The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Trade Page 1 of 13

The Proximate Cause Of Revolutions Is Inability To Tax & The US Is Well Down The Road

Top Tax Rates

—And thus, inability to run the state.

In the modern world this causes a great deal of confusion. I guarantee some MMT follower is gleefully planning a comment saying “a state’s ability to spend is not based on taxation.”

Technically true, practically false. A state which uses its own currency can always, in theory, print money.

But taxation is best understood more primaly than “the people send us money, we spend it.” Rather it is the amount of the economy which the government can control.

Every country has an economy. The economy is what the people of the nation actually do. Dig stuff up, refine stuff, grow stuff, manufacture, stuff, take money from idiots as consultants, waste everyone’s time with advertisements, destroy the digital commons, and so on.

Near adjacent to the economy is what it could do if we wanted it to, because we know how to do whatever it is and we can easily get the resources: so we could easily build more homes, for example, or train more doctors or nurses, or hire more Professors or build out more solar power and so on.

The final part of the economy is what you can get from other nations. Call this the external economy. Does someone else make it, will they sell it to you, can  you afford it? Most of the time countries won’t sell other countries nukes, for example, and for much of history countries tried not to sell other countries the knowledge required to make advanced techs. When they didn’t prevent this, they paid big time: Britain was de-facto subjugated by America and America is now losing its Empire.

This is why being the richest King in Africa in 1850, even if you had been richer than England, would have done you very little good. You could not buy what you needed: industry, and even if you could buy a few weapons and machines you couldn’t maintain and repair them.

Taxation is the ability to command the resources of other people. That is all it is.

Now, in the US and the West generally, since some point in the sixties, the state has been increasingly losing the ability to tax the rich. The rich insist on controlling more of the nation’s wealth and economic activity and every decade they have increased that control. Every time something is privatized, that’s the state losing power to tax—to control a piece of the economy. Every tax decrease on the rich is, obviously, a reduction in ability to tax the rich.

The amount of control the State has has been reduced, and amount of control the rich have has been increased. This is an effective loss of the ability to tax.

What is happening right now is that the US is losing the ability to tax the rest of the world. Dollar privilege was “we’ll take American money and make what Americans want for them.” It was the ability of America to direct other people’s economies to do what America wanted. The vast power this implies is mind-boggling.

It is that ability to control other nations’ economies which made the US an Empire, even if it directly militarily occupied few countries. It didn’t need to. It could still tell them what to do.

Since the US didn’t need to make and dig everything, it didn’t: it just made everyone else do that. This was, in many ways a bad idea, but it did mean that the US got the benefits of industry without a lot of the downsides.

So, since JFK and especially since Carter/Reagan, the US has been losing its ability to tax the rich. It has increasingly chosen to tax the rest of the world, moving industry, in particular, to other countries. Those countries made what the US needed, and sold it to them in US dollars, of which they were willing to accept nearly infinite amounts even though, in most cases, they didn’t need nearly as much from the US as the US did from them. (What they did need, in the early and middle years, was capital goods and knowledge, almost infinitely precious, though. Now with China leading in 80% of fields, well, not so much.)

Right now a huge tax cut for the rich is being paid for by cutting 800 billion from Medicaid, even as DOGE savagely cuts a federal civil service which has not grown in nominal numbers in sixty years, and thus has really already been contracting. State capacity is being savaged and services and jobs are being removed from the lower and middle classes.

Now let’s bring this back to the original topic: revolutions happen when states can’t command enough of the internal or external economy. It does not matter how much you can print or tax in nominal terms. In the Weimar Republic people would take a wheelbarrow full of cash to the store: all that matters is what you can actually command/buy with the money. For a long time the US dollar could buy pretty much anything.

But what happens when it doesn’t? What happens when you give it to cops and bureaucrats and soldiers and brown shirts like ICE and it doesn’t buy what they need, or even what they want?

You get what you pay for. This blog is free to read, but not to produce. If you enjoy the content, donate or subscribe.

