January Inflation

[brymoore]

Canada needs to continue the export otherwise, they would be heavily in the red, employment and $.

As for, "addiction" some perspective:

For Canada's 40 million people, they used 2.4 million barrels per day. 869 million barrels a year / 40 million = 22 per person.
U.S. uses 18.5 million barrels per day (-1.5 biofuel). 6.75 billion barrels a year / 340 million = 19.9 per person.

"Addiction" is a misnomer.

Also, take into account, U.S. exports approx 365 million barrels of oil to Canada, totalling approx 1 million barrels a day. That is more than a third (closer to 1/2) of the total oil used in Canada.

There is a serious deficit vs surplus between the two countries, when $130B -$24.5B is "swapped", for lack of better words.

"U.S. goods imports from Canada in 2024 totaled $412.7 billion, down 1.4 percent ($5.9 billion) from 2023. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada was $63.3 billion in 2024, a 1.4 percent decrease ($926.9 million) over 2023."
*Edited last paragraph: calculation error. Corrected by sharing the U.S. Trade statistics for 2024. Same as mentioned in my post above, respectively.

Canada can export to a different country, maybe China. Let’s try that strategy out! Trade surplus for the US!



US is the world’s largest consumer of oil. We have an oil addiction.

 

[Nick87]

You kidding? I love memes, if they are funny.

You should check out the meme thread sometime. Little change of pace for ya.

 

[Sytes]

US is the world’s largest consumer of oil. We have an oil addiction.

For Canada's 40 million people, they used 2.4 million barrels per day. 869 million barrels a year / 40 million = 22 per person.
U.S. uses 18.5 million barrels per day (-1.5 biofuel). 6.75 billion barrels a year / 340 million = 19.9 per person.

You're disputing the #'s shared between Canada and the U.S., per capita, I see. You're saying the numbers do not calculate correctly. Reasonable assessment to identify would be per capita between Canada and the U.S.

You used "Statistica"... So I'll play with your lead.

Oil consumption in Canada 2004-2023​

Published by Statista Research Department, Jul 15, 2024
Oil consumption in Canada reached roughly 2.4 million barrels per day in 2023, an increase of 1.7 percent when compared to the previous year.

Oil consumption in the U.S. 1998-2023​

Published by Statista Research Department, Oct 14, 2024
In 2023, the United States consumed nearly 19 million barrels of oil daily. In comparison to the previous year, figures increased by around 0.6 percent.





United States "nearly" 19M x 365 days = 6.9B / 340 million people = 20 barrels per person.

Canada: "roughly" 2.4M x 365 days = 876M / 40 million people = 21.9 barrels per person.

 

[SAJ-99]

You should check out the meme thread sometime. Little change of pace for ya.

I do, I just don’t post. Mostly if they are clever and/or funny. Mostly I think they are made by people with too much time on their hands. lol yes, I see the irony.

 

[brymoore]

You're disputing the #'s shared between Canada and the U.S., per capita, I see. You're saying the numbers do not calculate correctly. Reasonable assessment to identify would be per capita between Canada and the U.S.

You used "Statistica"... So I'll play with your lead.

Oil consumption in Canada 2004-2023​

Published by Statista Research Department, Jul 15, 2024
Oil consumption in Canada reached roughly 2.4 million barrels per day in 2023, an increase of 1.7 percent when compared to the previous year.

Oil consumption in the U.S. 1998-2023​

Published by Statista Research Department, Oct 14, 2024
In 2023, the United States consumed nearly 19 million barrels of oil daily. In comparison to the previous year, figures increased by around 0.6 percent.

View attachment 369541

View attachment 369542

United States "nearly" 19M x 365 days = 6.9B / 340 million people = 20 barrels per person.

Canada: "roughly" 2.4M x 365 days = 876M / 40 million people = 21.9 barrels per person.

Sigh. Who cares? Wasted brain space trying to prove an irrelevant point.

The US is the worlds largest user of oil.

The US has a trade deficit with Canada because of the oil the U.S. imports. Oil the U.S. wants. If the oil is eliminated from the export/import calculations, the U.S. has a trade surplus. The US’s hunger for oil is causing the trade deficit issue.

 

[Sytes]

You're the one that brought it up, apparently you cared until you determined it, "Irrelevant" when it does not fit the common understanding of matching apples with apples. Per capita. Got it.

Sounds better to say America is addicted to oil. Fits an agenda.

Sigh.

 

[Sytes]

The US has a trade deficit with Canada because of the oil the U.S. imports. Oil the U.S. wants. If the oil is eliminated from the export/import calculations, the U.S. has a trade surplus.

When a hunt talk member excludes Canada's MAIN export to the U.S., the calculations of U.S. / Canadian surplus and deficit will change.

Reality, Canada nor America excludes oil as an export.

 

[brymoore]

When a hunt talk member excludes Canada's MAIN export to the U.S., the calculations of U.S. / Canadian surplus and deficit will change.

Reality, Canada nor America excludes oil as an export.

