Canada probably needs to retaliate against US tariffs, even if it's self-defeating

Just hours before the next batch of Trump tariffs almost certainly comes into force, affecting a long list of Canada-prodiced items, there is still talk of retaliatalory tariffs. The question is: why?

Despite what Donald Trump wants you to think, tariffs are a tax on the levying country. Everyone else underatamds that. So, why would we want to do that to our own hard-pressed consuners and businesses?

The answer apparently, has nothing to do with economics. Economically, it makes no semse for us to levy counter-tariffs, even targeted tariffs. But not to retaliate would send a bad political message, and open up the possibility of further tariffs down the road, imposed apparently with impunity.

I get it: doing nothing implies weakness, and Trump punishes weakness. But I'm not convinced that responding with force is necessarily going to deter future escalations.  Retaliation or no retaliation, further threats and bullying is always a possibility with Trump, who is never satisfied.

Perhaps even more pertinent, though, is the matter of optics for Mark Carney and his Liberal government. Carney was explicitly elected on a platform of standing up to Trump, or not rolling over, and polls are clear in their portrayal of Canadian as expecting some show of strength, some "elbows up". Carney's responses so far have been distinctly mixed, and many Canadians think he has already gone too far down the road of appeasement. So, a strong response is particularly important this time, and for most Canadians that means retaliation, however ill-advised.

Even if USMCA falls through.completely, the Canadian sky will not fall

It's been a while since I posted about US tariffs and the USMCA negotiations. It doesn't seem much like news any more. But as the US and Canada ramp up negotiations ahead of the August 19th deadline (tomorrow!) for a new round of Trumk tariffs, it's starting to become more real. 

It was timely, then, to read an article about how even the end of USMCA - often portrayed as an existential threat to Canada - actually night not be as impactful as most people assume. Yes, it would be bad, bad, not good for the economy, generally speaking, but terminal danger?  - probably not.

There have been several studies and modelling exercises over the past couple of years on the likely impact of Donald Trump tearing up the USMCA agreement he signed off on six years ago, almost all of which conclude that, while unfortunate for both countries, it would not be catastrophic for Canada. 

The latest such comes from the Canadian American Business Council, and it concludes that "USMCA Breakdown" would probably reduce Canada's economic growth rate by just 1% in 2027, and the economy would be about 1.6% smaller in 2035 than.if USMCA were renewed (and respected) and tariffs fell to near zero.

Furthermore, it would result in about 102,000 lost jobs. While this sounds pretty bad initially, bear in mnd that Canada currently has 21.2 million citizens in paid employment. The 102,000 lost jobs would have the effect of increasing the unemployment rate from 6.4% to 6.9% (which is where it was four months ago (it was at or above 6.9% for most of 2025).

So, not so bad then. The country will not be bankrupt. Not so good for those 102,000 workers, of course, and bear in mind that the axe will not fall randomly - some sectors in particular will be disproportionately affected. But all this means that Prime Minister Mark Carmey does not have to accept any old deal Trump threats at him; a bad deal could be worse than no deal

AI slop has broken the internet

"Slop" was Mirriam-Webster's Word of the Year last year. "Slop" or "AI slop" is defined as "digital content of low quality that is produced, usually in quantity, by means of artificial intelligence". You know the kind of thing: pictures of Shrimp Jesus, glue-topped pizza recipes, AI-generated songs, sham biographies, deep fake videos, talking cats, genuinely fake news, advertising that looks "not quite right". AI slop is everywhere, and it now, after just a few short years, makes up a good proportion of the entire Internet. And for this we are investing billions of dollars, and straining our electricity systems to power endless miles of data.centres.

I knew it was a major problem, but I hadn't appreciated just how much of a problem until I read an article in the Globe and Mail (originally from the New York Times) today. It seems that tech giants like Google, Meta and X are having to spend significant resources weeding out AI slop that was largely produced by their own platforms.

Spotify removed 75 million AI fake songs and duplicate uploads last year. Google wiped 130,000 YouTube channels of low quality content over the last six months. TikTok removed 377,000 videos in the first three months of the year for violating its AI policies. (TikTok USA is developing a feature that let's people dial up or down the amount of visible AI content.) 

But still the problem lingers and grows. Apple Music estimates that a third of what is uploaded to its site is now AI-generated. French streamer Deezer says it may be as much as half in its case. More than 20% of short YouTube videos are AI-generated slop according to one (AI-powered) online video editor. Nearly half of the posts over 50 words on X are create by AI.

But the same tech giants that are trying to manage AI slop are continuing to make things worse. At the same tume as Meta showcased a detection, labelling and tagging system designed to make AI content more identifiable, it also rolled out an all-AI video stream widely considered to be the apotheosis of AI slop, and released an AI image-generator using its own public Instagram accounts as its references.

