By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Shopping Trends team operates independently from CTV News journalists. This team’s recommendations may result in commissions earned through affiliate links. Transparency is maintained by providing a dedicated “Read about us” section. This section discloses any potential conflicts of interest and provides further details on the team’s operations. Readers can expect unbiased product selections, but it’s important to note the potential for affiliate revenue.
Read the original article here
“We will win,” is a bold statement, especially when applied to a trade war, a scenario where the concept of victory itself becomes blurry. The assertion, while confident, ignores the inherent complexities of such a conflict. A trade war rarely produces a clear winner; instead, it often results in a complex tapestry of losses and gains, distributed unevenly across participants. In the specific case of a trade war between the US and Canada, the dynamics become even more nuanced.
The claim of victory hinges on a specific interpretation of “winning.” It’s possible that the US’s economic losses may be less impactful – or at least *perceived* as less impactful – due to its strength in the service sector. The suggestion to levy duties on US service industries, such as accounting, consulting, and software, could potentially force localization of bids for contracts, mitigating some of the initial economic pain. This strategy, though, is a risky “nuclear option” with unpredictable long-term consequences.
However, this “win” comes at a significant cost. The potential decline of the US tourism industry, due to negative international perception and decreased travel, represents a considerable economic blow. Equally concerning is the broader geopolitical picture. A trade war can easily escalate into broader conflict, particularly in a world already experiencing shifts in global power dynamics. Several nations, facing internal economic difficulties and external geopolitical pressures, are increasingly exhibiting risky and aggressive behavior. The present situation risks triggering even more dangerous international conflicts.
Furthermore, the notion of a win-lose scenario is fundamentally flawed. It ignores the interconnectedness of the global economy. While a country may initially experience economic benefits from a trade war, those gains can be overshadowed by the overall negative effects on global trade and economic stability. The US, with its globally-reaching trade relationships, could suffer significant collateral damage. The strategic benefit of the trade relationship between the US and Canada could easily be negated, ultimately causing instability in both countries.
The focus should shift from a zero-sum game to a strategy of adaptation and resilience. Instead of directly confronting the US in a tit-for-tat trade war, Canada could focus on diversifying trade partners and developing domestic industries. This necessitates a long-term strategy encompassing the strategic development of new trade routes and attracting skilled workers and expertise from other countries. Attracting highly skilled workers from the US, including in fields such as engineering, medicine, and technology, would strengthen Canada’s economy and simultaneously weaken that of the US.
The notion that Canada could “win” by leveraging its alliances is a reasonable assumption. A global trade war, pitting the US against the rest of the world, puts the US at a significant disadvantage, meaning that even if Canada experiences economic pain, it is unlikely to be as severe as that experienced by the US. This does not mean “winning,” but rather, managing to survive and even thrive in a substantially altered global economic environment. The “win” then becomes a matter of relative economic stability, ensuring survival in a world reshaped by the US’s aggressive trade policies.
Ultimately, the declaration that “we will win” should be approached with skepticism. While the US may face significant economic challenges, a trade war is never truly won. It’s more a matter of who endures the greatest losses and what strategies will determine relative successes. A focus on long-term resilience and adaptation – rather than short-term gains – will prove to be more effective than direct confrontation in the long run. The current situation calls for the pursuit of a global strategy focused on economic cooperation, rather than a destructive trade war that benefits no one.