this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
1045 points (99.3% liked)

World News

43510 readers
5364 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago

We may be talking past each other, but in any case, I don't think that is a useful way of presenting this information.

Gross domestic product calculates only for the net effect of imports and exports. That is to say, the balance of trade.

56% of Canada's GDP is consumer spending. 19% is investment. 23% is government spending. And 2% is net exports.

That's the $2.2/2.3 trillion GDP of Canada broken down. Yes, it's technically true to say that the trade relationship represents a value roughly equivalent to 40% of Canada's GDP, but I don't believe that's very helpful framing.

Using the same method, we might say that the various trade relationships of the US represent a value that is roughly 25% of US GDP.

If Canada's GDP, an acronym that many people take to be synonymous with 'economy', was 40% US trade, we'd be talking about more than a 3% recession.

I can't help but think of the 'length of a football field' or 'weight of an elephant' mode of analysis.

Also, your definition of the fallout this could create seems very limited in scope, but I take your point that you are only defining said fallout within the confines of the immediate and specific effects of the tarrifs themselves, and not all the various ripple effects.

Otherwise, we probably agree more than we disagree. Trump's a cunt is about what it boils down to for me.