America Is Trying To Form An Anti-China Trade Bloc

Trump backed off on most of his tariffs after Japan sold a ton of bonds and he panicked. He replaced most of the tariffs with a blanket 10%, and kept tariffs on China and Canada (because those countries had counter-tariffed the US, supposedly.) Now the report is that what US negotiators are demanding is that in exchange for avoiding US tariffs, other countries tariff China.

It should be noted, first, that China will not back down. The way Trump is framing this is “China will come to us” and sub-voce “beg” and that’s not happening, it would be a massive loss of face for Xi and for China and China is a “face” society. So massive tariffs on both sides will continue unless the US makes the first overtures and in a face saving way. The US rates on China are 125% and the Chinese rates on America are 85%.

These are nuclear levels and are going to bring trade damn-near to a halt. China has also put export bans on a number of companies for “dual use” techs: in practice, they’ve hit Lockheed and Boeing (big military aviation companies) so hard that I’m not sure those companies will be able to build planes, the supply chain is that China-centric and there are no alternatives.

(Aside: the criminally minded will be scrambling to smuggle into the US, and fortunes will be made, as they were during Prohibition. Those who wish to reduce criminal risks can just import Chinese goods to Canada and Mexico and sell them to whomever. “I don’t know officer, I don’t ask them why they want all those machine parts. Not my business.”)

It’s hard to say how this will play out, because:

  • Lots of western countries have a hate-on for China. European and Canadian politicians, early on in Trump’s regime, had suggested “why tariff us, let’s go after China together!”
  • But… that was then, and this is now. A lot has changed in three months. No one trusts Trump to keep deals any more and China is looking mighty stable. Even if you’d really rather do business with the US, like Europe, can you expect any deal to be kept?

I’m genuinely unsure how this will play out. My personal preference would be to tell the US and Trump to pound sand: they don’t keep their deals, so you just can’t do business with them no matter what the theoretical case is. (That case is mostly that it’s hard to compete with China, their goods are so cheap, whereas the US is sclerotic so you can sell them stuff, especially if they’re in a trade war with China and can’t buy cheap: charge them 2x as much and still come in under!)

If Trump had gone for this as the start, he would have gotten it. Canada and Europe would have fallen over themselves to join in. Now? Not so sure.

There’s a lot of “Trump is a genius and there is a PLAN” going around in MAGA circles. Bullshit. If this was Trump’s actual goal, what he did made it harder to achieve rather than easier. What actually happened is that Japan jerked the bond market’s chain and Trump backed down and is trying to pivot.

It’s not a completely stupid pivot, the West isn’t competitive against Chinese manufacturing, and one way to deal with that (a bad way, but still a way) is to just cut China out of Western markets and sell over-priced goods to each other.

Years ago I said that the way geopolitics were playing out was leading to a “New Cold War” — there’s an entire category on this blog, just on that.

Crunch time has come and we’ll see if it happens, and who’s on each side. Trump’s made America’s chances of putting together a strong coalition far weaker than they should have been, but anti-China fear and a refusal to end rentierism in the West mean that we can’t, actually, compete against China, so there’s still a strong temptation to form that anti-China bloc.

If so, we’ll be the weaker side, as the USSR/Warsaw Pact was last time and we will lose the new Cold war, falling further and further behind technologically and watching as the Chinese enjoy goods we can barely even dream of, just as was true of the late Soviet Union.

Everything, and I mean everything, will be sacrificed to keep the oligarchs in power, keep making them richer and keep the flow of unearned cash pouring into every rich person’s orifices.

Update: Seems that the EU and China are in talks to end EU tariffs on electric vehicles. That sound you hear is Elon Musk puckering up to kiss his ass goodbye.

You get what you pay for. This blog is free to read, but not to produce. If you enjoy the content, donate or subscribe.

 

China Cuts The Legs Out Underneath The US LNG Industry

I didn’t see this coming:

In a move that stunned traders, analysts and policymakers alike, China has just announced a complete halt on all liquefied natural gas imports from the United States. A decision made abruptly with no prior indication, no phased reduction and no explanation beyond a terse statement from Beijing…

…China was one of the fastest growing markets for American LNG, importing more than four million tons annually. Cutting that overnight is more than symbolic, it’s surgical.

