Indeed. I live in Canada and while USMCA benefited some industries it did not others. Also as a Canadian I suspect the new agreement most likely will be even less beneficial to Canadians.
> Also as a Canadian I suspect the new agreement most likely will be even less beneficial to Canadians.
I think Carney is unlikely to let that happen.
Australia’s most recent FTA with the US was lopsided because AUS still had a policy of hoping the US would come to her aid if necessary and so placated the giant, and the GWB administration took advantage of that.
These days that’s unlikely to happen because people understand that that era is over and the current government has more spine.
Cooperation leads to higher value for everyone. We are now only getting the maximum minimum value because we are actively destroying cooperation. In other words, borders are stupid. When they go away you see prosperity and reduced tensions. When they go up you see inefficiency and distrust. Borders aren't the result of distrust and economic issues, they are the cause.
Krugman avoids answering the interviewer's question about whether Michiganites support having so much of the automobile supply chain outsourced to Canada, because he knows that the answer is "No". He instead says that the US has more auto jobs because of the cross-border integration than otherwise. The decline of the US auto industry began very soon after the start of the auto pact. I don't mean to say that the latter caused the former, but it would certainly be possible to make a case for such.
Trump's view is that Canada needs the US a lot more than the other way around. He's right. Every Canadian province except one trades more with the US than the rest of Canada, and every Canadian province is (far, far) more dependent on international trade than 48 of 50 US states. <https://www.linkedin.com/posts/goldfarbdanielle_we-make-thin...> At the end of the day, there is no way to get around the verity of another Krugman observation, that Canada is closer to the US than to itself. <https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/eh/>
With the above in mind, consider the Trudeau government's bold talk in early 2025 about "dollar for dollar" tariffs <https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2025/mar/12/dollar-f...>. How that would devastate an economy 8% the size of the US's was, of course, unsaid, because vibes are all it takes to fight Trump fascism, amirite fellow Canadians? Of course Trudeau's replacement Carney is not stupid like Trudeau, so abandoned that policy during the campaign <https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-trump-tariffs-...>. But still.
> He instead says that the US has more auto jobs because of the cross-border integration than otherwise. The decline of the US auto industry began very soon after the start of the auto pact.
His topic is NA as a large single economy, and on that basis auto production (in both employment and GDP) has grown and productivity has grown since NAFTA was signed (and has gyrated wildly as well due to idiotic auto industry management, which is unrelated to NAFTA).
The jobs had indeed moved around to the detriment of regions in the US, Canada and to a lesser extent Mexico. But if you look at the US alone, you see that process happening as well (e.g. aircraft and auto mfg moving to the non-unionized south). It’s economically superior to integrate these three countries and beneficial overall: but the US has been the laggard in helping those regions who have suffered.
NAFTA is also a condemning example for the EU: a free trade region based on propinquity where different languages and systems are used yet the free trade works.
> But if you look at the US alone, you see that process happening as well (e.g. aircraft and auto mfg moving to the non-unionized south).
A Michigan auto worker may not be thrilled by jobs moving to Tennessee, but a) at least his countrymen will work those jobs, and b) he can move to Tennessee. His job moving to Ontario does not have these virtues, and no amount of repeating
> It’s economically superior to integrate these three countries and beneficial overall
We learned that free trade has costs, and we're adjusting. That's ok too.
Indeed. I live in Canada and while USMCA benefited some industries it did not others. Also as a Canadian I suspect the new agreement most likely will be even less beneficial to Canadians.
> Also as a Canadian I suspect the new agreement most likely will be even less beneficial to Canadians.
I think Carney is unlikely to let that happen.
Australia’s most recent FTA with the US was lopsided because AUS still had a policy of hoping the US would come to her aid if necessary and so placated the giant, and the GWB administration took advantage of that.
These days that’s unlikely to happen because people understand that that era is over and the current government has more spine.
Yeah, especially if the deal has "50-something or other state" in it.
It's part of a general retreat from the world on the part of the United States.
Krugman--often wrong, never in doubt
Cooperation leads to higher value for everyone. We are now only getting the maximum minimum value because we are actively destroying cooperation. In other words, borders are stupid. When they go away you see prosperity and reduced tensions. When they go up you see inefficiency and distrust. Borders aren't the result of distrust and economic issues, they are the cause.
Krugman implies that the US-Canada (not Mexico) integration of the auto industry came from NAFTA. Not so; The Auto Pact <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Auto_Pact> preceded NAFTA by 30 years.
Krugman avoids answering the interviewer's question about whether Michiganites support having so much of the automobile supply chain outsourced to Canada, because he knows that the answer is "No". He instead says that the US has more auto jobs because of the cross-border integration than otherwise. The decline of the US auto industry began very soon after the start of the auto pact. I don't mean to say that the latter caused the former, but it would certainly be possible to make a case for such.
Trump's view is that Canada needs the US a lot more than the other way around. He's right. Every Canadian province except one trades more with the US than the rest of Canada, and every Canadian province is (far, far) more dependent on international trade than 48 of 50 US states. <https://www.linkedin.com/posts/goldfarbdanielle_we-make-thin...> At the end of the day, there is no way to get around the verity of another Krugman observation, that Canada is closer to the US than to itself. <https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/eh/>
With the above in mind, consider the Trudeau government's bold talk in early 2025 about "dollar for dollar" tariffs <https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2025/mar/12/dollar-f...>. How that would devastate an economy 8% the size of the US's was, of course, unsaid, because vibes are all it takes to fight Trump fascism, amirite fellow Canadians? Of course Trudeau's replacement Carney is not stupid like Trudeau, so abandoned that policy during the campaign <https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-trump-tariffs-...>. But still.
> He instead says that the US has more auto jobs because of the cross-border integration than otherwise. The decline of the US auto industry began very soon after the start of the auto pact.
His topic is NA as a large single economy, and on that basis auto production (in both employment and GDP) has grown and productivity has grown since NAFTA was signed (and has gyrated wildly as well due to idiotic auto industry management, which is unrelated to NAFTA).
The jobs had indeed moved around to the detriment of regions in the US, Canada and to a lesser extent Mexico. But if you look at the US alone, you see that process happening as well (e.g. aircraft and auto mfg moving to the non-unionized south). It’s economically superior to integrate these three countries and beneficial overall: but the US has been the laggard in helping those regions who have suffered.
NAFTA is also a condemning example for the EU: a free trade region based on propinquity where different languages and systems are used yet the free trade works.
> But if you look at the US alone, you see that process happening as well (e.g. aircraft and auto mfg moving to the non-unionized south).
A Michigan auto worker may not be thrilled by jobs moving to Tennessee, but a) at least his countrymen will work those jobs, and b) he can move to Tennessee. His job moving to Ontario does not have these virtues, and no amount of repeating
> It’s economically superior to integrate these three countries and beneficial overall
is going to change this.