better for the price.
Chinese cars are good.
Even though they are tariffed as hell they often come as better to European counterparts here at similar pricing.
Apparently its quite simple to buy a BYD vehicle from Mexico and import it into the US already.
https://youtube.com/shorts/IEbl6RIJeDc?si=pNol1UkjxRwML9Dz
I suspect the same thing will happen for northern states buying from Canada!
This is entirely incorrect. You cannot permanently import or register a vehicle which has not undergone homologation. None of these vehicles have been certified to meet US safety standards and they cannot be imported permanently.
5 replies →
This x1000, I hope this really turns the screws on the US manufacturers, they need to hurt.
Really it’s the US government that it turns the screws on. China doesn’t need to comply with US regulations to produce their cars.
I suppose you realize the people running those manufacturing companies won't be hurt much at all, everyone who scrapes by trying to making a living work for them will hurt a lot when they get fired.
4 replies →
This is what happens when you abandon your allies and soft power. The US is about to find out that their economy isn't capable of surviving in 2026 without the soft power they've had since WWII. Steven Miller is also about to find out that, no you can't just "take what you want" and expect the rest of the world to do nothing.
> when you abandon your allies
Threatening is worse than just "abandon".
"There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them" - Jean Luc Picard
Thanks to the kleptrocrats and oligarchs… sold ya sold ya sold ya.
This is for about 50k cars a year that are priced about 35k CAD or less. It's a small amount compared to Canada's 2mil car sales a year, but it is quite significant in the message it is delivering to the world about Canada being willing to diversify their economy in the wake of hostility from conventional partners. It'll be quite interesting how normal partners react.
I wonder if this might even be below reasonable "subsidy-compensation" tariff levels.
BYD, for reference, got almost 30% of their 2024 income from the Chinese state (~$1.4b).
But this is always difficult to judge because most nations help local industry to some degree, and it can be quite difficult to compare.
In comparison with Musk's companies ($15 billion in 2023, $7b in 2024), this seems to be a pittance.
https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/117956/documents/...
This is exactly why its so hard to compare though; government contracts, emission credits and direct subsidies are all quite different and weighting them is highly subjective.
While Americans very frequently complain that the Chinese state subsidizes various industries, I am astonished that they do not see any similarity with the fact that I never heard of any really big investment project in USA, e.g. the building of any new big factory or new company headquarters, that was done otherwise than after receiving very substantial tax reductions of various kinds from the local government of the place chosen for the project. In many parts of Europe those kinds of tax reductions would be illegal, being considered a form of state aid for a private company.
And yet virtually all European lawmakers get $ from governments threatening to cut jobs.
Many countries actively lose money for those jobs, Serbia is an example. They go to extreme lengths to underbid competition for stellantis factories and get a net negative impact.
If you can't survive without taxpayers paying the bills, just die ffs.
The battle is already lost as far as China owning the future markets for EVs and probably energy in general. It doesn't seem conceivable anybody else could match their scale, efficiency and technology advantages.
If you're going to fight economically, might as well do it in areas that aren't (a) a lost cause (b) going to hurt you economically since you'll have to settle for worse and more expensive products and (c) the alternative supplier's country isn't threatening to literally invade you and surrounding nations.
Up to 49,000 vehicles. To put that number in context, in 2024 Candians bought 1,918,861 vehicles of which 264,277 where zero-emissions.
Yes, it's a modest step, but my guess is that those BYD cars will sell like hot cakes and demand will go through the roof. By popular demand, the government will have to lift that limit. That's all China needs to destroy american car manufacturing.
> to destroy american car manufacturing
American car manufacturing is destroying itself just fine.
The announced limit doesn't seem like enough volume for BYD to roll out a dealership network, but maybe they do it in anticipation of higher limits in the future.
Volvo could be an immediate beneficiary. The Canadian EX30 was going to be cheaper because they could make them in China, but after the 100% US/Canada tariff was announced they had to switch to ones produced in Belgium iirc.
edit: Something I just read that I haven't seen reported elsewhere is that the imported EVs have to cost $33,000 or less. The EX30 currently starts at about $54,000, so... maybe not.
