Even if we were replacing the US with China (we're not, we're diversifying), it's not a bad replacement. Yes, China is awful in many ways. But they're slowly getting better. The USA, on the other hand, is also awful in many ways and getting way worse incredibly quickly.

[–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Tough to argue with that. Both really do not care about us, is true, but the US admin is openly hostile. Not that I trust China, but they're the lesser evil here.

[–] DiarrheaSommelier@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

China cares enough about us to tarrif our agricultural products as a weapon to open up our automotive market.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 28 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Its not trading one despot for another, its just reducing the reliance on the one despot that is closest to home.

[–] assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I really dislike that framing that a lot of people are pushing, which is (imo) very disingenuous. The framing is that we're "trading" one big trade partner for another, and I've seen it everywhere from lefty Lemmy users to Pierre voters.

You're 100% correct that we're simply adding another trade partner and diversifying our options as we've done with many middle powers over the recent months. The goal is that no single trade partner should be 70% of our exports like the US has been historically and it irks me when I see people argue that we're just changing our the US for China as though we're only allowed one trade partner at a time.

[–] Typhoon@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 days ago

Yes, we're diversifying not trading.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

His framing isn't quite what the headline may imply - he's just saying the US should probably stop waging trade wars.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yes, they should stop waging wars

[+] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca -7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

He lost his credibility when he signed CUSMA, I don't care what he says on this issue now.

[–] ZC3rr0r@piefed.ca 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Given the alternative at the time, he can hardly be blamed for not intentionally sinking the economy at the time.

I'm fairly certain the current success in recruiting trade partners and signing agreements with them that Carney is enjoying are a direct result of being forced into that position earlier and the Trudeau government using this wake-up call to start working on a backup strategy.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There were many wake up calls before Trudeau was even in office.

It's not a country we should be trading with.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

There's been lots of wakeup calls but you know how it works - capital flows towards the path of least resistance to profit so unless we force a change through the electoral system, we're always back to trading with the US as soon as the heat is turned down.