Early reactions have been nothing short of panic. Energy markets were jolted, LNG prices in Europe and Asia swung wildly and US energy firms reported immediate financial hits…

…Overnight, the US was eliminated from one of the world’s most lucrative gas markets worth more than US$2.4 billion a year. Let that number sink in. More than 4.4 million tons of American LNG every single year now suddenly has nowhere to go.

Ports along the Gulf Coast are already feeling the shock. Massive LNG tankers are sitting idle with nowhere to dock, no buyers to receive them. Terminal operators are scrambling to reroute shipments, but the damage is done. Revenue streams are drying up. American energy firms are haemorrhaging cash: millions of dollars in losses each day…

China has begun rerouting LNG cargoes originally meant for East Asia straight into Europe’s energy-hungry markets. The message is clear: If the US wants to weaponise trade, China will weaponise its energy strategy.

Why Europe? Because it’s vulnerable and China knows it. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the European Union has been scrambling to find a replacement for Russian gas. For the past two years, the US had been the emergency supplier, shipping LNG across the Atlantic to prevent blackouts and political chaos in capitals from Berlin to Warsaw. But that relationship, built out of necessity, was never guaranteed.

And China just exposed that fragility. By stepping in with competitive LG offers at lower prices, China is capitalising on a moment of weakness. European energy firms, already strained by inflation and political pressure, are welcoming any chance to secure stable and affordable supply.

One of the major stories of the Ukraine war is how the US took advantage of the pipeline sabotage and sanctions to sell Europe natural gas. Expensive natural gas. This increased the energy cost of heavy industry and led to a lot of European, especially German factories, shuttering and moving to the US.

Win/Win. For America.

China isn’t itself an LNG exporter, but it controls a lot of the market thru long term contracts. It has an excess of what it needs, and it just signed a new contract with Australia for long term supply:

In March 2025, Australia’s energy giant Woodside Energy inked a game-changing 15-year contract with China Resources Gas, one of Beijing’s top natural gas distributors.

Under the deal, Australia will begin supplying 600,000 tons of LNG per year, starting in 2027. While the volume might not seem earth-shattering on paper, the symbolism behind the agreement is monumental…

… Australian LNG is currently 20% cheaper than US shipments largely due to proximity and lower transportation costs. It takes roughly 10 fewer days for Australian cargo to reach Chinese ports, compared to those from the US.

Australia, of course, has been rather anti-China and a big US ally, BUT cold hard cash, err, trumps that.

What’s becoming clear about this trade war is that China has gamed it out. They thought ahead, having learned lessons during the first Trump administration: they were ready. They’ve massively reduced their vulnerabilities and carefully examined America’s weaknesses, and now they’re hitting them. Hard.

This realigns American allies in Europe and Australia more towards China, it hurts the US, and it highlights the benefits of doing business with China.

 

Xi Jingping

Xi, as we discussed in our last article, has been planning for this, not just since Trump, but since he took power. He’s locked and loaded and he’s firing his guns. The more Trump doubles down, the more America will be hurt, because China needs America less than America needs China. In many cases America firms have no choice but to buy from China, there is nowhere else to get what they need, while China either has alternatives or has already written off buying from the US, as is the case with chips. To China, America is a lost cause: it can’t be relied on either as a supplier or a buyer.

If America’s effectively a write-off, well, treat it like a write-off. And that’s what China is doing.

Trump and many Americans thought that China was the vulnerable one, that China was in a weaker position than them (they made the same mistake with Canada). It isn’t. Now Europe and Japan are holding weaker hands than the US in a trade war, but here’s China actually strengthening Europe.

It is to laugh. Trump’s fundamentally incompetent, a D- player and he’s going up against Xi, who’s arguably a great statesman, and so far, Xi is ripping him a new one.

This is what actual planning and actual competence looks like: see threats in the future and get ready for them. When someone declares you their enemy, as the US has repeatedly, take them seriously.

We haven’t seen that in any Western country in at least two generations.

