The error that people make when criticizing card fees on merchants is that customers pay the cost. That’s not necessarily true.
There are benefits for merchants to accepting credit cards. More impulse buys, buying more per transaction. An owner may choose to absorb the merchant fee because the increase in sales (even at the lower profit per unit) means higher profits overall.
It's also a solved problem by not deferring anything unless that person is past working age and low income. Letting people sit on wealth that they cannot pay a wealth tax on is generally bad for everyone with less wealth.
What's hyperbolic? The trust thing is borne out by repeated polling of which countries people trust. The current US administration is openly profiteering from governing.
I do think it'll take a few years before Americans wake up to how badly their reputation has tanked around the world across successive governments of either party in the recent decade.
Greenland, Iran, Falklands, Ukraine, Gaza, Taiwan, all these things probably feel like minor missteps in the US news cycle but they have had a major impact.
It can be something as simple as an analytical reference.
If you’re testing for dimethyl mercury in say fish, you need a standardized sample of dimethyl mercury to run.
These references are highly dilute and thus less hazardous. But some labs prepare their own references rather than buying them.
That requires working with pure dimethyl mercury.
The hazard is manageable as long as you’re prepared. Chemists work with lots of hazardous chemicals and it can all be managed with the right preparation.
Welcome to how immigration works in other countries. Canada just changed a bunch of rules and is actively sending immigration officers to immigrant protests to run status checks and deport anyone in the country illegally.
There is no right for non-citizens to come to the US.
Nope. There was another protest where the police asked the protestors status. They then called Immigration Canada to verify.
You literally have the cops in Canada working hand in hand with federal immigration enforcement. No politicians crying about it. No protests by Canadians.
Having the only appointment be a year or more out isn’t new. Anyone I knew wouldn’t take the risk of leaving the US if they didn’t have an appointment secured.
The pro maga crowd has learned to take a less obvious, but just as callous approach to commenting over the last 6 months. They are trying to subtly slide the overton window in their direction.
You sure? Canada's economy is struggling as is. The healthcare system is holding on by a thread. You ready for unemployment to double? If there is a significant recession, tax reciepts go down and healthcare spending gets further cut.
I think there's a notion that the imposition of tarifs will ultimately affect the amount the country imports. However that stick only kinda-sorta works.
As a reference - in the country I live in, exports to the US rose in the year after "liberation day". Because of 2 things; Americans like to buy stuff and tarifs imposed on everyone doesn't cause importers to source elsewhere - it's just business as usual.
Take for example something as mundane as coffee. Do tarifs mean Americans drink less? (perhaps not). Do they grow more locally (well, no, not least because of ramp-up time to new production.) Tarifs are just a local tax on consumerism.
So take your example above. 25% of the Canadian GDP goes to the US. The question then becomes how much of that is going to be sourced elsewhere instead? And can Canada find an alternative market to make up the difference?
About 30% (of that 25% above) is oil & gas etc. That's easilly sellable on the global market. Not that they'll need to, the US customer will simply pay more. The next 21% is car parts, machinery etc. US Auto makers are already dependent on external parts - maybe they can get them from somewhere else? Somewhere without already higher tarifs?
Other big chuncks are Consumer, Forestry and Industrial goos (15%), Metas (12%) and agriculture (10%). None of these are easily sourced (cheaper) elsewhere.
In other words, tarifs make for good headlines. And there will inevitably be some winners and losers. But the effect on Canada's GDP will be minor.
I'm not even sure that Canada needs to reciprocate - Canadian consumers are very good at simply not buying American products. No govt can force the Canadian people to buy Budwizer....
>> If both countries decide to start ramping up tariffs, one of them is going to collapse and one won't even notice a difference.
I agree, but probably not the same way you think. It's US suppliers who depend on exports that very much will notice. American products are very expensive, and Canada is one of the few markets where they are viable. That's why DJT is so upset with alcohol bans in Canada. There are lots of markets for Canadian goods. And ultimately this whole process is encouraging Canadian producers to explore some of those markets, which in the long run is good for Canada.
> About 30% (of that 25% above) is oil & gas etc. That's easilly sellable on the global market.
No, it's not. The bulk of Canada's oil sells at a discount (the WCS price), because most of it can only be bought by the US.
In order to change this, Canada would need to dramatically ramp up pipeline capacity to its coasts, and Canadian domestic politics stand in the way of that more than anything else.
( note: thanks to a savage sinus blockage my energy terminal capacity-fu is sketchy ATM, feel free to correct and rank global LNG and contrast against oil
I think your handwaving away the impact isn't all that convincing and some don't make all that much sense.
> American products are very expensive, and Canada is one of the few markets where they are viable. That's why DJT is so upset with alcohol bans in Canada.
American alcohol is "very expensive" and Canada is the only viable market? That makes no sense. It's not like Canada is a bastion of cheap labor.
DJT is bringing up the alcohol sales most likely because business leaders are bringing it up. The overall impact to US GDP is miniscule.
> There are lots of markets for Canadian goods. And ultimately this whole process is encouraging Canadian producers to explore some of those markets, which in the long run is good for Canada.
If there are lots of markets for Canadian goods then why aren't they selling into them now? And the US is the biggest consumer market in the world (2x bigger than the EU which is the next biggest). Losing the biggest market in the world can't be argued to be "minor".
I don't think Canada loses the US market. The implication is that if the product gets more expensive then the US simply stops using it, or sources elsewhere.
Take hockey sticks. Does this mean Minnesota stops playing hockey? Or they play without sticks? Or maybe they'll buy their sticks from...?
Where I live there was much doom and gloom. Then our exports went up....
Of course small exporters are predicting calamity. It's a good sound bite, and it's definitely the obvious prediction. I'm just not convinced it'll have that effect.
You completely missed the point - these retaliatory tariffs are being rolled out strategically to protect vulnerable industries from one way tariffs not with the primary goal of hurting the us. You notice one is defensive and one is aggressive - different goals.
There are benefits for merchants to accepting credit cards. More impulse buys, buying more per transaction. An owner may choose to absorb the merchant fee because the increase in sales (even at the lower profit per unit) means higher profits overall.
reply