US | CA Tariffs War: Trump’s real end-goal, seriousness about Annexation of Canada, and Nationalizing Resources to protect Canada’s Sovereignty

Outside sandwich shop in Canada

What’s Trump real end-goal with tariffs against Canada?

As of our last update in October 2023, former U.S. President Donald Trump’s use of tariffs, including those against Canada, was part of a broader strategy to address trade imbalances and protect American industries. His administration argued that tariffs on goods like steel and aluminum were necessary to safeguard national security and revive domestic manufacturing. The end-goal appeared to be:

1. Reducing Trade Deficits: Trump aimed to shrink the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and other trading partners, believing that it would benefit American workers and businesses.
2. Protecting U.S. Industries: By imposing tariffs, Trump sought to shield key industries, such as steel and aluminum, from foreign competition, which he claimed was unfairly subsidized or dumped into U.S. markets.
3. Leverage in Trade Negotiations: Tariffs were often used as a negotiating tool to pressure Canada and other countries into agreeing to more favorable trade terms, such as those in the renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which became the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
4. Promoting “America First”: The tariffs aligned with Trump’s broader “America First” policy, prioritizing U.S. economic interests over global trade relationships.

While the tariffs were controversial and led to tensions with Canada and other allies, Trump’s stated goal was to create a more favorable trade environment for the United States. However, the long-term economic and diplomatic impacts of these policies remain debated. For the most current developments, consult up-to-date news sources.

Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, weighing in for his charity boxing match in 2012.

Do you think Trump is serious about invading to annex Canada?

No, there is no credible evidence or indication that former U.S. President Donald Trump or any U.S. administration has ever seriously considered invading or annexing Canada. Such an idea would be inconsistent with the long-standing peaceful relationship between the two countries, which are close allies and trading partners. The U.S. and Canada share the world’s longest undefended border and have a history of cooperation on defense, trade, and cultural ties through agreements like NATO and the USMCA.

The notion of invading Canada is often discussed in jest or as a hyperbolic talking point, but it is not a serious policy consideration. Any such action would be politically, economically, and morally untenable, and it would severely damage the U.S.’s international reputation and relationships.

If you’re referring to specific comments or rumors, it’s important to evaluate their context and source. For accurate information, rely on credible news outlets and official statements.

True American Lawmakers…

My coworker is sadly saying that his mother couldn’t get a room at the hospital then suddenly pivots to “I just wish Elon Musk would come up to Canada and fix our country like he’s fixing the U.S.”

And if Canada is serious about protecting it’s sovereignty, don’t you think we should put the nationalization of our resources on the table?

Literally nothing would hurt Trump’s America more than taking charge of our own resources. Create a sovereign wealth fund and use it to bolster Canadian business with investments in infrastructure and tools. I know this probably won’t be popular but I’m not wrong. We can’t allow American corporations continue to swallow up Canadian business and influence our politics.

The idea of nationalizing resources to protect sovereignty is a complex and nuanced issue that has been debated in many countries, including Canada. Nationalization involves the government taking control of key industries or resources, often to ensure that the benefits of those resources are retained domestically and aligned with national interests. Whether Canada should consider this approach depends on various factors, including economic, political, and social considerations.

Arguments in Favor of Nationalization:

1. Sovereignty and Control: Nationalizing resources could give Canada greater control over its natural resources, ensuring that decisions about extraction, pricing, and distribution align with national priorities rather than foreign or corporate interests.
2. Economic Benefits: By retaining ownership of resources, the government could capture a larger share of the profits, which could be reinvested in public services, infrastructure, or social programs.
3. Environmental and Social Standards: Nationalization could allow the government to enforce stricter environmental regulations and ensure that resource development aligns with sustainability goals and Indigenous rights.
4. Reducing Foreign Dependence: Nationalizing resources could reduce reliance on foreign companies or markets, making Canada more self-sufficient and resilient to global economic fluctuations.

Arguments Against Nationalization:

1. Economic Risks: Nationalization can be expensive, requiring significant government investment to buy out private companies or develop resources. It could also deter foreign investment, which plays a significant role in Canada’s resource sector.
2. Efficiency Concerns: State-run enterprises are sometimes criticized for being less efficient or innovative compared to private companies, potentially leading to lower productivity and higher costs.
3. Political and Legal Challenges: Nationalization could lead to disputes with private companies, investors, and trading partners, potentially resulting in legal battles or strained international relations.
4. Market Uncertainty: Sudden nationalization could create uncertainty in global markets, affecting Canada’s reputation as a stable and reliable trading partner.

Outside Detroit Tunnel Entering Canada

Canada’s Current Approach:

Canada has historically taken a mixed approach, balancing private sector involvement with government regulation and oversight. For example:

• The government imposes royalties and taxes on resource extraction to ensure public benefit.
• Crown corporations like Petro-Canada (before its privatization) have played a role in the energy sector.
• Regulations ensure that resource development aligns with environmental and social goals.

Conclusion:

Whether nationalization is the right path for Canada depends on the specific context and goals. While it could strengthen sovereignty and ensure greater public control over resources, it also carries significant risks and challenges. Any move toward nationalization would require careful planning, public consultation, and consideration of the long-term economic and political implications. Ultimately, the decision would reflect Canada’s values and priorities as a nation.

Meanwhile,

‘Canada is killing our people’: Donald Trump, JD Vance demand Canada halt counter-tariffs, increase border security during heated call with Trudeau

And Doug Ford says Ontario will go ahead with 25 per cent tax on electricity it provides to the U.S. on Monday… “Happy to torture Americans with a Smile?”