Hoover's Folly

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by 720Global's Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

In 1930, Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act into law. As the world entered the early phases of the Great Depression, the measure was intended to protect American jobs and farmers. Ignoring warnings from global trade partners, the new law placed tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. which resulted in retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods exported to other countries. By 1934, U.S. imports and exports were reduced by more than 50% and many Great Depression scholars have blamed the tariffs for playing a substantial role in amplifying the scope and duration of the Great Depression. The United States paid a steep price for trying to protect its workforce through short-sighted political expedience.

On January 3, 2017 Ford Motor Company backed away from plans to build a $1.6 billion assembly plant in Mexico and instead opted to add 700 jobs at a Michigan plant. This abrupt reversal followed sharp criticism from Donald Trump. Ford joins Carrier in reneging on plans to move production to Mexico and will possibly be followed by other large corporations rumored to be reconsidering outsourcing. Although retaining manufacturing and jobs in the U.S. is a favorable development, it seems unlikely that these companies are changing their plans over concerns for American workers or due to stern remarks from President-elect Trump.

What does seem likely? Big changes in trade policy occurring within the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency. The change in plans by Ford and Carrier serve as clues to what may lie ahead and imply a cost-benefit analysis.  In order to gain better insight into what the trade policy of the new administration may hold, consideration of cabinet members nominated to key positions of influence is in order.

Trump’s Trade Appointments

As we close in on Trump’s inauguration, his cabinet and team of advisors is taking shape.  With regard to global trade, there are three cabinet nominations that most capture our attention:

  • Peter Navarro is a business professor from the University of California-Irvine. Mr. Navarro has been very outspoken about China and the need to renegotiate existing trade deals in order to put America on a level playing field with global manufacturers. The author of the book, “Death by China”, will lead the newly created White House National Trade Council.
  • Wilbur Ross is a billionaire investor who made his fortune by resurrecting struggling companies. In the words of Donald Trump, Mr. Ross is a “champion of American manufacturing and knows how to turn them around”. The long time trade protectionist will now serve as Commerce Secretary.
  • Robert Lighthizer is currently a lawyer with a focus on trade litigation and lobbying on behalf of large U.S. corporations. Earlier in his career, he served as deputy U.S. Trade Representative under President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Lighthizer has been very outspoken about unfair trade practices that harm America. In his new role he will serve as Trump’s U.S. Trade Representative.

Donald Trump said that Mr. Lighthizer will work “in close coordination” with Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro. The bottom line is that these three advisors have strong protectionist views and generally feel that China, Mexico and other nations have taken advantage of America.

Gettysburg and Other Rhetoric

On October 22, 2016 in Gettysburg Pennsylvania, Donald Trump delivered a litany of goals that he hopes to accomplish in his first 100 days of office. Within the list are seven actions aimed at protecting American workers. Four of them deal with foreign trade. They are as follows:

These four proposals and other trade-related rhetoric that Donald Trump repeatedly stated while running for president suggest that he will take immediate steps to level the global trade playing field. At this point, it is pure conjecture what actions may or may not be taken. However, the article, “We need a tough negotiator like Trump to fix U.S. trade policy”, penned by Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross from July 2016 offers clues.

In the article, Navarro and Ross took the World Trade Organization (WTO) to task for being negligent in defending the United States against unfair trade. Additionally, they note the WTO “provides little or no protection against  four of the most potent unfair trade practices many of our trade partners routinely engage in — currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, and the use of both sweatshop labor and pollution havens”.

They also note that the U.S. does not have a Value-Added Tax (VAT). Heavily used in the European Union and much of the rest of world, a VAT is a tax imposed at various stages of production where value is added and/or at the final sale. The tax rate is commonly based on the location of the customer, and it can be used to affect global trade. Manufacturers from countries with VAT taxes frequently receive rebates for taxes incurred during the production process. Because the U.S. does not have a VAT, the WTO has denied U.S. corporations the ability to receive VAT rebates. In fact, the WTO has rejected three congressional attempts to give American companies equal VAT rebate treatment. By denying VAT rebates the WTO is “giving foreign competitors a huge tax-break edge.” 