View attachment 369557

You completely miss the point.

The trade deficit is “evil” and we need to “negotiate” to have a trade surplus ignoring the fact the United States needs to import products - especially oil based on the complexity of the U.S.’s oil market. We’re creating our own deficits and then get mad about it.

You want a trade surplus with Canada? Stop buying oil. Oh wait - the U.S, needs oil. Let’s forget that the US exports more products to Canada than it imports beside the oil we want. Let’s complain about the small dairy market.

Treating Canada the way Trump has is an embarrassment to the country.

 

[Sytes]

Treating Canada the way Trump has is an embarrassment to the country.

Hah! You completely skipped my comments... surprisingly we mostly agree about this admin's activity related to Canada, I'll save you the hassle reading back, x pages...

I'm not a fan of this admin's action towards Canada. That's a period - end of sentence. This could have and should have been managed as neighboring partners at the negotiating table.

IMO/E, We hold a valuable relation with our northern "family". We have the longest border of ANY two countries in the world. We get along and Canada has always stepped in with boots on the ground when we, the U.S., decided to stick our pecker in other country affairs in the name of National Security, including mineral securities (oil), etc.
We owe each other mutual respect, the dignity to manage our reciprocal trade differences at the negotiating table

Next subject you are clearly not aware:

Canada / U.S. exports to each other: Primarily, U.S. exports sweet crude whereas Canada exports sour crude. U.S. accepts the sour crude as we have refineries that use the cheaper sour crude and refinaries already in place to reduce the sulfer content.

Canada values U.S. export of sweet crude as they need it. Sweet holds value for gas, diesel, and aviation fuel that their primary sour is unable to accomplish w/o extreme refining that U.S. already has functioning, etc.

Not only that, though the jobs their export of sour crude to U.S. is significant.

 

[JAG]

@Sytes and @brymoore - I love the back-and-forth resolution of this data. If tempted to give up or mad, please don't. I'm learning from both of you!

Meme's are fun and can be very informative with few words; 'the less the words, the more the meaning' is my hardest lesson right now.

@Sytes, I appreciate your perspective on Canada, bringing your concerns to the front, and doing it in a way that's not screaming, but stressing valid points. For example:

It sickened me during the 4 Nation Face Off when Canada boo'd and hurled insults during our U.S. Anthem and U.S. returned volley in Boston of sickening feeling as we stepped down to their level of disrespect. Our national anthems are not sung in praise of Trudeau, nor Trump. The anthems are respected for our countries.

I agree and will continue to regard both countries, especially America, as precious, worth defending, worth the time to resolve conflicts, and worth demonstrating the patience to reasonably inform/discuss, like you all are, despite relative anonymity on this forum.

 

[JAG]

I've been wrong a few times on this thread with constructive and sometimes blunt criticism. It's always good to accept correction when it's due. When my wife insists she's right and nothing gained from proving she's not, I'm content to say, 'ok'.

Yesterday, poll results showed Trump has the lowest approval rating at this point than any of the previous terms dating back to 'W':

​

It is also worth noting that the current term involves the most extreme level of change he was voted to enact. I think he knows it and even anticipates his irascible approach would piss off his trusted circle, administration, voters, allies, press, etc. along the way. Many of his voters were included in that poll reflects their disappointment. He knows it and acts indifferent. He has thick skin, and the tips outlined in his 'Art of the Deal' from the 80s are playing out in real time. Ironically, the guy who wrote the book for him (Schwartz) later claimed it was mostly fiction and should have been retitled 'The Sociopath'. Trump defended it as "truthful hyperbole". Here's an interesting article about the book and how his tips are manifested in the current term: The Business Insider.

On the matters of inflation, trade balance, immigration, war, and tariffs, it is worth noting that his positions are not original political agendas of the right. These ideas were drawn from the Democrat playbook, with agenda front-runners for these changes being Obama, Schumer, and Pelosi. Should that make these issues bipartisan or more 'American'? I realize the framing of this question suggests a certain answer, but I really don't know.

 

[SAJ-99]

On the matters of inflation, trade balance, immigration, war, and tariffs, it is worth noting that his positions are not original political agendas of the right. These ideas were drawn from the Democrat playbook, with agenda front-runners for these changes being Obama, Schumer, and Pelosi.

War? Seriously.

Oddly, protectionism seems most popular on the far right and far left. The right screams about Socialism and the left screams about inequality. I kind of wish they could form their own party. Most of us quite enjoy neoliberalism.

 

[406dn]

United States "nearly" 19M x 365 days = 6.9B / 340 million people = 20 barrels per person.

Canada: "roughly" 2.4M x 365 days = 876M / 40 million people = 21.9 barrels per person.

It stands to reason that a country with great geographical distances, with a sparse population, and a colder climate, would use more oil, than a more densely populated, warmer country.

I suspect that Montana's oil usage per capita is higher than Canada's per capita consumption.