 

You get what you pay for. This blog is free to read, but not to produce. If you enjoy the content, donate or subscribe.

How To Do Tariffs Right (Trump The Moron Edition)

One of the ways that Trump reminds me of Bush Jr. is that you never want him to do anything you agree with, because he’ll fuck it up and discredit it. Trump’s tariffs are the platonic essence of fucking up a good idea.

Let’s run thru this:

Companies and individuals need predictability. Everyone has pointed this out, but it’s still true. You can’t lay on new production if you don’t know if the tariffs are here to stay or not.

It takes time to increase production so tariffs should come in like a lamb. Personally I’d have most tariffs increase by 1% every month or two, depending on how long a specific type of production takes to increase, until it reached my target. Companies can’t just spawn in new production, this isn’t a video game.

If you can’t produce it you shouldn’t tariff it unless you have hard currency issues. Mostly self-explanatory: tariffs are used to make domestic production economically viable. If you can never produce it tariffs don’t make sense unless you don’t have enough hard currency to import things you really need, usually capital machinery. This last part doesn’t apply to the US.

If domestic production has a better use, tariffs may be a bad idea. Right now the US is ramping up energy production to it can concentrate on AI. Putting tariffs on Canadian energy is thus stupid, since the US can’t build enough energy fast enough. Related: aluminum production is massively energy intensive. Tariffing Canadian aluminum means you need to use American energy for refining. Is that the best use of American energy right now? (I mean, a case could be made that AI is overhyped bullshit, but Trump isn’t saying that.)

Maybe you want to export goods to another country, and they’ll tariff you if you tariff them. Tariffs often need to be negotiated between countries. If everyone just tariffs everything, that’s the end of international trade. Generally the idea is “you specialize in X, we’ll specialize in Y and we’ll trade.” Comparative advantage is overstated and only works when there are no significant free capital flows, but it’s also true that no one can produce everything they need: not even China right now, or the US in 1950. So “tariffs on everything” is moronic.

Tariffs without industrial policy rarely work. If no one can afford to build up industry, or if the regulatory environment makes it hard, all the tariffs do is increase prices. Biden actually had pretty decent industrial support programs going and Trump is dismantling them. He should, instead, have left them in place while putting strategic tariffs in place to further support them.

Needless to say Trump is bad on all these issues, because he’s a tard.

You get what you pay for. This blog is free to read, but not to produce. If you enjoy the content, donate or subscribe.

 

End Of Empire: Effects & Theory Of Trump’s Tariffs

Let’s deal with the big, almost certain effects first.

This is the beginning of the end of  the American alliance system, empire and world economic system.

Trump is planning on putting tariffs on Europe, too. He put higher tariffs on Canada, supposedly one of America’s closest allies, than on China. Hitting the majority of America’s vassals/allies all at more or less the same time, with them retaliating with their own tariffs means an end to the American created world economic system. It will also lead to the end of NATO and, in time, other alliances. Europe’s mainland isn’t practically subject to threat of invasion from the US the way that Canada and Mexico are, they don’t have to put up with this, but threats to Greenland make it clear that the US is more likely to invade an actual EU member than Russia is.

Hard to have an alliance with a nation you’re in a trade war with who is threatening to invade one of your countries and who, by all accounts, is serious about it.

And while the tariffs are all justified on “national security” which is “letter” legal, everyone knows that’s bullshit. Trump is violating the purpose of the WTO, USMCA/NAFTA and other trade treaties the US has signed.

There’s no way the world trade order survives this and no way the American empire does either, since it’s based on an alliance system and bases around the world, many of which are in countries Trump is declaring his trade war on. Even countries who escape tariffs for now can’t feel secure. Ironically it’s the tariffs on Canada which will do the US the most international harm: everyone knows that Canada has been a completely supine vassal giving to the US everything it wants. Canadian exports, minus oil and gas, are less than its imports from the US, so there’s no legitimate re-balancing argument, even. Foreign leaders have read reports making this clear.

Alright, enough about the top-line effects. Let’s look into the theory of tariffs Trump appears to believe.