It is possible that, within weeks of taking office, President-elect Trump may threaten to leave the WTO. In what is likely a negotiating tactic, we should expect strong proposals from Trump and his team with the goal of forcing the WTO to alter decisions more to the favor of the United States. Among the actions the Trump administration may take, or threaten to take, is the pulling out of prior trade agreements and/or establishing tariffs on imports into the United States. Because of its efficiency and simplicity, border tax adjustments, which are similar to VAT, seem to be a more logical approach as they would effectively assess a tax on importers of foreign goods and resources without affecting exporters.  Border tax adjustments seem even more plausible when considered in the context of a recent Twitter message that Donald Trump posted: “General Motors is sending Mexican made model of Chevy Cruze to U.S. car dealers-tax free across border – Make in U.S.A. or pay big border tax!

Ramifications and Investment Advice

Although it remains unclear which approach the Trump trade team will take, much less what they will accomplish, we are quite certain they will make waves. The U.S. equity markets have been bullish on the outlook for the new administration given its business friendly posture toward tax and regulatory reform, but they have turned a blind eye toward possible negative side effects of any of his plans. Global trade and supply chain interdependencies have been a tailwind for corporate earnings for decades. Abrupt changes in those dynamics represent a meaningful shift in the trajectory of global growth, and the equity markets will eventually be required to deal with the uncertainties that will accompany those changes.

If actions are taken to impose tariffs, VATs, border adjustments or renege on trade deals, the consequences to various asset classes could be severe.  Of further importance, the U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency and accounts for the majority of global trade. If global trade is hampered, marginal demand for dollars would likely decrease as would the value of the dollar versus other currencies.

From an investment standpoint, this would have many effects. First, commodities priced in dollars would likely benefit, especially precious metals. Secondly, without the need to hold as many U.S. dollars in reserve, foreign nations might sell their Treasury securities holdings. Further adding pressure to U.S. Treasury securities and all fixed income securities, a weakening dollar is inflationary on the margin, which brings consideration of the Federal Reserve and monetary policy into play.

Investors should anticipate that, whatever actions are taken by the new administration, America’s trade partners will likely take similar actions in order to protect their own interests. If this is the case, the prices of goods and materials will likely rise along with tensions in global trade markets. Retaliation raises the specter of heightened inflationary pressures, which could force the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates at a faster pace than expected. The possibility of inflation coupled with higher interest rates and weak economic growth would lead to an economic state called stagflation. Other than precious metals and possibly some companies operating largely within the United States, it iummaryc or global assets that benefit. d to envision other assets lation, higher interest and stagnant economic growth would lis hard to envision many other domestic or global assets that benefit from a trade war.


We like to think that the lessons from the Great Depression would prevent a trade war like the one precipitated by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff act. We must realize, however, that nationalism is on the rise here and abroad, and America will soon have a president that appears more than willing to take swift and aggressive  action to ensure that it is not taken advantage of in the global trade arena.

It is premature to make investment decisions based on rhetoric and threats. It is also possible that much of this bluster could simply be the opening bid in what is a peaceful renegotiation of global trade agreements. To the extent that global growth and trade has been the beneficiary of years of asymmetries at the expense of the United States, then change is overdue.  Our hope is that the Trump administration can impose the discipline of smart business with the tact of shrewd diplomacy to affect these changes in an orderly manner. Regardless, we must pay close attention as trade conflicts and their consequences can escalate quickly.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

Say what you want, but America has lost a big chunk of its former manufacturing might. And without it it will be toast. This little nugget of knowledge seems to escape our soon departing president. That is no mystery since the man had had exactly zero experience in business, much less manufacturing.