2 replies →
North American manufacturers are not serious about making electric vehicles for the non luxury segment. The one exception is the Bolt and it's not being made in canada.
Fuck em they are fighting EV mandates while complaining that Chinese manufacturers will undercut their EV sales. They can go to bankruptcy for being liars.
I live in Ontario and support auto workers but not their lying employers.
> That's all China needs to destroy american car manufacturing.
I don't think China can be held responsible for America voting for Donald Trump, one of whose main goals in life has been the destruction of every trading and soft-power partnership that the US has built over the past 80 years.
Is the number of EV sales for 2025 out? I expect it to be much lower since Quebec suspended their subsidies for a good chunk of the year.
2024 was the most recent data in the statscan (official government source) page I took that from - though that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't 2025 data somewhere.
25% of all EV sales though
49,000 is less than 20% of 264,277...
Besides which Canadian manufacturers have been extremely reluctant to make EVs, so I really don't see that there's a domestic "EV market" we should be protecting.
1 reply →
What will be interesting are the restrictions on where the BYD vehicles are allowed to go.
e.g. https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/366599/chinese-evs-banned...
I'm also curious to see if we will see more "no drive zones".
We see this in other domains: I recently talked to someone from an asset inspection (think flying around bridges to check for fractures) company. They can't use DJI drones because of security concerns.
What has astounded me about all this is the extent to which so much of our industry fall crisply into one of two groups: 1. Chinese stuff is cheap incompetent rubbish anyway, anyone near it is by definition a loser, so who cares? 2. Chinese stuff is perfect, amazing and we should just stop doing everything and buy what they're selling. They'll totally open factories here and give us jobs too!
The actual reality, which people like your asset inspection firm are dealing with, is the Chinese have leapfrogged the west in so many important respects, but to preserve security we have to live in an expensive technological backwater since the leaders of our society are so resistant to internal disruptive competition that may result in other people displacing them.
1 reply →
The Mercosur-EU trade deal, the India-EU trade deal and this China-Canada trade deal. A pattern perhaps? A frantic search for reliable trade partnerships, or just random noise?
Mercosur-EU trade deal was agreed 2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93Mercosur_Associatio...
India-EU have deepened ties since long ago too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93European_Union_r...
> Mercosur-EU trade deal was agreed 2019
Sure the details were negotiated in 2019, but it isn't even in effect yet. It still needs to be approved by legislative bodies on both sides of the Atlantic. Which will probably happen sometime this year.
In case you're not aware, Chinese cars have the same or even better quality than US, European and Japanese cars. Their electric vehicles are cheap and high quality, it's really impressive.
Source on this?
I mean I’d like this to be true, but for brands that are younger than a 30yo Corolla (thats still running), its a big statement to make.
Which just means that most new cars in Canada will be made in China and that this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_in_Canada will soon be a thing of the past.
No country can compete with China on even footing in regards to car manufacturing, despite the frequent denials, they offer extremely good products, at costs no European or American company can compete with.
Could an American go up and buy one and drive it back? Any registration or insurance issues?
No. Tarriffs aside this would be the problem:
https://www.cbp.gov/trade/basic-import-export/importing-car
> As a general rule, motor vehicles less than 25 years old must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in order to be imported permanently into the United States.
Without homologation there is 0 chance you'd be able to import and register one of these.
How did Ford's CEO do it?
5 replies →
Others have covered the problems with this. However if you live in certain US cities that are close to Canada there may be a work around.
Actually move to somewhere across the border and live in Canada. As a US citizen living in Canada crossing into the US for visits, even fairly long ones, has little or no hassle and you can bring your Canadian car.
For example if you are in Detroit, move to Windsor, Ontario. Outside of peak congestion times it is 10-20 minutes to get to or from Detroit. That's quick enough that this could work out even if you do almost all of your activities outside of your home in Detroit.
BTW, there are also cities on the south border of the US where this works (with Mexico, not Canada!), but in many of those the cities on the Mexican side have somewhat of a crime problem so you would have to be a lot more cautious in picking a place to live there.