Trump has nominated Stephen Miran American to be chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Stephen is a senior strategist for Hudson Bay Capital management, and he wrote a 40 page brief, primarily on tariffs, called “A User’s Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System.

The most important part of his thesis is the following argument about the effect of tariffs.

1) The currency of the exporter will depreciate to make up the difference in cost.

2) Consumer prices will not go up, therefore;

3) the exporting country is damaged, the importing tariffing country is not.

4) But the tariffing country does get revenue! Free lunch, in other words.

5) Importer profit margins take any hits hits not covered by the exporter’s currency depreciation, not prices, or at least they did last time.

This argument is given empirical backing by looking at what happened when Trump imposed tariffs during his first term: the Yuan depreciated and consumer prices didn’t rise.

Let’s run thru this.

  • China tends to control the price of its currency. If the Yuan depreciated, it’s because the Chinese government chose to depreciate it. They may not choose to do so this time.
  • America has no option but to buy from China. From machine goods to basic electronics to parts for America’s defense industry, there are no domestic or European alternatives for much of it.
  • China doesn’t, therefore, have to depreciate its currency. It might sell less goods, but it will still sell tons. It’s a political decision.
  • If the exchange rate does drop, or balance, which is not a sure thing, even with non-controlled currencies, then US exports to that country become more expensive, and the exports to that country drop. In the case of Canada, which imports more goods from the US than vice-versa, what is likely to happen is import substitution: Canadian importers will probably switch to China.
  • In fact, this will be a general issue. Any country the US puts tariffs on will replace a lot of imported US goods with Chinese goods.
  • Not all importers can eat the losses. The reason Trump put only 10% tariffs on oil and gas is that American refiners have thin profit margins. Any increase in crude prices from tariffs will be passed on to consumers. (Aside: this is clearly the Achilles heel and Canada should put an exit-tariff on crude to hurt the US as much as possible.)
  • Importers also don’t have to eat the price increases. In the pre-Covid world, there was a lot less consumer inflation. But when Covid happened, prices increased faster than costs because Covid supply shocks were a good excuse to raise prices. Some importers may eat the increased costs, others may pass them on, and even raise prices more than the tariffs. If they have pricing power, if people must buy from them, then why not? Fear of Trump might cause some to eat the difference, but there are a lot of obscure, little importers. Apple passing on costs or gouging will be noticed so they’ll probably eat it. Others won’t.
  • The money the government receives comes from Americans, really, not foreigners. They pay the tariffs. There are elites who are going to be hurt by Trump’s tariffs.

What Miran doesn’t talk much about is the idea of import substitution. The real reason to do tariffs is to protect and nurture internal producers. This is important to Trump, he’s talked about it often.

With respect to Mexico, the idea is to get factories in Mexico to move to the US. They exist in Mexico primarily because Mexico used to have tariff free access to America, and has lower costs than America. There will be some effect here. The calculus will mostly be about uncertainty, though, not costs. In most cases producing in Mexico is probably still cheaper, even after a 25% tariff, than producing in America. But given how erratic Trump is, and that he’s indicated there may be more and higher tariffs, it may make sense to move factories to the US. The US won’t tariff itself.

But this is more complicated than it looks, because the US doesn’t make most of the parts any factory will need, so those have to be imported, and tariffed, or a supply network needs to be built in the US.

That’s what the US wants. If you want sell to us, you have to make it here, not just assemble it.

This is fair enough, actually, but it’s based on an assumption of continued dollar privilege.

Take a look at this chart:

The US is able to run these long term, consistent trade deficits because of dollar privilege. It can print dollars and everyone will take them.

But if the US world economic system is breaking up, if NATO is likely to die, and if the US is tariffing its allies, will dollar privilege survive? After all, you don’t really need dollars to buy from the US, because the vast majority of what you buy from the US you could buy from China instead, and Chinese prices are cheaper. If America doesn’t want you to export to them, well, what good are the dollars?