If America has to go to war again, it cannot depend on China, Japan, South Korea or Mexico to manufacture the equipment needed. If America is going to MAGA, then it has to do so via manufacturing. There is no other way. A nation, any nation, is only as great as its ability to build the things it needs to be self-sufficient, and that's from the ore in the ground to the piece of equipment to propel the nation into a growth-oriented future. When a country depends on imports then they are in a position to be held hostage should political difficulties arise with supplier nations.

Trump is correct when he says that the previous US leaders have been capricious at best when looking out for our strategic economic needs. As leftist idiots like Diane Feinstein and Barack Obama try to gobble up millions of acres of BLM land, full of the rare earth elements needed for critical defense equipment, for national monuments they do so knowing that they are transferring land from the People to the government. And that transfer is forever.


JamesBond's picture

I don't give a damn if Walmart's are empty and fools gang bang over the last plastic butt scratcher.

Fuck this trade deficit with China.  Get this back into balance.



xythras's picture
xythras (not verified) JamesBond Jan 12, 2017 6:08 AM

Bottom line: The conservatives ARE THE BEAUTIFUL (and Strong) PEOPLE.

Studies show beautiful people are more opposed to redistributive policies and men’s upper-body strength predicts their political opinions on economic redistribution



So I say Let The Hunger Games Begin ... I got smarts and the 3Gs - guns , grub and gold -  what the chimps have?

Escrava Isaura's picture

Regardless, we must pay close attention as trade conflicts and their consequences CAN escalate quickly.


Count on it, because of coming energy shortages as the oil producers nation will need more and more oil that they’re exporting now for their survival.


The conservatives ARE THE BEAUTIFUL (and Strong) PEOPLE.

No, they are not. They are just brainwashed like everyone else.


Oldwood's picture

We keep hearing this same shit about Smoot Hawley, when at that time we had very large surpluses. How can we pretend to fear trade wars when we are running $800 billion in trade deficits? Further, how can we pretend that we even HAVE a real economy to measure when everything is massively distorted by debt. Do we think anyone would be buying anything today without debt? We have gutted our manufacturing base by creating money through debt and printing to subsidize our job losses and lowered income.

Only an idiot would think we can survive "free trade" when forced to compete with slave wages. Of COURSE our jobs are being replaced with automation. How else can American companies compete??

scoutshonor's picture

Amen!  My brother makes the argument that in WWII the U.S. was able to produce prodigous numbers of planes in a short time.  But that was ramping up production from a manufacturing base that already existed.

Were we required to do something similar now it would be like putting on your track shoes and running a four minute mile after having vegged out on the sofa eating doritoes for 35 years.  Not pretty to watch--not pleasant to do.

FinMin's picture

Okay, so reduce the income-seeking population. Recession over, forever. Wasn't that easy?

Batman11's picture

Wealth - real and imaginary.

Central Banks and the wealth effect.

Real wealth comes from the real economy where real products and services are traded.

 This involves hard work which is something the financial sector is not interested in.

The financial sector is interested in imaginary wealth – the wealth effect.

Hardly any of their lending goes into productive lending into the real economy. They look for some existing asset they can inflate the price of, like the national housing stock.

They then pour money into this asset to create imaginary wealth, the bubble bursts and all the imaginary wealth disappears.

1929 – US (margin lending into US stocks)

1989 – Japan (real estate)

2008 – US (real estate bubble leveraged up with derivatives for global contagion)

2010 – Ireland (real estate)

2012 – Spain (real estate)

2015 – China (margin lending into Chinese stocks)

Central Banks have now got in on the act with QE and have gone for an “inflate all financial asset prices” strategy to generate a wealth effect (imaginary wealth).

The bubble bursts and all the imaginary wealth disappears.

The wealth effect – it’s like real wealth but it’s only temporary.


Batman11's picture

The financial sector finds some existing asset, like real estate, to inflate the value of and then leverages this up.

James Rickards in Currency Wars gives some figures for the loss magnification of complex financial instruments/derivatives in 2008.

