LBH, Canada has always been real economy loser with respect US trade with ~80b goods / services deficit AFTER discounted energy - cheap crude sales to US to fuel US refinery mismatch. US doesn't have strategic domestic energy self sufficiency without Canadian crude, CAN sludge should be selling at premium (same with VZ but we see how that went). In an ideal world Canada could be making more refining and selling high margin refined fossil to global markets and not sending ~80b to US.

Which is to say, if Canada sorts out inter provincial trade, pivot to domestic goods/services and sell commodities globally at benchmark prices it on paper come out ahead. Nvm associated brain drain via US integration killed what was left of Canadian tier1 industries (not much to be done). Or half reason CAN has to sell cheap to US is US lobbying (read political meddling / foreign influence) on infra/pipelines. Or discount NORAD which LBH missiles over polar orbit aren't stopping at Canada, as if Canada needs to free ride on NA security architecture.

TLDR is Canada always loser of even happy vassal arrangement, the carrot was always stale but it dint' need to be sweet with how big US stick is. But stick not big enough to force CAN to deepthroat new rotten carrot arrangement. At least not yet.

▲

thisisit a day ago | parent | next [-]

They know the stick is huge but with how everything is going with US and the TACO mentality they feel US will be back on the table once the reality starts hitting.

The whole story about why the talks failed:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/25/world/canada/trump-carney...

US having veto over Canada trade negotiations, dictating language policy which could cause Quebec to cede from Canada, and stop the "buy Canadian" policy put after the last tariff round etc. It not even a stick anymore it is a proper gun which blow in the face of any Canadian who agrees to these terms.

	▲	b112 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Not to mention? Any deal signed isn't worth a thing these days. The US is absolutely, positively not trustworthy. Most Canadians believe that even if we signed an updated deal, Trump would just break it. He's done it already with a lot of these tariffs. So why even bother? What's the point, of negotiating and dealing with liars and cheats? EG, the US. Just look at the bridge deal. We negotiate a deal, build a bridge for billions, then at the last minute? Rip up a signed agreement and reneg. After the money is spent. It's pathetic. I expect better from used car salesmen. It doesn't matter why, for what reason, it reflects 100% on the US, it's not just one man. We don't trust the US any more. It lies. It cheats. It scams. We used to buy US weapons, but now we don't trust that, either. I can imagine spending 200B on weapons, and then the software just stops working. The US used to be the most trusted, beloved nation by Canadians. I think many Canadians would trust Iran, China, Russia more than the US now, to keep a deal. And that? That's a pathetic outcome, from a pathetic administration.

▲

bryanlarsen a day ago | parent | prev [-]

USMCA (and the 2 deals that preceded it) are definitely better deals for the US than they are for Canada. But they're fairly generally believed to be win-win deals; it's just that the US wins more than Canada.

If you're playing a single football game, the lesser winner is the loser. However, the economy is not a single football game. In real life the lesser winner is still a winner.

	▲	maxglute a day ago \| parent [-]
		>generally believed to be Generally believed by orthodox economics whose credibility is not so hot. CUSFTA, NFTA, USMCA... there was brief decade in 90s with CUSFTA integration where rising water lift all boats, but realistically Canadian growth in 00s was on the back of commodity supercyclic and inflated real estate. In real life the winner takes home $10000 cheque, the second/third winners take home participation ribbons, and sometimes they come home battered and bloodied (US buyouts in highend because CAN champions lack of scale never could compete once barriers gone ). In real life the lesser winner still has to look at opportunity cost of playing the game in the first place. Was there a more profitable game where runners up get $5000? Which is not to say participation trophy was not the optimal play, i.e. the opportunity cost of not joining common industrial base might have been more detrimental, maybe global capital wouldn't enter Canada in first place, maybe not playing = atrophy at home. But surviving + participation prize winner not the same as a take cheque home winner.