Canada is taking an outsized role in the construction of the post-American world

It's just a lot of words with very little substance. 75% of their exports go to the US, all their best professionals and investors move to the US, and a large part of their economy is just rent-seeking on real estate prices.

Saying all the middle powers need to join together is all fine and well but doesn't really mean anything.

Canada can’t build anything because of nimby and other activists and extortion.

Meh. He's running up the credit card while not actually getting anything done because he needs a reason to sell national assets to brookfield. It's not a very complicated strategy but it is effective. I hope nobody is surprised when the airports and/or other federal assets suddenly get brookfield signs and long dated contracts advantageous to brookfield in exchange for a meagre lump sum up front to cover the waste he is currently green lighting.

Calling this off-topic is willfully ignoring the damage trumpism causes the tech industry. It's a safe bet that we will see posts lamenting how US technology is no longer trusted and therefore software economics doesn't work as well as it used to. Historically about half of sales for US software companies have been outside the US. It's delusional to think that will continue.

What to Submit

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

>we are attempting to redirect some of our trade to other nations besides the U.S., including by a series of sweeping free trade agreements

Canada sells $450 billion to the US annually, out of total exports of $550 billion. Let's say Carney is able to, through herculean effort, replace $100 billion of exports to the US—an immense amount, equal to Canada's entire current non-US exports—with an equal amount of trade to outside North America. That means Trump has been put in his place, right?

No. It means that Canada is 100% guaranteed to be making a smaller profit on the same amount of sales, because those products are no longer being shipped by truck or rail a few hundred miles across one national border, but by ship or air thousands of miles across multiple borders. It means adhering to regulatory and technical standards that differ from the almost completely unified systems across the US and Canada. Etc.

What if genius Carney can retain the current volume of exports to the US, and add $100 billion in exports to the rest of the world. Wouldn't this mean that Trump's anti-Canada schemes have well and truly failed?

My hat's off to Carney if he can achieve this. But of course, if such an increase in foreign sales were possible today, it would surely have been achieved 10 or 30 or 50 years ago; there is no current equivalent untapped market like China c. 1980. Further, it would still mean that the overall profit margin for Canadian exports would have decreased, because of the aforementioned greater cost of sales and the price concessions Canada would surely have had to generate new sales from existing customers.

Homework assignment for everyone: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade> and <https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/eh/>

>At the time the Liberals were the continentalists of Canadian politics, seeing engagement with the U.S. as a necessary counterbalance to the imperial connection they were so anxious to be rid of. The Tories were the opposite: fond of the mother country, suspicious of the Yanks. Only much later did the roles reverse, after Britain ceased to be an issue.

This is an oblique reference to the classic essay "Lament for a Nation". Highly relevant discussion of that essay by a past Liberal Leader: <https://np.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1lococ4/sixty_y...>

>The test of Article 5 is not what NATO partners say about it now, but what they do in the event of an attack.

Let's say the US withdraws from NATO. Would Canada be willing to stay in the alliance, to guarantee that it would send its troops and aircraft to defend Western Europe? Yes, yes, I know about 1939 (1914 doesn't count, as Canada had no say). When only 6% of Britons would volunteer to fight an "imminent" invasion <https://np.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1v5dk8l/exclusiv...>, what are the odds that Canadians would be more willing to fight to defend Europe than Europeans?

>Never, since 1867, have we had to take seriously the prospect that the President of the United States might attempt to seize a part of our territory, by one means or another.

Even setting aside Trump explicitly ruling out invasion, what I wrote above applies to Canada itself. Consider a July 2025 survey of Canadians <https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-day-p...>. Ignore the article itself; the authors do their best to pretend that the results don't say what they actually say. Look at the spreadsheet with the actual results. Q1 asks "What actions would you take, if any, to fight to defend Canada against a military attack and invasion or occupation of this country by a hostile foreign power? Select all that apply." Of the nine named choices including attend rallies and volunteer for civil defense, 12.2% would volunteer to join the military, and 10.5% would report when conscripted. 28.3% would do none of the offered options.

Q5 asks "If Canada were defeated and occupied by another country, which actions would you be willing to take to fight to defend Canada at that point? Select all that apply." 14.5% say they would violently resist, 14.1% would engage in "cyberwarfare" and sabotage, and 38% would engage in nonviolent resistance (protests and rallies). 48% would do none of these options.

Q6 asks "Would you be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for Canada and die defending this country against a foreign military attack or occupation?" Yes, 15.5%. No, 47.5%. Maybe, 21.6%. I don't know, 15.4%.

Iraq or Afghanistan are not applicable here. Islam permits and encourages suicide bombings in a way that Christianity does not. Further, don't make me laugh about the typical Toronto Redditor soyboi <https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/330/806/8fc...>'s ability to do anything with a weapon. As said in another discussion of the above survey, "The LARPing from urbanites fantasizing about sniping and droning an invading army is the most cringe thing I've ever seen. Fuckin bugmen, every single one of them".

Also bear in mind that the survey did not identify the invading country, so the results are affected by people having in mind the likes of Russia or China. Even (again) setting aside Trump explicitly ruling out invasion, a US annexation that would result in Canadians electing representatives to go to Washington, not Ottawa, would result in correspondingly smaller percentages for those willing to join the military, give up their lives, etc. As another Redditor put it, the first time Canadians would notice a difference in their lives is when they vote for said representatives.

I would add, or when they realize they can move to anywhere in the US tomorrow. Or when they realize they no longer as snowbirds have to follow the 180-day rule. Or they can apply to any US company's jobs. Or when they can sell to any US customer with zero tariffs, and fewer rules/taxes than to sell to another province today. Or when their USPS (formerly Canada Post) mailman starts delivering on Saturdays. Or when they get access to Hulu and to the US Netflix catalog. Etc., etc.