This is why Trump has been making horrific threats to BRICS about replacing the dollar. BRICS has reassured them it doesn’t intend to do that, but it’s not clear they aren’t lying and in any case, what BRICS has mostly been doing is changing from using the US dollar in trade to just using bilateral currencies. More and more, BRICS members trade with each other in their own currencies, without using the US dollar.

This chart, again from the Visual Capitalist, is worth staring at a bit:

As the chart notes, the US dollar is still , but that chart isn’t comforting. Remember that China, not the US, is the trade partner of the most nations in the world. And note that while the US is China’s export destination, exports to the US accounted for 2.9% of Chinese GDP, down from 3.5% in 2018. Eighteen percent of China’s exports went to the US in 2023.

The point, here, is that if you can’t sell to America because of tariffs, and if the US doesn’t have much you want to buy because China is cheaper, why do you need the US dollar?

If the US dollar loses privilege, if people won’t accept it because it can be used in trade with any country, then America has a problem: it can’t just print dollars any more and if it can’t print dollars any more, Americans can’t keep massively over-consuming.

This means a massive demand drop from Americans: they will have to consume much less. You might think that means an opportunity for American firms to step into the breach, but this will happen with very little demand from in the American market (and with the trade war, no one else is going to be buying from the US as their first, second or third choice.)

The American cost structure is high and American “capitalists” prefer to play financial games to make things. The American competency crisis is real, and not caused by DEI. The market has high barriers to entry, incumbents addicted to oligopoly profits and no basic machine industry and almost no basic electronic parts manufacturing.

The transition period will be ugly. Beyond ugly. Quite likely “economic collapse” level ugly.

There was a way to use tariffs and industrial strategy, but starting a trade war with half the world all at almost the same time was not the way to do it. You pick sectors (start with machine tools and basic electronic and machine parts), tariff that, put in subsidies and restructure the market for those goods. Once that’s going, you move back up the chain.

That’s how you use tariffs and industrial policy to reindustrialize.

Trump’s tariff plans are based on assumptions that are not going to hold in the real world, during a global trade war. Tariffs are important and often good and I support their use, but like everything else, they must be used intelligently.

Enough for today, we’ll talk about the effects (almost entirely positive) of Trump’s tariffs on everyone else in the world next. Trump is doing what no one else could: destroying the American empire and the neoliberal world order. I’m very thankful and as long as we can avoid war Trump’s actions are positive in the middle to long term for far more people than they’re bad for. Just, well, not Americans in the short to middle term or anyone who gets invaded.

More soon.

This blog runs on donations and subscriptions from readers. It’s free, but not free to produce. If you value it, please give.

Trump’s Doing Everyone A Favor With His Tariffs (Emphasis on Canada)

(Keyboard fixed, at least for now, so let’s get on with it.)

Trump has threatened blanket tariffs on multiple nations, including most of Europe, Canada and Mexico. This is an effective threat. The Bank of Canada estimated the effect of such tariffs on Canada at six percent of GDP, and I’ve seen an estimate for Germany of about one percent of GDP, after previous losses due to anti-Russia sanction effects on energy costs.

But what this tells us is that many nations are over-dependent on trade with America. Our economies are too intertwined with America’s economy, especially Canada’s. America’s massive and persistent trade deficits also indicate that America isn’t competitive. This isn’t a surprise, the American economy is controlled by oligopolies and monopolies with middlemen taking unearned profits and the overall cost structure, from housing to medical care to everything else is high, especially with respect to asset prices, which have been deliberately inflated since about 1979.

What we should do, all of us who are being threatened, is tell the US to fuck itself, slap retaliatory tariffs on the US, add in export tariffs so the US really hurts, and reorient trade towards each other—form a trade bloc without the US.

It’s worth pointing out that many of Trump’s tariffs are essentially illegal under various trade agreements the US has signed. Yet no one doubts that Trump can impose these tariffs despite their illegality. Remember that a signed treaty has the force of law in the US.

The US is, and has been a rogue nation for a long time and the rule of law means nothing in America.

I’m going to talk primarily about Canada because I know the situation here best. We’ll start with a little history.