Losses from sub-prime - less than $300 billion
With derivative amplification - over $6 trillion

That worked well! 

The financial sector only has one real product, debt, and this is how you use it to maximise profit (in the short term).

In the longer term you make sure you are TBTF, there are no claw backs on bonuses and no penalties for losses.

All the right conditions are in place before 2008.



Koba the Dread's picture

I got into this same argument with Jude Wanniski in 1999, he on the side of free trade and I on the side of high tarriffs. Wanniski likened our situation in 1999 to that at the time of Smoot-Hawley. I argued then that America was no longer the great industrial nation it had been in the late 20s. That is even more the case 18 years later. Most of our manufacturing has already been sent to other countries and a Ford built in the UK and sold in the UK is not an American product that must pay duty upon entry in the UK. Likewise a thousand other products.

Unfortunately, I do not have data at hand to show what US-made products are shipped abroad or which items would be dutiable. On the other hand, the free-trade crowd has presented no data on that question either. Until they do, I'll still maintain that a "trade war" based on import duties will not hurt the US nearly as much as it will hurt the rest of the world.

From its inception until after World War II, America's industrial strength was based on imposing high import duties on foreign goods. These duties encouraged American industrialists to manufacture at home, providing infrastructure, jobs and quality goods.

LyLo's picture

Thank you.  Comparing US manufacturing then and now is apples and oranges. 

Also, who decided it was trade deals that started the Great Depression?  Last I had heard, this was one factor of many, and often was brought up towards the end.  (I'd say the biggest being a really poor harvest though it gets little credit anymore, but that's my own crazy theory based on this weird thing called "history.")

Anyone that is arguing against us taking our manufacturing back, in my opinion, also needs to argue that we are no longer the reserve currency, that we actually have net exports to the countries we intend to tariff, that we are not a consumer economy, and that we currently actually have manufacturing that is competing globally.  Because if those aren't true, then we should definitely tariff the shit out of everybody.  I have yet to meet the person who makes this specious argument honestly enough to address these issues.

RevIdahoSpud3's picture

I searched stats such as US manufacturing 1930's as a percentage of world total and found nothing, at least via Google. After wasting a good amount of time I gave it up but did find it interesting that the US economy is driven today by consumerism to the tune of 70%. We are now a consumer economy and with that still one of the worlds largest even though during the mid 70's we went from trade surpluses to trade deficits in manufacturing.

Spartacus Rex's picture

"via Real Investment Advice"


There are no Markets anymore,

only Investment Traps

manipulated by the PPT


Chief Wonder Bread's picture

//Other than precious metals and possibly some companies operating largely within the United States, it iummaryc or global assets that benefit.//

If iummaryc benefits, all the better.

GraveDancer's picture

Trade wars are only a part, a subset of the bigger conflict at play in the world. World War 3!

Book> The Road to World War III: Can the Dark forces of anti-Freedom trump Humanity?


LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD (not verified) GraveDancer Jan 12, 2017 11:11 AM


This failed trader now has **many** spam accounts on ZH. Note how they are always the same ones talking between themselves, giving themselves thumbs ups, and ripping into people asking them to stop the spam flood. They spend an enormous amount of time spamming. Apparently their time spent spamming is more profitable than their trading. Oops...

The spam accounts (not doubt they have more) : AliSONY, Babs.St.Louis, Billy G, Chi Juan, Dr.Carl, ErikE, FemDayTrader, Irvingm, jasony, John Beau, KC Spike, MadhyaBharatx, MexInvest, MikeM54, Mon T, P Christmas Carole, Penny Trader, Pinky and the Brain, RonnieM, Sonya B59, Stan Your Man, StevieTexie, Van G, and wisetrader224

Van G's picture

I am a analyst in Singapore. I see a lot of people here who are losing in the markets. That is what is meant when people say the markets are rigged.


If they are rigged and they may be then why are some us analysts calling moves in equities, gold and oil. 


