So cave and make the tariff deal. Then start throttling traffic and flat out blocking IPs from those that don't pay taxes. Why should Canada's infrastructure support non tax payers when it doesn't benefit? Trump's FCC just killed net neutrality. If it's such a bad thing, then wtf should Canada practice net neutrality with folks that suck up bandwidth on the infrastructure without paying taxes. Just saying. Malicious compliance is a thing, and sometimes you need to let your enemy win so that you can win too. It leaves everyone street cred and egos intact.
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2025
45 points (94.1% liked)
CanadaPolitics
2857 readers
29 users here now
Placeholder for any r/CanadaPolitics refugees
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Disagree. We gave up a tax we never collected to protect our dairy/poultry markets from inferior US products.
This is piss poor journalism and a perfect example of what nobody wants to pay for.
I’ve asked before and nobody showed me a single news source that says that, nor could I find anything that points to it being protected thanks to the tax being cut, other than Trumpet being muppet about not being able to export US dairy and poultry to Canada with impunity.
Could somebody please share a reliable source with us here?
Otherwise, could we let this argument die? The US is mad about Canada keeping an import control that’s been in effect since tRump 1.0 and is very limited in scope, and we sacrificed a tax that was supposed to earn the government money on June 30th, 2025, which is its supposed first collection, just to have Mump continue complaining about the import control? We got nothing out of this.
Well we cant really complain when the US protects its domestic industry via tariffs then can we?
I'm sure not everyone is happy about exporting car and oil production to Canada.
A source for this claim would be great, because I haven't heard anyone from the government say this. Even Carney, when directly asked if Canada got anything in return for scrapping the DST, got tongue-tied and then deflected, saying it's 'part of a larger process'.
Not how you react if you're confident in your position, imo
Politics is just sports now. GO TEAM. MY TEAM WIN EVERYONE ELSE DIE
And journalism is basically barstool sports.
In case you're unaware, you're accusing a Nobel Laureate in economics of piss poor journalism
Nobel laureates can be wrong too, even when it's on the topic of what they won for. Just look at Obama's drone warfare program after he won the Peace prize.
I feel there is a big distance between piss poor and wrong (as in incorrect).
I agree with you that experts - or people with relevant experience - can be incorrect.
My commenting in this thread didn't hit its mark. I saw comments that I thought were unreasonably rejecting of a legitimate perspective from someone with credentials on the matter. Maybe it triggered me about today's anti-knowledge climate (e.g., anti-vaxx). Oh well, live and learn
Explain how that's relevant.
Too soon for opinions (even considered opinions). Let's wait until after July 21, 2025 at least. Someone out there is a big Joseph Stiglitz fan I guess.
Given the ridiculous freedom of (undeserved) reach that characterizes society today (e.g., all the MAGA assholes on twitter, the non-news that mainstream media has regressed to), I'm grateful to the Guardian for publishing an opinion piece from a very qualified expert. I don't think someone needs to be a fan to value the timely opinion of a Nobel Laureate in economics on a very important and scary global economics trend. Can we fully account for the effects of Carney's decision a month later, of course not, that'd be absurd. But too soon to hear an expert weigh in, not just about Canada but more broadly? I don't follow that logic at all
This entire paragraph is an appeal to authority that doesn't even engage the subject at hand.