Assuming they don't conform to US safety standards (and aren't easily made to conform), your best bet is to aim for this provision:
> Nonresidents may import a vehicle duty-free for personal use up to (1) one year if the vehicle is imported in conjunction with the owner's arrival. Vehicles imported under this provision that do not conform to U.S. safety and emission standards must be exported within one year and may not be sold in the U.S. There is no exemption or extension of the export requirements.
There's certainly a question of if it's personal use if your canadian friend leaves their vehicle at your place and you drive it around. But your friend can certainly get it over the border and I don't know how much enforcement you'll get after that. You will want the vehicle to return to Canada before the year is up.
> Assuming they don't conform to US safety standards (and aren't easily made to conform), your best bet is to aim for this provision:
Canadian and US car safety standards are very closely aligned, other than some pretty minor differences. (e.g. DRL required in Canada, TPMS required in the US, etc.)
Sure. If you want to pay the 247% tarriff, there’s nothing stopping you from doing this. US import duty applies when you cross the border, calculated on the vehicle’s origin (China), not purchase location.
At that point just don't register it and pay the fines, it'll be cheaper.
2 replies →
This is only correct if you're not planning on ever registering the vehicle. And good luck with the paperwork to prove that during import. This is a great way to waste a bunch of money and get your shiny new car crushed
Where are you going to get any issues repaired?
Chinese brand cars are already in Mexico and people don't do that. I think you can't register them or something.
I expect that this relatively small quota is a good faith opening the door to Chinese product but the main core goal will be deeper, comprehensive Chinese investment, such as securing BYD/NIO/etc car factories in Ontario.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCgSmlpC61A CBC "Q&A: Carney takes questions on China trade deal, EVs and security"
PRC slashed tariffs on Canadian ag in reciprocation, which unlike Canada on PRC EVs is uncapped. Meanwhile EV cap only raises based on PRC auto investments and plenty of ways US can throw cold water on that. Either way, this more bargaining chip for Canada vs USMCA renegotiation next year. Like it would be nice to get chinese EVs, or even shoring some of their manufacturing in CA to keep auto sector going, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it being geopolitically sustainable. Imagine US flexes, PRC pulls out, and early adopters get screwed.
Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46647955
I am not sure this is a good move. They have the option to align closer with the EU. But let's see.
Canada may also break apart: https://globalnews.ca/news/11615147/alberta-separatists-prai...
The is is literally just the fringe influencing politics. The majority of Albertans do not support this.
I guess we are still tarrifing solar panels though :(
Good. This could force Tesla's hand to make super cheap EV.
Musk and crew know how to make cheap stuff - they've chosen high margin for Tesla however.
I don't think it will change anything for Tesla, unless it lowers their costs through lowered tariffs somehow.
TBH, Tesla is in a tough position with their EVs in NA. They can't really build a cheap enough crossover/suv to compete directly with ICE RAV4, and virtually anything they do at >$50k would negatively impact their existing product sales. The base Model 3/Y are too expensive compared to ICE and have met tepid reviews because of their slightly odd mix of price and features.
So they've chosen instead to focus on autonomy and car hiring. I can't blame them for that. There's a huge potential for recurring revenue in that space and they've been positioning themselves to be in an excellent position to capture a lot of it over the next five years.
> They can't really build a cheap enough crossover/suv to compete directly with ICE RAV4, and virtually anything they do at >$50k
Doesn't the Model Y start at 40K? That's more expensive than the base model RAV4, but the Tesla is probably aimed at a slightly different market segment too. My guess is they could compete head-to-head on price if they needed to, but they don't think the math works out better that direction yet.
Id rather it force him into bankruptcy, but i would settle for slimmer margins.
Tesla will instead announce $20K AI-powered flying cars on Venus instead, available next year.
They can only compete with a subsidized product with their own subsidized product. The car company that exclusively makes EVs went all-in on the party that promised to destroy EV subsidies. Who's he going to beg to, California? They hate him too.
Almost every model they released was cheaper than the last, and that was Musk's open plan.
I'm hoping brands like Ford, GM, Toyota, ... take notice. The big names that make a lot of cars don't have a cheap option.
Tough part with China is that Tesla could fully replicate all chinese EV businesses and still be more expensive without government subsidies and currency devaluation.
