No. of Recommendations: 3
They undoubtedly view it as the reverse - asking us why we think becoming a U.S. vassal is better than just working with China.
We don't think they should become a US vassal. That premise is wrong.
If that's all we wanted, there wouldn't have been a need to change existing trade protocols. But what was reported is that we were insisting that rather than enforce existing rules that prevent transshipment, we were instead insisting that Canada have their tariffs and trade policy match our own, exactly, vis-a-vis China.
And does that mean they can't trade with China? Hardly. It means we reduce dependencies on China and keep certain goods out of the North American market. Unless you want BYD cars spying on Americans...
Because the "best possible terms for US firms" in the short run can lead to a worse situation for US firms in the long run.
Oh? Now we're strategically short sighted and only negotiating for 5 minutes from now?
Using Canada's current dependence on US markets to gain a negotiating advantage can yield a short-term win in business terms, but it creates massive incentives for them to diversify their economy away from the US in the longer term so that they no longer face that negotiating weakness. This makes the short-term gains ephemeral and can damage US firms over the long run, since the whole point of dropping tariff barriers between the two countries is to foster a more efficient business environment for firms on both sides of the border.
Or...they take a look at their trade practices (like banning US alcohol, years-long issues with dairy, etc.) and make some concessions. You know, negotiate for the win-win.
Or they could just stay "elbows up" and keep pile-driving their own economy. It's up to them.
