By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This comprehensive list encompasses all fifty U.S. states and territories, including Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and several Armed Forces designations. Furthermore, the enumeration extends to include a variety of Canadian provinces and territories. This expansive compilation is frequently utilized in numerous applications to designate and categorize geographic locations. The inclusion of postal codes is likely for easier sorting and efficiency in the processes.
Read the original article here
For bailing on promises to Canada, Stellantis and GM will have to pay duty on U.S. vehicles, Carney government says, and this is stirring up a real hornets’ nest of opinions. It seems the government is taking a tough stance, and frankly, a lot of people seem to think it’s about time. There’s a general sense that these automakers made commitments and then reneged, and now they should face the consequences. Many are arguing that slapping a duty on their vehicles is the right move, a way to hold them accountable.
The sentiment is pretty strong against the quality of the vehicles these companies produce. A common thread is that Stellantis and GM cars are simply not up to par, and plenty of people wouldn’t buy them anyway. This position further strengthens the argument that if these companies are going to break agreements, then there is a financial price to pay.
There’s a strong undercurrent of wanting to see these companies punished, with calls for lawsuits, seizing assets, and even nationalizing factories. The anger is palpable, fueled by a feeling of betrayal after repeated bailouts. The expectation is that the government should recover any financial support that was previously given. Some are saying this move is a necessary step to reassert Canada’s economic sovereignty and protect its interests.
A fascinating point that bubbles to the surface is the idea of opening up the market to Chinese EV manufacturers like BYD. The proposal suggests using their cheaper electric vehicles as leverage, perhaps as a threat to these existing players. This idea, however, is not unanimously supported. Some are wary, raising concerns about data privacy, security, and the potential impact on existing Canadian auto jobs. There is the question of the kind of oversight that would be needed if the Chinese EVs were allowed in.
There’s a lot of focus on the idea of consumer choice. If American manufacturers are out of favor or become more expensive due to these duties, consumers will inevitably look elsewhere. Japanese brands like Toyota are frequently suggested as a preferable alternative, touted for their reliability and quality. The situation could drive a shift in the market.
However, there’s a warning to be found in the history books. Some point to past experiences, like the Reagan era, where tariffs on Japanese cars ultimately led to American manufacturers increasing their prices. This means that the duties placed on GM and Stellantis may not solely affect those companies. It could drive up the prices for all cars, regardless of their origin.
The conversation naturally shifts to the future of the Canadian automotive industry. Some voices call for investing in domestic car manufacturing, perhaps supporting Canadian startups. There is some consideration given to the value of manufacturing in the country, even if the brand isn’t Canadian.
The Auto Pact has been a significant topic of discussion, but there are differences on the matter. Some point out that the Auto Pact is essentially a thing of the past and that the current situation is simply a consequence of economic realities. There is a general feeling that the country needs to be protected, particularly in the wake of the news about the Stellantis and GM.
While the discussion is largely focused on economic issues, the topic of national security also surfaces. There are calls to be cautious about embracing Chinese technology in cars. There is concern about security issues surrounding these vehicles and if they would be safe to operate.
Overall, the reaction to the government’s stance is mixed, but the core feeling is one of justified anger and a sense of needing to protect Canada’s interests. There is a desire for accountability, for consumers to have choices, and for the long-term health of the Canadian automotive sector. The situation presents both challenges and opportunities, and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds in the coming months.