Part of the problem is that the less-discerning elements of the internet's clientele laps this stuff up, and AI content, however poor, can substantially inflate the viewership of many platforms. It can make big money for the creators and re-posters too. Unfortunately, it also makes it much harder for other users to find genuine, truthful and high quality search results.

As Substack's CEO put it, "it's getting harder to tell what's real on the internet", and "platforms that reward fakeness will create a race to the bottom". Quite. Substack recently announced its own AI detection tool for users, but the tool mistakenly identified some real, human posts as AI-generated.

This stuff is not easy. The point is, though, the onus should not be on users to figure out what's real and what's not. It seems trite to whine that "the internet is broken". But, really, the internet is broken.

Should Ontario Appeals Court ruling overrule the earlier Superior Court ruling?

If a higher court overrules a lower court ruling, is it always the case that the higher court is more correct?

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently ruled that Premier Doug Ford's government can in fact rip out the bike lanes along Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue that Ford has a particular personal dislike of. In 2025, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that their removal would be unconstitutional because it would put people at increased risk of harm or death.

The Appeals Court, however, argued that there is no constitutional obligation to regulate roads in any particular manner, and that the government can choose to regulate roads however they like, and are under no obligation to listen to expert advice.

Well, I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that, whether or not you agree with that, the Appeals Court's ruling does not negate - does not even address - the Superior Court's previous decision. Surely, when the expert advice involves constitutional rights, they do need to be listened to.

So, who wins? Is this a partisan decision a la USA? Does it have to go to the Ontario Supreme Court to decide? Maybe.

Hunger stones in Germany

As Europe deals with unprecedented heat and drought conditions, you've probably read about relics of bygone ages surfacing as the levels of major rivers continue to recede: shipwrecks, unexploded WWII bombs, mammoth remains, even, most recently, a Roman bridge.

The other thing that is starting to be revealed are so-called "hunger stones" ("Hungersteine" in German). These are messages carved onto stones on rivers' edges during past droughts that usually remain hidden from sight, but are now starting to show

This one in the River Elbe in Germany is particularly poignant: it reads "Wenn du mich siehst, dann weine", translated as "If you see me, weep".

Carney's climate change announcent a drop in the bucket

If you are non-plussed by the Carney "Liberal" government's apparent complete abandonment of concern over climate change, as I am, you could do worse than to read a good article that appeared in the Globe and Mail last week, entitled "Not addressing climate change costs the economy more. When will we finally get this?"

It's nothing new, but it's well-written, well-argued and convincing. Unfortunately, it will have absolutely no impact on Carney's policies because, for now at least, he is focussed on fighting fires from south of the border, and he is all about short-term gratification right now.

As an indication of where his head is at, one of the very few climate initiatives he has announced - positive ones that is; he has made many announcements killing or paring back existing climate initiatives - was the recent announcement of $34 million for various projects to make Canadian communities more resilient in the face of climate change.

$34 million used to be a lot of money once upon a time. But, as has been pointed out, it amounts to one-thousandth of the money the government invested in the Trans-Mountain oil pipeline, and a similar proportion of the proposed West Coast pipeline. That certainly puts it in perspective. 

And even this paltry amount is focussed on mitigation of damage rather than aimed at reducing the ongoing need for such mitigation.

Child who caused Porter flight to be cancelled maybe not at fault

You will by now have probably heard or read the story of the Porter flight out of Victoria, BC, which was cancelled late at night after staff and parent were not able to get a young child to sit in his seat and buckle up his seatbelt. The child and parent eventually had to leave the plane, by which time it was too late for the plane to take off, and all the other passengers also had to disembark.

There have been mixed reactions to the incident, some (most) severely critical of the child and parent, some more empathetic. This eye-witness report, for example, makes.it clear that the child was clearly terrified, not just a spoiled brat having a temper tantrum.

I actually tried to find some video footage of the incident - you'd think, in this day and age, that someone would have been assiduously filming the whole thing. But all I could find was a very short clip, showing staff calmly (and obviously unsuccessfully) reasomong with the child.

My first reaction on reading about it was along the outraged "spoiled brat" lines. But, on reflection, I think the staff and parent probably did what they could, and the traumatized child probably could not help himself.

Soccer closes ranks against Infantino's vision

Football (soccer) federations across the world are closing ranks in opposition to beleaguered FIFA boss Gianni Infantino. 

In an "open letter to the football family" yesterday, UEFA (representing Europe), CONCACAF (representing North and Central America and the Caribbean) and AFC (representing Asia) presented Infantino and FIFA with a joint declaration of solidarity and opposition to Infantino's money-grabbing vision of world football.

It took Infantino's latest faux pas - his plan to sell off a large share of FIFA to private investors - to bring these disparate federations together in joint outrage, reflecting the outrage expressed by most of the rest of the world at Infantino's excesses. His time at the helm of FIFA is surely limited.