Scott Lincecum

But you have to do it because you need to get reelected or there's national solidarity, all that kind of stuff. And you can actually – apparently, the Canadians are really pissed right now.

But you have to do it because you need to get reelected or there's national solidarity, all that kind of stuff. And you can actually – apparently, the Canadians are really pissed right now.

But you have to do it because you need to get reelected or there's national solidarity, all that kind of stuff. And you can actually – apparently, the Canadians are really pissed right now.

And Canadians are like the nicest people ever. So for them to get upset, you've done something really wrong. So going back to retaliation. So there's a political incentive to retaliate. There's also a strategic incentive. So if you don't retaliate, you're basically encouraging bad behavior by the initial actor. This is all game theory stuff, right? You see a lot of retaliation in this space. But –

And Canadians are like the nicest people ever. So for them to get upset, you've done something really wrong. So going back to retaliation. So there's a political incentive to retaliate. There's also a strategic incentive. So if you don't retaliate, you're basically encouraging bad behavior by the initial actor. This is all game theory stuff, right? You see a lot of retaliation in this space. But –

And Canadians are like the nicest people ever. So for them to get upset, you've done something really wrong. So going back to retaliation. So there's a political incentive to retaliate. There's also a strategic incentive. So if you don't retaliate, you're basically encouraging bad behavior by the initial actor. This is all game theory stuff, right? You see a lot of retaliation in this space. But –

How do you retaliate? Well, you don't want to just do blanket tariffs like Donald Trump did. You want to hit politically influential groups. So you're going to go after pork producers. Pork guys carry a lot of weight. So you're going to go after pork imports. You're going to go after steel producers. imports. They famously went after bourbon because of Mitch McConnell and Kentucky bourbon.

How do you retaliate? Well, you don't want to just do blanket tariffs like Donald Trump did. You want to hit politically influential groups. So you're going to go after pork producers. Pork guys carry a lot of weight. So you're going to go after pork imports. You're going to go after steel producers. imports. They famously went after bourbon because of Mitch McConnell and Kentucky bourbon.

How do you retaliate? Well, you don't want to just do blanket tariffs like Donald Trump did. You want to hit politically influential groups. So you're going to go after pork producers. Pork guys carry a lot of weight. So you're going to go after pork imports. You're going to go after steel producers. imports. They famously went after bourbon because of Mitch McConnell and Kentucky bourbon.

So this is very standard practice. You try to do these targeted hits. Well, that's a shame.

So this is very standard practice. You try to do these targeted hits. Well, that's a shame.

So this is very standard practice. You try to do these targeted hits. Well, that's a shame.

Yeah, $350 billion right off the top, right? And I would add, even if this all goes away tonight, I think this may be a good place to close. There are still reasons to expect this to be damaging in the long term, because the United States today has effectively abrogated its free trade agreement commitments with its closest trading partners. And

Yeah, $350 billion right off the top, right? And I would add, even if this all goes away tonight, I think this may be a good place to close. There are still reasons to expect this to be damaging in the long term, because the United States today has effectively abrogated its free trade agreement commitments with its closest trading partners. And

Yeah, $350 billion right off the top, right? And I would add, even if this all goes away tonight, I think this may be a good place to close. There are still reasons to expect this to be damaging in the long term, because the United States today has effectively abrogated its free trade agreement commitments with its closest trading partners. And

and has done it in a way that is just clearly absurd and damaging. And so if you are a foreign government official, and you are looking to increase economic integration. And you have, on the one hand, China, Xi Jinping, total pain in the butt, lots of problems with China's economic models and human rights.

and has done it in a way that is just clearly absurd and damaging. And so if you are a foreign government official, and you are looking to increase economic integration. And you have, on the one hand, China, Xi Jinping, total pain in the butt, lots of problems with China's economic models and human rights.

and has done it in a way that is just clearly absurd and damaging. And so if you are a foreign government official, and you are looking to increase economic integration. And you have, on the one hand, China, Xi Jinping, total pain in the butt, lots of problems with China's economic models and human rights.

Compared to what you just got with Donald Trump and the United States, the calculus has changed. And I think that this is going to do long-term damage to government's willingness to increase integration with the United States. That just means slower growth, less competitiveness for the US economy, onward and onward.

Compared to what you just got with Donald Trump and the United States, the calculus has changed. And I think that this is going to do long-term damage to government's willingness to increase integration with the United States. That just means slower growth, less competitiveness for the US economy, onward and onward.