By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Trade negotiations between the United States and Canada resumed Monday morning after Canada scrapped its digital services tax targeting large technology firms. Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. President Donald Trump agreed to continue talks, aiming for the previously set July 21 deadline. The White House Press Secretary stated Canada “caved” to Trump’s demands, who had ended trade discussions over the tax. Despite the reversal, Canada remains in discussions with G7 allies regarding an international tax, and both sides express optimism about reaching an agreement within the established timeframe.
Read the original article here
U.S. to restart trade negotiations with Canada immediately, White House says. Okay, so the news is that the U.S. is going to jump back into trade talks with Canada. This feels like a rollercoaster, doesn’t it? It’s hard to keep track of what’s real and what’s just a show sometimes.
It’s fascinating how this all unfolds, really. Some people are already pointing to possible market manipulation. The general sentiment seems to be a mix of exasperation and cynicism, especially when it comes to the unpredictable nature of these dealings. One recurring theme is the idea that any agreement reached might be fleeting, with the potential for abrupt changes depending on the whims of the players involved.
The criticisms are flowing. A lot of people are seeing a pattern of “tantrums” and emotional decision-making instead of strategic negotiations. The suggestion is that putting demands on the table and resolving them through negotiation seems like the approach a mature adult would take. Not just throwing fits.
There’s a real concern about the long-term impact of this kind of behavior. It’s being seen as a constant source of economic uncertainty. A frequent comparison is that of the U.S. being a hostile nation, creating the need for Canada to bend over backwards to appease them. The question being asked is why not treat the U.S. as a hostile nation, as they constantly threaten.
The digital sales tax is a key piece of the puzzle here. It looks like Canada may have offered some concessions on it. The implication is that maybe, just maybe, that’s why things are getting back on track. There is suspicion that this was a calculated move by Canada to create a situation for the U.S. to react to. This way, Canada could have a bargaining chip to use in other negotiations.
The frustration seems to center on the perceived lack of good faith in these negotiations. The criticism is of Trump’s behavior with his tendency to reverse decisions, and the feeling that the core objective might be personal gain. The sentiment is that it’s pointless to negotiate when deals can be broken at any moment.
The flip-flopping is a major source of bewilderment. People remember when this would be a huge deal for a politician. Now, it’s almost expected. This is seen as a sign of inconsistency and a lack of seriousness in the negotiations.
There’s a lot of talk about just walking away. The idea is that continuing to engage in these talks is pointless if the other side isn’t negotiating in good faith. The idea is to just refuse to deal with them and look to other countries to build stronger alliances.
The financial implications also seem to be a concern. Some people feel like the U.S. is just acting on behalf of its allies and creating chaos in the market. The focus on the individual rather than the collective is the core of their anger.
The sentiment is that Canada is the one with the upper hand by playing a long game of negotiation. They may have manipulated their way into making the U.S. give them something they wanted by giving up things they didn’t really have. The argument continues that if they can be so easily manipulated, then Canada could just as easily bring back the tax they eliminated at any moment.
There’s a lot of talk about the supply chain and how the U.S. seems to make decisions that directly negatively affect its own country. The idea is that if the U.S. doesn’t want what Canada has to offer, they will just work with a non-psychotic country like the EU.
Finally, the core of the discontent is about the damage to the U.S.’s reputation. They use the comparison of Canada being Ned Flanders to the U.S. being Homer Simpson. A relationship where one side repeatedly causes problems and the other side is expected to just accept it. The common conclusion is this situation will reverse course yet again very soon.