Here is some charts to prove it.


Former analysts from Goldman Sachs 


Can't argue with their preciseness and proven track record.



jasony's picture

Excellent analysts.  But most people on ZH are broke. They have been short the markets for the last five years and have gone busted.


And even before they went busted there were very few real traders on here anyway.


Plus Shepwave does not allow new subscribers. So, while you are giving great advice it does not really help. I also have spoken of them on here.  I did it one time and automatically the trolls tradreone, HokumY, and LowerDeleware started harrassing me. It just is not worth it. These people are so angry on here because they are broken. 

BabaLooey's picture

Wow - two troll bots talking to each other.

Nice try, dickheads.

Now you have some sort of crystal ball - able to see the financials of people that post on here.

Get that from Schlongwave, did ya?

"Assuming" posters on here were "short the markets for the last five years and are now broke" makes YOU - and YOU only, the ass.

If Shitwave was "so good" - why the endless promotion - and - doing it for free?

................yeah.....thought so.

Go fuck yourselves - if you can find each others weenuses.

LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD (not verified) BabaLooey Jan 12, 2017 11:11 AM


This failed trader now has **many** spam accounts on ZH. Note how they are always the same ones talking between themselves, giving themselves thumbs ups, and ripping into people asking them to stop the spam flood. They spend an enormous amount of time spamming. Apparently their time spent spamming is more profitable than their trading. Oops...

The spam accounts (not doubt they have more) : AliSONY, Babs.St.Louis, Billy G, Chi Juan, Dr.Carl, ErikE, FemDayTrader, Irvingm, jasony, John Beau, KC Spike, MadhyaBharatx, MexInvest, MikeM54, Mon T, P Christmas Carole, Penny Trader, Pinky and the Brain, RonnieM, Sonya B59, Stan Your Man, StevieTexie, Van G, and wisetrader224

NobodyNowhere's picture

"Submitted by 720Global's Michael Lebowitz "

A globalist voice?

RevIdahoSpud3's picture

Well, it is nice to have a different perspective for a change. Lebowitz, that is Indonesian isn't it?

NobodyNowhere's picture

Any action to fix the trade deficit for the long haul, no matter how perfect, will cause markets to suffer in the short term.  Mainly because the negative effects will come into play immediately.

Negative effects are also likely to be easier to predict.  So expect a lot of howling from the globalists, regardless of whether the measures taken turn out good or bad.

ronaldwilsonreagan's picture

Piss Clown will save us. Pizza anyone?

billwilson2's picture

Don't worry. Mr. tRump knows nothing about history so it will not impact any of his decisions in any way. There, solved.

DingleBarryObummer's picture

I think DJT will fold to the establishment GOP (Paul Ryan the Snake) and not go follow through with these nationalist tariffs. 

LyLo's picture

Then Trump and the Republicans can kiss their solid majority goodbye. 

For the record, when Obama campaigned in the Midwest in 2008 (unlike Clinton who couldn't be bothered) much of his rhetoric was anti-free trade.  I know; crazy.  But I was literally there and bought a hat--it's why I bought the goddamn hat!

This really is that simple.  If the Republicans want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, I guess they can have at it...  (Bannon needs to step up here and get everyone in line.)

IntercoursetheEU's picture

The Art of the Deal, textbook example. Keep taking cheap shots and he will continue to make you look foolish.Just another average day.

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

Free Trade comes with the highest cost of all..your nation..sold down the river to internationalists..kinda simple - NWO elites get more power and wealth..so of course they payout to shills who like above..fear trade wars..

that is like fearing "common colds" while risking ebola.

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

how can you define crime at the highest levels..

wealth & power concentration in fewer and fewer hands..

this metric is overlooked by modern economists who argue about economic policy,

the biggest problem in world economies is " Elite crime"..free trade is an obvious crime to those nations who lose wealth & jobs and who's economic health is destroyed ..see "detroit "as a good example.

