Useful chart from Bloomberg. Trump says bilateral deficit with Canada means we're subsidizing them. But more than all the imbalance is energy. This means they send us oil & gas, we send them IOUs. This is a subsidy?
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Must tell all my Canadian friends,,,
Trump tells things the way he does,
mainly cuz of OIL..!
and not surprising, that's were we love him most,,,
in Alberta..!
Sadly California is about to need a lot of that. 😞 As a good neighbour, I’m sure we can come to a friendly agreement not to add retaliatory tariffs to lumber for CA, but the rest of the country might just be fvcked. 😣
Paul I appreciate your evidence based responses but these people literally believe Obama assassinated Epstein it’s no use trying to communicate on an intellectual basis. Try aggressive grunting and beating your chest instead
I wish this was true, it would be great if the CIA was somehow forced to expose all its crimes. And like, *somebody* killed Epstein. I just can't believe so many people really buy into the idea that Trump is some anti-establishment guy who would have any interest in doing that even if he could
I just read the FT article. What a chaotic mix of outdated conspiracy theories and half-truths! All this fuss for so little. It’s clear that the tantrums of the wealthy are nothing like ours... Thank you for sharing
I don't really understand this post
but judging from the many many comments, most of the people here on bluesky are much smarter then me and understand all the financial complexity in Paul's post
"If Trump accomplishes little in office, ... he’ll retire or die with the best legacy he can hope for: a contested one, where too many Americans adore him for history to write him off as a total fuckup or failed experiment or national embarrassment."
You're welcome for the below market oil and gas. Would be a shame if those taps were suddenly shut off, totally and in perpetuity, while we looked for customers elsewhere. You know, one's willing to pay a fair price instead of being subsidized by our Goodwill.
Dear Mr Krugman, this is one gross missunderstanding:
You are talking about facts, these can be checked and proven as right or wrong.
Trump and his likes are talking about opinions and beliefs. For them it's only their's (the right ones) and the other's (necessarily false).
1/2
2/2
There can be no reconciliation of these two approaches and even co-existence remains difficult, with the fact-based faction trying to uncover lies and the opinion-based faction trying to sell their opinions as alternative facts.
Lower value Cdn crude oil that is refined into high value American petrochemical products. Canada would love to refine the crude in Canada and sell the finished high margin product to the US or its competitors.
Debt is a means of financing government. It is not a “good”, rather the things it supports on the other side of the ledger may, or may not be, “public goods.” If debt finances stop lights, the lights are a public good. Including debt (the financing) double counts.
Government debt isn’t inherently good or bad. It’s useful, but can become a problem. The deficit scolds were predicting during Obama’s term that the debt he was racking up would cause interest rates to skyrocket and the dollar to crash. He said they were wrong, and he was proved right.
The USMCA trade deal explicitly states that Canada can not sell energy to themselves at a lower price that to Americans. So maybe a subsidy going the other way? (joking of course, energy needs processing, etc., etc.)
Your example is instructive as oil is a global commodity. You could eliminate the discrepancy by forcing domestic producers to sell domestically, even if they could get more by exporting. How do you think big oil would respond?
Moreover 1) the USA needs the heavy Canadian oil because the shale oil is too light and 2) part of the Canadian oil quantity just goes ‘through’ and gets exported
Comments
Of course then Canada would be subsidizing the US. 😉
I mean, they are fiercely committed to the bit so I am wondering if I am missing something.
Trump tells things the way he does,
mainly cuz of OIL..!
and not surprising, that's were we love him most,,,
in Alberta..!
And don’t forget lumber.
Sadly California is about to need a lot of that. 😞 As a good neighbour, I’m sure we can come to a friendly agreement not to add retaliatory tariffs to lumber for CA, but the rest of the country might just be fvcked. 😣
You seem to imply that he's not that intelligent!
but judging from the many many comments, most of the people here on bluesky are much smarter then me and understand all the financial complexity in Paul's post
good to know
https://www.offmessage.net/p/poke-the-bear
Too late. His legacy is already "total fuckup".
He started with a larger one.
This has nothing at all to do with American greatness, and everything to do with furthering the goals of our enemies.
Trump puts the tariffs on, watch your gas price increase dramatically.
So, over how long a time frame should the US government finance the purchase of that oil and gas - 5 years, 100 years, 10,000 years?
You are talking about facts, these can be checked and proven as right or wrong.
Trump and his likes are talking about opinions and beliefs. For them it's only their's (the right ones) and the other's (necessarily false).
1/2
There can be no reconciliation of these two approaches and even co-existence remains difficult, with the fact-based faction trying to uncover lies and the opinion-based faction trying to sell their opinions as alternative facts.
Economists refer to something called public goods. Paul Samuelson defined them this way:
1. Non-exclusive - sold / offered on demand
2. Non-rivalrous - my use of a good does not negatively affect you
Is government debt a public good?
If lottery tickets (a funding mechanism) are goods, then why aren't bonds (another funding mechanism)?
Debt is one means (among several choices) of financing government.
If a government can sell a public good to pay for a public good, why shouldn't they?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics)
If not, why isn't the federal government selling public goods instead of borrowing?
It seems our pundits will never learn.