 

[brymoore]

The next concern for me is if the administration tries to impose the 1% “user fee” on foreign official holders of Treasury securities. It’s a bullet point in the Mar Lago Accord and was mentioned again this week.

I’m not sure if they have thought past go on this idea. Essentially a treasury default by the U.S. Interest rates will go crazy.

 

[Cap’n Crunch]

This is opinion/experience only as it is in my wheelhouse of federal employment. Not based on graphs, charts, or MALA anti-admin theories:

IMO/E, We hold a valuable relation with our northern "family". We have the longest border of ANY two countries in the world. We get along and Canada has always stepped in with boots on the ground when we, the U.S., decided to stick our pecker in other country affairs in the name of National Security, including mineral securities (oil), etc.
We owe each other mutual respect, the dignity to manage our reciprocal trade differences at the negotiating table. In the end, it will calm as Canadians can not resist their snowbird love for our country and we, Americans, can hold out far longer than Canada to press for better reciprocal trade. Canada has a 340 million population within trucking /rail distance and U.S. has 40 million Canadians for the same retail/wholesale value.
We offer massive amounts of employment for products assembled in Canada (automobiles, etc) and we both leverage within bilateral trade with mainly energy and agriculture. It's a common trade imbalance of Canadian surplus versus U.S. deficit. To better understand the #'s U.S. deficit with Canada is $63 billion for 2024 ALONE!
Another side of trade imbalance: Softwood lumber with respect to Canadian forestry practice holds a direct impact on U.S. lumber prices. This admin is rightfully (again, IMO) attempting to open U.S. timber to counter Canadian "reciprocal" trade imbalance.

It sickened me during the 4 Nation Face Off when Canada boo'd and hurled insults during our U.S. Anthem and U.S. returned volley in Boston of sickening feeling as we stepped down to their level of disrespect. Our national anthems are not sung in praise of Trudeau, nor Trump. The anthems are respected for our countries.
Can one imagine the crap our U.S. Olympics would be if each flag and anthem is met with loud, roucous boo's and snearing screams of insults? Sad. Some here disagree and find this petty is reasonable - to each his/her own. Again, this is merely my opinion.

This admin has caused Canada to expand alternative export opportunities to reduce the volitility our giverning element has exposed. Though again, reality - even with more reciprocal agreements made, Canada holds far greater value with our country over expanding current exports to other countries. This admin knows this and so does Canada.
The boisterous country bravado has valuably (IMO) surged Canadian national pride! This is the positive side of the current action. Not often do we find every Canadian Province aboard the maple leaf flag! I currently reside in Canada on U.S. Gov orders and it's very cool to see the pride sprout from this disingenuis admin vocal yammering.
It's great as ALL my bordering neighbors have their maple leaf flags waving. Makes me miss my ability to wave my American flag as I do - 24/7 (with a light for night). My neighbors are all fantastic people! I watched the second 4 Nations NHL game at one neighbor's house, play monthly poker games at another, etc, etc.

Mexico, we hold a trade deficit of $722 million. Mexico's population as of 2023 was 130 million! *Amazing... You can see how challenging this is when compared to the deficit of $64 BILLION with Canada and their 40 million population. This shows a significant value and unequivicable challenge that is able to be modified - at least somewhat. USMCA was a good start. Time has been spent with USMCA to identify weak points and revamp the trade agreement.

Mexico, we hold a serious security factor that calls for this admin's valued actions on the southern border. Canada is now the vocally exposed (by this admin) as the weak link for Mexican, S.A., European, and Asian cartels to gain access to U.S. 340 million. And this IS ACCURATE! In my opinion/experience. Canada is far behind in funding their CBSA to adaquately and properly utilize tools and intelligence to reduce the nexus to America from their seaports. This admin is correct in the drug/human trade due to Canada's inability to defend itself from foreign trafficking. It not only affects U.S. though also Canada. U.S. Northern border, as mentioned before, is the longest border between two countries in the world! U.S. has been increasing the rehabilitation of northern border ports of entries, tools and training for the ports and the boundry between the ports. Canada depends on a seperate branch of RCMP for boundry enforcement... RCMP is spread far too thin to be effective. Canada needs to step up if they want to negotiate their massive surplus, IMO.

Many aspects to be worked between our two neighboring countries that, IMO, would have been better resolved at the negotiating table than loud mouth political bantering, as could be said of our *strong allies elsewhere. However, that is not how this admin operates and to this admin's defense, their actions have led to many new trade deals much more favorable to U.S. than before... I personally don't like his style.

How's that for a bunch of typed yammering? Haha! Watch as a few will nit pick a line or two and misrepresent the intent. I'm open to constructive comments that, I imagine will be related to surplus vs deficit and population aspects. I don't have the time to detail my specific thoughts of this though it is clearly apparent. I believe we will never reach a 1 to 1 though we are far from even 1 to 50 and that *can be negotiated.

Thank you for putting yourself out there with more detail. I appreciate and understand where you are coming from a little better now. While I don’t agree with a lot of it, I certainly now understand a little more.