Last of the Middle Class's picture

What Trump is trying to do and what Hoover did are different. Pandering to 3rd world economies that make 5% of what Americans make has decimated the American middle class and another huge offender is the FED. Printing trillions destroys the value of money the middle class spends while government numbers following inflation and unemployment are garbage. Gun control and entitlements do not an economy make. Chicago is a perfect example. Out of control unions do the same, however, that said paying someone time and a half for over 40 hours a week is money that goes directly into the middle class pocket and thus the economy. The word here is BALANCE, not BANKER. Wake up and get a clue folks.

JonNadler's picture

how come nobody is demagoguing the "Smoot-Hawley" line anymore? Johnny McCain?

Fred C Dobbs's picture

Years ago I was telling my boss from Mexico about being cheated when I visited his country  I didn't like it and said I would not go back.  He told me I didn't understand, I was a white foreigner and was supposed to be cheated. That is how Mexico, China and others look at us when it comes to trade.  They don't want fair, we are rich America and suppose to be cheated.  Couple that with Globalists wanting a one world government and America to be brought down and you see how we got here..  There is no choice but to change it.  America will not be America some day if we don't.  There will be problems but we have the best negotiator we could possible have so let's get on with it. 

Trump has powerful enemies.  Keep him in your prayers.




LyLo's picture

I keep trying to explain this to people... In the eyes of a lot of the world, by being white and American, you are wealthy.  Not the 'upper-middle class doctor' kind of wealthy either; more like an old world aristocrat, or Amy Schumer.  Just fucking dumb and loud, with way too much money to throw at whatever the hell takes your fancy, all while being perfectly sure of your own superiority.  It's offensive as hell, but can you really blame them?  Hell, they seem to be degrading America's view of America, so can't really fault the world for noticing too.

Also, if the Chinese businessman you are dealing with is smiling and nodding, you are getting screwed royally.  If he's protesting and threatening to walk away but ends up signing on, you did okay.  Hearing China screech for the first time in over a decade is music to my ears.

Rich Monk's picture

Ironically the Jew who wrote this article said nothing about the Jew bankers, and Jew controlled and owned Fed. that crashed America's economy in 1929 at the expense of all Americans! They did the same thing in 2008. 

Offthebeach's picture

Just before1929, you had The Roaring '20s. Growth rates like 10% per year.  Huge changes, cars, electrification.  And just before that, WWI and Federal and government growth unseen since the Civil War.  So, there was a lot of mal investments that needed to be cleared.  Harding did right, Hoover was FDR Lite, and like FDR only made things worse.  

green dragon's picture

Do any of the writers for ZeroHedge really study history?

Hoover's Folly

There were tarifs applied in the early 1920's that worked out OK.

Hoover was not responsible for massive amounts of loans being given to consumers for the first time.

Hoover was not responsible for the corruption on Wall Street. Land fraud bubbles, Stock manipulations, buying stock with only ten percent down, etc.

FDR was the person who caused the bank runs. That took place on his watch. His policies did not end the depression it took WWII

Everyone forgets the role foriegn bonds played, They were sold to the average american. European governments were defaulting on these.

No one talks about the flow of gold which was like the curriency flows today.

Foriegn trade was not a major part of the GDP in Hoovers time.

Hoover bailed the Boshiviks out in Russia before this period when massive famine hit Russia. He believed in Government intervention!

After WWI you had Europe in ruins and in need of American agricultual products. Farm prices resulted in marginal lands being used. Hoover was not responsible for the dust bowl. And it was expected that Europe would recover both industry and agriculture lowering demand for US goods.

The author jumps to conclusions that are the wisdom of the crowd and what was taught in school for generations. Sadly the deep lessons of the Great Depression are lost to most Americans.

atlasRocked's picture

Well done, I wrote this last year:

It’s time to give Smoot-Hawley another chance.  A “level playing field.”  Smoot-Hawley was blamed as a depression-era failure when the economy was already failing for other, now well understood reasons:  A credit contraction due to irrational investor exuberance and lax credit creation standards.