For most of Canadian history, we exported mostly raw and refined resources to America. Minerals, oil, fish, lumber and so on. Often it was illegal to export them without doing at least primary processing: no raw logs, fish were canned in Canada and so on.

The original sin of over-integration with the US was the US-Canada auto-pact. We got a lot of jobs and factories out of it, but it was used as leverage over us. When Canada’s world-leading aviation industry of the 50s produced a jet, the Avro Arrow, which was much better than any American jet, the US threatened to take away the auto-pact unless we ended the program. And by end, I mean we disbanded Avro and we sunk the jets in a lake. Male engineers were hired by US firms, the female engineers got to be housewives, since the US in the 50s was 100% a patriarchal society. (As an aside, this was a post-war thing, the 30s were not as patriarchal.)

This story is so flaming hot in Canada that the original classification was renewed when it was due to end. Even now Canadians are angry about the Avro Arrow, something which happened 7 decades ago.

In the 80s, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney wanted a free trade pact with the US to ensure market access. Most Canadians were against it and the 88 election was fought about the FTA. Mulroney won because the anti-FTA vote was split between the Liberal and NDP parties. He rammed thru the FTA, which was later rolled into NAFTA and is now called the USMCA.

The deal included a lot more than just trade, it had IP laws and reduced the ability of Canada to use tariffs and subsidies itself and including nasty taking laws which made it nearly impossible to regulate foreign companies in Canada. Because our nation sells so many resources, the Canadian dollar tends to fluctuate a lot. When it’s high (it was higher than the US dollar for a couple years around 2015, for example) it’s devastating to our industry.

The old policy, which started around 1880 or so was called the Canadian mixed economy. When the dollar was high because of high resource prices, we’d subsidize manufacturing. When it was low, we’d subsidize resource producers and gave generous unemployment benefits to laid off resource workers.

That policy created one of the best and most prosperous economies in world history. But the condition which allowed it was that we had strong ties to both the British Empire/Commonwealth and to the US. In the 70s, the Brits, under intense US pressure since the end of WWII had their economy basically collapse. They had to go to the IMF for help and joined the EU, which bailed them out. The result of that was that their trade became very oriented towards the EU and the Commonwealth countries were left on their own.

Without a counterweight against the US, Canada felt weak. It didn’t stop Pierre Trudeau (the current PMs father) from telling the US to suck it when necessary, he even closed the border at one point, but Mulroney didn’t have the balls and he was right that our hand had become a lot weaker.

So Mulroney rammed thru the FTA. He was repaid by the Progressive Conservative party being essentially wiped out in the next election. Canadians really didn’t want the FTA/NAFTA. But once it was in, no successor government got rid of it.

The result was that Canada lost most of its industrial base. Ironically we even lost a lot of those auto-pact jobs, as American auto companies got their pants beaten off them by Japan and South Korea.

Pre-FTA about 30% of our exports to the US were autos and auto parts, 20% were petroleum, and miscellaneous machinery was about 15%.

Fast forward to today, 30% of our exports are petroleum, 13% are automobiles (the pact), and miscellaneous machinery is about 8%.

Can you say Dutch disease? Sure you can.

We’ve become a much more one note exporter, which is why Alberta and Saskatchewan are betraying our united front. They do most of the exporting, after all.

But the larger point is general de-industrialization and over-dependence on American markets. This has become enhanced over the last 8 years as our relations with China have degraded, due to Trudeau’s stupidity and pandering to America.

If this anti-China pandering worked, if it made it so America wouldn’t pull shit like tariffs, maybe it could be justified, but all its done is hurt our relationship with a potential trade partner and counter-weight to America’s influence on our economy.

So, what to do?

To start, leave the USMCA. The US has never obeyed NAFTA or the USMCA when it didn’t want to. Back in the 00s they slapped tariffs on timber, and ignored repeated rulings against them. We should have left then, but better later than never.

Second, start rebuilding our own industrial base. We still have plenty of scientists and engineers and vibrant universities. We can still bring in more scientists and engineers if we need to. This will require tariffs and subsidies, so institute them.