Tesla already manufacturers and exports cars from China.
Not good for the brand to chase byd on price
They've already become a cheaper brand here in Europe.
1 reply →
[flagged]
Our not-so-great leader's not-so-great trade policies continue to have not-so-great results for the US.
That’s reasonable because China never threatened to invade Canada.
Interesting - will this open a back door to having Chinese EVs on US roads? I would assume some sort of kei truck loopholes would have to be found to solve state-level registration or insurance requirements.
Wouldn't them creating artificial scarcity be just another way to keep prices at the same level as tarrifs, but with the huge margins going to the private sector instead of the public?
This will likely happen indeed. There will be a huge mark up from dealerships and not enough volume to prompt for pricing competition.
Have they solved the cold weather vs lithium charge leak problem?
And whatever happened to that mysterious one-day $50 million in tesla rebates?
This feels like a poor long-term play for a short term political win. Canada has a robust automotive supply industry to US auto manufacturers, and this industry could be in long-term risk in an attempt to hurt relations with freer, traditionally more conservative nations. It’s not a shock but it is always disappointing to see major political decisions made for the benefit of the next election cycle.
> in an attempt to hurt relations with freer, traditionally more conservative nations
I don’t think those are the salient characteristics of the US from Canada’s perspective in this development, and because of that I don’t think of your analysis of this as motivated by short term political considerations is correct. Instead, the current US government’s unexpected decisions to turn the thumbscrews on Canada exposed Canada’s economic dependence as a vulnerability, and the Canadian government is at least trying to signal a capability to become less dependent in the future in the hopes that reduces their vulnerability as perceived by the US government. That vulnerability existed before and will outlast the current US government.
I largely agree, but there are conflicting goals which makes it hard to evaluate if this really is a bad long-term play. Canada has environmental commitments, and giving the population access to cheap EVs will help meet those goals. I don't think this decision is just a short-term political win, there is potential for it to help with the longer term vision of Canada. But I do agree, this is bad for the local automotive industry in Canada.
The message here is that western Canadian agricultural & energy interests are of potential more strategic value than a dying technically backwards auto sector led by three moribund regressive manufacturers who have shown their willingness to show their belly to Trump anyways.
As an Ontarian, I'm saddened. But I don't think the Big3 deserve anymore state support. They've pushed it too far.
Just earlier this week they were running editorials against the gov't on EV mandates. Again. Ok, here you go. Don't want to make EVs? Only want to sell giant Canyoneros?
It's ok. China will service that market. Have fun becoming irrelevant. If consumers really don't want EVs, like they said earlier in the week, then there's nothing to fear. Right? Right?
More that Ontario auto is projected to have no value since Trump has explicitly signaled he wants to kill Canadian auto and reshore to US. If Ontario auto is going, no sense in losing also agriculture especially if oil also going in 5-10 years if VZ ever works to US favor. The only hedge is to save Canadian auto is hoping for some sort PRC JV where Canadian plants keep some jobs and grab some margins, possibly a lot of margins (i.e. no truly cheap EVs) since PRC inputs cheap. Best case scenario is Canada has meaningfully cheaper EVs, but not Chinese cheap, get to hold onto some auto work, have access to worlds largest ag buyer, maybe free up an extra million barrels of oil to export since US will want VZ heavy instead of WCS from Alberta. Although US has many other ways to punish Canada.
Is there anything stopping americans buying chinese EVs in canada and bringing them home?
Don't trust China. China is asshole!
I remember renting a house once and the gas water heater went out. The landlord replaced it... with another cheap-ass gas water heater with a pilot light.
"they're more reliable" he said
maybe he's right, but it definitely used more gas which he didn't pay for.
EDIT: oh wait, we had a gas heater problem too. It wouldn't heat the house. (same landlord) When the service guy came over, he tried working on it, but eventually threw a huge fit. <LandLord> this is a piece of crap, it is the original heater from the house, too old and decrepit to get going again. You just have to replace it.
I think the service guy was actually a decent, upstanding guy and he knew what he was doing.
Landlord put in a new heating system, and lo and behold... the house actually got warm easily and the gas bill dropped over half.
Money talks, actual values walk. Always.
I get that this is seen as a "practical" move north-of-the-border, but understand, this is the kind of move that guys like Trump, Putin, and Xi all require. They want this kind of thing to happen, because it shows the real issue was never one of democratic values and human rights. If Canadians valued that then their PM wouldn't be inking a deal with China in response to what Trump is doing. There would be some sort of deal with Europe, perhaps, but not China.
The next time the Canadian government brings up some sort of issue with the treatment of Canadians by ICE or some other kind of issue, you can bet that the horse trading will involve a reference to the fact that this deal happened.
That's already more-or-less the rationale in Trump's dealings with Europe: for all of the complaining about Russia as a threat or the sanctity of NATO and how the Greenland affair threatens all of that, there was a solid 15-year-long run where the continent was more than happy to buy petroleum products off the Russians while ignoring escalating human rights violations in Russia along with incursions into South Ossetia and the Donbas.
He picks up on these sorts of deals as hypocrisy based in realpolitik, and will exploit it.
The US just kidnapped a head of state. It attacked Iran a little while ago. No matter to Canada or Europe though—that’s not them. But Greenland? Oh my, that’s not the Second or Third World. That’s us.
Values? Values talk. Only.
People will belly-ache about the bogeymen Russia and China. And it will work because they’re bogeymen. Not because of values. Values is just a mutually self-reinforcing delusion.
Trump doesn't care about values at all, he cares about money more than anyone else does. I find it laughable you can even talk about values whilst having that main in charge of your country.
And so what if he turns around and goes "ha your values are worthless". Trump is a literal paedophile and a literal rapist. Why should we accept being brow beat by such a man? So? We're moving on without you.
> Trump doesn't care about values at all, he cares about money more than anyone else does.
That's exactly what I'm saying. He's going to use this sort of deal as an example to Canadians that when it all comes down to it, they're no better than he is. He's going to say that you're perfectly fine talking trade deals with authoritarians who are literally abducting Chinese nationals on Canadian soil and doing God-knows-what with them [0], so long as the money is right.
[0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/rcmp-chinese-police-st...
3 replies →
Globalization always wins
what’s with all the pro china propaganda on here lately
This new direction of "strategic autonomy", with Donald Trump in the white house just south of the border seems like a difficult hill to occupy.
Unfortunately, this is probably what is necessary at this point.
Isn't it somewhat laughable when something like 3/4 of Canadian exports are to the US?
I think that Canada has to de-leverage trade with the US is what the take away should be. Not that this trade deal itself is going to change all the balances -- its that there are other players who can start to trade - reducing dependence on the US. The compounding effects are damaging as are switching costs.
4 replies →
The laughing party is the person taking the tariffs and living large off them. The American consumer is suffering.
In reality, the vast majority of Canadian exports are energy and potash, neither of which have any kind of tariffs applied.
Because if they did, Trump's supporters would lose their shit completely. Gas prices would go through the roof and farmers would be in big big trouble.
It makes more sense if you assume Trump is being paid off by China.
I'm not saying that's happening, just that it makes more sense than this chaotic self-destruction of the American empire.
That is complete and utter conspiracy hogwash! Who believes in such total nonsense ...
... everyone knows Trump is being blackmailed by Russia ;-)
Are BYD cars really subsidized or is that a bunch of BS?
Yes, BYD is tightly intertwined with the CCP and gets a lot of subsidies, grants, favorable loans, etc.
Yes, following an almost cookie-cutter-like pattern of emerging economies protecting and supporting their auto industries.
2 replies →
PRC just underpricing competitors is frankly retarded cope at this point, the reality is PRC industrial policy also simply permanently drives structural costs down. They're not spending billions in pork barrel jobs program that need reoccurring injections that rarely prioritize manufacturing efficiency. Pretty much every industry where PRC took the value-engineer hammer (initially with subsidies) has stayed cheap (eventually without subsidies). Like it's been 20 years, PRC competitiveness hallowed out a lot of western industrial base already, but their goods remains cheap. They're not subsidizing in perpetuity, their manufacturing is just stupid efficient and producers are willing to live on less margins because before even competing with western incumbents, they're competing with other Chinese competitors foremost and it just so happens survivors of PRC involution is by process of elimination, the most competitive.
Canada can tell Trump to keep his stolen oil.
Good!
The less we depend on Trumpistan the better.
A few assorted thoughts:
- I'm still not over how great it feels to have confidence that Carney has a strong understanding of the economics of these political manouvers. Not only is he not a !@#$ing moron, he's a deeply experience economist more than he's a politician.
- Stratification of trading partners is nothing but good.
- This feels like safe toe-dip. Both sides have agreed to terms that are temporary, meaning there is no surprise rug-pull moment. Which is something the Americans are using more and more to keep everyone so !@#$ing wound up.
- This could be a long-term play for China: establish a presence in the North American auto market. The U.S. is right there. (Watch the Americans ban Chinese EVs from border crossing)
- Even better long-term play: establish North American manufacturing. How about Ontario builds Japanese and Chinese cars, turns CAMI and others into a Roshel or other military vehicle plant, and says good riddance to the American auto makers that have been rug-pulling long before Trump got into politics.
- A great opportunity to start improving trade lines for Canola. Possibly a trial balloon for other primary and secondary resources?
- Canada cannot stand on its own geopolitically. We must be closely tied to a major power. Intuitively that choice is the EU But I fear that China can move much faster and we'll find ourselves de-facto in their sphere while the EU is still debating this and that.
I don't love that Carney is relatively conservative-leaning for being Liberal, but I do really appreciate the fact that he's professional, competent, and stable. He speaks like (what I see as) a regular person and he's not there to whip supporters into fervent chanting.
I'm absolutely relieved that Poilievre didn't win the election (or his original seat). Setting aside just how far to the right he is, I've heard him described as an idiot both by another MP and by someone (who is himself pretty conservative) who met him at some social event.
I'm pretty sure Carney is a Progressive Conservative.
1 reply →
Trump is binding US automakers tightly to the fossil fuel industry, which at this point in history is like tying a boat anchor to a drowning man.
Canadians are incredibly pissed at Trump and his criminal TechBros. This change here is largely due to that.
Trump threatening invasion of Greenland is also aimed against Canada; the USA would have more and more military bases threatening Canada, so Trump's anti-Greenland policy is heavily aimed at threatening Canada rather than China or Russia. One can see how he helps Putin versus Ukraine - one can not trust Trump.
The result of another self-own by the Trump administration.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
> It's for just 50k vehicles, which means that the first 50k that get sent will be all Luxury high margin electric vehicles. [...] Why would anyone use there quota for cheap stuff?
If you find a better primary source, you'll see that the lower price vehicles are the only thing allowed at the low tariff rate:
The deal covers vehicles priced at $33,000 or less, and other cars sold at that price are already manufactured offshore
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/livestory/canada-china-elec...
[flagged]
China isn't threatening to invade Canada. The neighbours to the south that have similar software in our military planes are.
You absolutely have a point, I just don't see how this is functionally different from western/US policy, especially from the perspective of e.g. BRIC nations:
We have ample evidence that US intelligence siphons data from literally every meaningful company it can tap, is willing to share that data with partners abroad and uses such things without even public sanction against targets picked by the president (see Venezuela).
Sure, the US is still the devil you know, but if Americans want to claim the moral high ground then at least credible pretending is required, and under the current administration we wont even get that.
I have never before felt pressured about what I can or cannot protest about in Europe by China, but I can’t say the same about our most powerful ally, who has threatened every sector of our society – political or non-political – with consequences if we do not act and speak as they do. China absolutely does not care about our society the same way as that.
> And it may sound paranoid but remember that China was caught operating their own "police" force around the world not long ago
Have you heard about ICE? That one's not a paranoid thought. It's a very real personal police designed for oppression. I'd much much rather chineses EVs flooding the market over Teslas.
Did ICE have clandestine police stations in Canada trying to rendition political dissidents? People need to get a grip and some perspective.
7 replies →
These two concerns do not need to be mutually exclusive. Either one can be recognized as a threat to our liberties without diminishing the severity of the other.
The more relevant discussion is the lack of policy/legislation to prohibit government agencies from sidestepping the 4th amendment and purchasing access from private corps, like Flock, to surveil individuals without a warrant. It’s ICE today, maybe DEA tomorrow, and the FDA in some broken future. In a decade or two, when nearly all vehicles are inherently advanced optical sensors with wheels, what stops auto manufactures becoming real-time surveillance companies, like Flock?
> Have you heard about ICE? That one's not a paranoid thought. It's a very real personal police designed for oppression.
Oh, come on. ICE may be behaving badly right now, and you might be mad at them, but that's not an excuse for flights of fancy. Stay grounded in the truth. ICE is not "personal police designed for oppression," they're police designed to enforce immigration and customs laws (ICE literally stands for "immigration and customs enforcement").
Canada and every other country has some kind of police force that serves those roles: for instance: https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/security-securite/rem-ren-eng.ht...:
> The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) removals program contributes to upholding the integrity of Canada’s immigration system by removing people who are inadmissible to enter or stay in Canada.
> ... The CBSA also prioritizes the removal of failed refugee claimants who entered Canada irregularly between points of entry. These cases are prioritized due to their significant impact on program integrity and on Canada’s asylum system.
I'm under the impression that Canada has historically actually been much more strict with enforcing immigration laws and deporting people than the US had been.
7 replies →
Everyone knows. But America is has made it very clear it has no allies, this means every middle power is near obligated to re-position themselves to be roughly in the middle between the two super-powers.
This ignores physical geographical reality.
1 reply →
No different than American companies or European companies. With the US having Palantir in their pocket…
The accountability and scale are hugely different to the point I don’t see how anyone can make this argument in good faith.
2 replies →
All that goes for US EVs too. And China hasn't threaten with annexation.
Perhaps in an ideal world, we trade mostly with allies and nations that are ideologically aligned with the US. Unfortunately, the current president is doing everything he can to weaken alliances with those nations and cripple those trade relations.
The hallmark of patriotism is caring more about the surveillance from the other side of the lake than the bugs that are likely planted in your living room.
[flagged]
Please don't make sweeping claims about what HN “is”.
The HN is a large group of people with a range of views that maps to a normal distribution on most topics, with a slight skew to left-libertarianism. It's common for people to notice "too much" of what they dislike on HN, and then to think the site is dominated by that thing.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
1 reply →
[flagged]
Another resounding Trump success!
No, not of the kayfabe goals that serve as rallying cries for his dwindling band of cultists. But rather success of the goals of our adversaries who helped put Trump in power and seem to primarily inform his policy.
(edit to answer the question below, as throttling has set in: China, obviously)
> But rather success of the goals of our adversaries who helped put Trump in power and seem to primarily inform his policy.
Do you have any specifics? Which adversary of yours wants lower-tariff Chinese EVs in Canada?
[dead]
According to Russian users, Chinese EV works poorly in cold climates. I don't think Canadians prefer EVs anyway.
There are a massive amount of new EVs in Quebec, which isn't exactly tropical. Part of it is subsidies, $2K for new EV, and $600 for charging. The other thing is the crazy scale of hydroelectric production in that province, some of which gets exported as far as Baltimore. So electricity is very available and reasonably cheap in QC.
We'll see how BYD's handle the bone chilling Montreal winters... Unless they're an absolute flop, I can see some fairly solid future prospects.
(I live in Ontario, but I've been to Le Belle Province quite a bit ;) )
https://www.quebec.ca/en/transports/electric-transportation/...
https://www.quebec.ca/en/transports/electric-transportation/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_Project
As an EV driver from Ontario it's amazing crossing over, or even getting close to the border, the EV situation is just so much better.
That said, while hate Tesla the company ... I'll take their chargers over the patchwork of various apps & cards I have to install in order to make use of things there. There's a notable absence of Tesla stations there, but a lot of variety of other things and I had bad luck installing half the apps and it was not fun trying to set that all up while standing in the -20C cold in a gas station parking lot while just trying to get to the ski hill.
The vast majority of Canadians live near the US border. The weather is not tropical but it is quite normal compared to a lot of US states and northern Europeans.
EVs and cold climates are a bit of a mixed bag. On the one hand, if you want to road trip with snowy 30 mph headwinds, the charging times will be meaningfully worse. Not impossible, but definitely noticeable.
On the other hand, the traction control is fantastic and they tend to have the best preconditioning features so that you never have to get into a cold car for your commute.
For a lot of people, that second paragraph is far more important than that first for at least one of the cars in their household inventory.
They're also a lot more resilient at extreme temperatures. Your range will be crap, but you can count on it running in -30C or more without problems.
I (Canadian) drive a Polestar 2. Chinese manufactured car by Chinese company Geely (tho with Volvo DNA).
It's the best winter driving car I've ever owned. A set of Michelin X-Ices on it's amazing. I've been driving for 35 years and I've never driven something with better winter handling, including Subaru I used to own, etc.
> I don't think Canadians prefer EVs anyway.
One of the more popular locations for the Ford Lightning is Toronto. They seem to do fine. Canadian politics echoes American politics a bit, but they are not quite so ideological about EVs as we are.
I’m assuming this is downstream of trumps move in Venezuela? Canada suffers the most from US access to Venezuelan oil. On top of all the prior rhetoric and moves by his admin.
What concerns me is why does the west think China is trustworthy? Why are we all fighting one another? Culture is important. China knows this, and is unequivocally Chinese relative to the Europeans.
It has nothing to do with Venezuela, and the move has been long time coming. It's not 'on top of all the prior' rhetoric, it is _ALL_ the rhetoric.
Let me be clear: here in Canada, the idea we are ever going to have anything like the same relationship with the United States again is held by a small and shrinking minority. And with every day, with the shit show that's happening down south, this becomes more true. The old adage is true, trust takes years to build and seconds to break.
As for China, I doubt anyone among the Canadian leadership, and most people here, "trusts" China, but it has nothing to do with trust but with cold hard calculus of who we can sell our stuff to. China is a big market, and speaking of trust, China has not threatened us with annexation. Words matter, as do deeds.
Culture is important, but has relatively little to do with geopolitics. Europe had thousands of years of shared history and values, and 2 world wars.
> Why are we all fighting one another?
well, the president of the united states of america and the human slimeball he sent as an ambassador to Canada have been threatening our sovereignty for a year. Hope this helps.
Pete Hoekstra? Canadians adore him! https://youtu.be/k6-KK1hfyU8
IP issues aside, China is a fairly reliable trading partner. That's all most people care about.
Up until a while ago, I'm pretty sure that the consensus was that China not trustworthy. And then, Trump plays his cards and the consensus is now that the US are even less trustworthy. So here you go.
> Up until a while ago, I'm pretty sure that the consensus was that China not trustworthy. And then, Trump plays his cards and the consensus is now that the US are even less trustworthy. So here you go.
But that doesn't make China trustworthy, which this move implies.
It seems like there's some "narcissism of small differences" kind of thing going on here. Trump may not share Canada/Europe's values to the same degree of prior US presidents, but China does not share those values at all and never has. It's really questionable judgement to throw your lot in with China if you're not happy with the leadership of the US.
4 replies →
> Why are we all fighting one another?
Because of the Chinese/Russian asset that got into the highest leadership position of the western world, and is now using that position to create and inflame fighting amongst ourselves. We had it too good, for too long, people got too entitled, became out of touch with what actually made our society great, and our adversaries took advantage of that.
As an American, I am truly sorry to all of our allies and friends who didn't even get to vote on the matter.
While we (Canadians) certainly aren't happy with Trump's attack on Venezuela, Trump's threats against Canada, reneging on deals with Canada, threats against Greenland, and attacks on the US's domestic rule of law probably all carry more weight in this decision than that.
Despite the issues that Trump has caused Canada still does more trade with the US, on more favourable terms, than China...
What is Canada's issue with the "attack" on Venezuela (I wrap it in quotes because the actual operation was the capture of Maduro)
4 replies →
I don't want to be overly dismissive, but where do you actually see the cultural threat scenario?
Do you want the west to stick together mainly to preserve disneyified European fables in cinema as opposed to Chinese three-kingdoms drama?