Dark Daze's picture
Dark Daze (not verified) green dragon Jan 12, 2017 8:36 AM

Hmm. 'Bubbles'; 'Fraud'; 'Manipulation'; 'defaults'

Seems like you haven't learned very much in the last 100 years.

gcjohns1971's picture

I wish I could upvote your post more.

atlasRocked's picture

I wrote this last year:

It’s time to give Smoot-Hawley another chance.  A “level playing field.”  Smoot-Hawley was blamed as a depression-era failure when the economy was already failing for other, now well understood reasons:  A credit contraction due to irrational investor exuberance and lax credit creation standards.


Dark Daze's picture
Dark Daze (not verified) Jan 12, 2017 9:16 AM

Well, this is what I was blogging about yesterday. Since NAFTA, a trade deal that was supposed to INCREASE trade, our trade with the US has dropped from 85% of our total trade to 62%. I believe that number will continue to drop, and that is what I prefer. I would like to see total trade with the US at no more than 25%, preferably even lower.

The world has opened up a lot since I was born. We can get products from Europe, SE Asia, Latin and South America, virtually everywhere, and that trade does not depend on the US, which has repeatedly shown itself to be totally careless about what their trade 'partners' might experience economically.

So, as far as I'm concerned, if Trump imposes a 20% border tax on any imports from Canada, I will campaign for the same tax to be levied on incoming US goods, which, considering our dollar is already worth 30% less than the Yankee buck, will force US goods right out of the Canadian market. More than that, if Wall Street continues to manipulate our currency, I will also push for Canada to leave the US controlled currency and exchange markets and join the China/Russia/European system. Consider that, in total, our combined mining, oil and gas industry amounts to only 6% of our GDP and you might see the contradiction created by Wall Street defining our dollar as a 'commodity currency'. It isn't anything of the sort. But, it behooves the bankers to label it that, so that they give themselves cover when deliberately selling our dollar short in order to pick up aquisitions at literally 10 cents on the dollar at the bottom of the business cycle.

We also have an option of adding an additional export tax to electricity, oil and gas produced here. 80% of your electricity comes from Canada (60 Terrawatt hours/60,000 Gigawatt hours per day), and we are your largest supplier of crude oil. Try replacing that amount of electricity.

34 states in the US have Canada as their largest customer, and their principal shipping destination. Over 10 million jobs in the US depend on that trade.

There has been a long and consistent theme of insults/attacks/predations that have flowed north from the US. From the threat by General Hull to 'slaughter every man, woman and child in the Canadas' to the imprisonment and torture of 40,000 United Empire Loyalists in Boston, to the threat of war if we didnt cede all land in BC to the 54.4 parallel to the most famous one, an assault by Lyndon Johnson on our Prime Minister. If I had of been Pearson's security detail I would have trashed Johnson right then and there. He was nothing but an evil assassin anyhow. His bones should be dug up and fed to pigs.

And finally, someone please tell the motherfucking con artists in your forestry industry that there will be NO MORE BILLION DOLLAR shakedowns.

Think long and hard before you try to hit us with yet another 'demand for money'.

Offthebeach's picture

(I keep forgetting Canada even exists.)

LyLo's picture

Alright, Canada, we won't demand more money.

But you should be worried.  I mean, France and the UK are pretty distracted right now...  You know what happens when they're busy and we start looking north, right?  lol

RevIdahoSpud3's picture

We all have our preferences as to how our respective governments act but chances are if you are not Trudeau commenting as DD your input will be as impotent as mine is here in the States. It's nice to have an opinion on the other hand.

Ident 7777 economy's picture

How does one equate the Smoot-Hawley Act and tariffs with 'trade negotiations'? One is an act of congress and the other is APPROVED by congress after the pres (one man) worked out the details with the other party.


Furthermore, trade negotiations with China and Mexico, not Europe ...