Third, bribe the resource workers who will be hurt. Just straight up find a way to give them a big chunk of change.

Fourth, re-institute Canadian ownership laws which require companies to be 51% Canadian owned, including foreign subsidiaries. Have the government take an additional 10%, and promise that all dividends from that 10% will be shared with Canadian citizens as direct deposits every year. Make it clear that we are willing to trade, but that trade no longer includes the right of foreigners to buy up our economy.

Fifth, form trade deals with countries other than the US. These should be bilateral or small multilateral in most cases with tariffs and subsidies allowed on both sides for key industries. We should pick a few industry sectors to concentrate on, and trade with other countries in the other sectors: that way they get something in exchange for the deal.

Sixth, go back to the old cyclical subsidization system: industry when our currency is high, resources when it’s low. Make it so that ordinary workers (and voters) are protected from the cyclical effects of a dual economy.

Seventh, put a lot of the resource profits into a sovereign wealth fund, to reduce the cyclical effects and provide the inevitable busts and for the inevitable and ongoing movement away from petrochemicals. Like it or not, alternative energy is coming on strong and the days of the petrol economy are drawing down. We’ve still got a couple decades to go, but the role of government is to make these long term plans. The fund should prioritize investments in petroleum regions, both to get them onside and to prepare them for the drawdown.

There’s plenty more details, of course, but these are the fundamentals. We’ll talk more, soon, about how trade should actually work if it’s to be for the benefit of all countries. Needless to say, such a regime would have princicples almost directly in opposition to those that have existed under GATT and its successor, the WTO.

This blog runs on donations and subscriptions from readers. It’s free, but not free to produce. If you value it, please give.

France Is Being Kicked Out of YET Another French Country

Recently French troops have had to leave Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso. Now it’s Chad booting them.

Update: Senegal has now announced it intends to seek the withdrawal of French troops.

The first three countries have Russian troops in them now. Wonder how long it’ll be before Chad joins the crowd?

France has been the most important country in a lot of its ex-colonies in Africa, but it’s losing its place, not just militarily but economically. Countries are turning to China for imported goods and development at the same time as they turn to Russia for security. Chinese goods, development and loans are cheaper, and neither Russia nor China interfere nearly as much in domestic politics.

It’s just a better deal. For a long time you HAD to go to the West, but now Russia and China can supply pretty much everything you need.

 

As regular readers know I’ve been following Europe’s collapse for a few years now. It’s practically a freefall. In Germany Volkswagon, for example, is planning on closing factories for the first time.

Europe’s well on its way to being what it was for most of history: a backwards and irrelevant peninsula, with the main action and most important civilizations elsewhere in Asia.

SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE TO OUR 2024 FUNDRAISER

Dollar Hegemony Decline Watch

So, nice little chart here:

Seems… bad. At least for America and Europe.

Let’s lay this out:

  1. Most of what you want to buy you can buy from China, you don’t need to get it from the West, so why use dollars?
  2. China almost never uses sanctions or seizes foreign currency. The US often does. US dollars are risky, the right to use them can and is often taken away, and so often are the dollars themselves.

So why use the dollar, except that it’s still easier in some cases?

What happens when it’s no longer easier? The BRICS are spending a lot of time on an international banking system which bypasses the West and it’s allies (Japan and South Korea, basically). As that system becomes easier to use, why use the Western system or the dollar? It only exposes you to risk.

This is similar to what happened after the Huawei sanctions. Chinese firms saw the damage that was done to Huawei (they’ve roared back, but it was touch and go for a couple years.) The cry in Chinese business was “delete America.” If you bought anything important from the US you needed to find another source outside of the West, which for manufactured goods usually meant domestically, and for resources meant Africa, South America and Russia.

For a long time the way the banking system was set up you had to use the dollar, but more and more you don’t. And for a long time some key providers, like oil producers, would only take dollars, but now they’ll take Yuan.

So, again, why use the dollar when there is a safer alternative which can be used to buy or sell almost anything you want?


My writing happens because readers donate or subscribe. If you value that writing, and you can afford to, please support it.

Page 1 of 13

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén