Wiped out: US faces surging toilet paper prices amid trade war with Canada
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Wastefulness is a national pastime.
Can any average american or german person comment on how this actually works? Do you wipe like 15 times per visit, or is it just a very high amount (folded?) of sheets per wipe?
I am hoping this is normal around the world and nobody throws away slightly used rolls.
This doesn't mean than the average American uses that much paper. I believe it just means a lot of it is wasted (probably just thrown away without even using it) unsure why though
There don't appear to be any reliable stats or studies, which I find surprising; the few studies I could find had people use way less tp, eg https://www.radiohamburg.de/aktuelles/hamburg/Wie-scht-Hambu...
So I'm inclined to believe the 134 is hogwash; no idea if the numbers for the US are more reliable.
That's only about 50% more than Japan uses, and that's a country that's the most famous user of bidets.
I slowly increased my fiber intake over the course of months. About +2g a day, raised every week.
Oh also, relatedly, fiber is not really a laxative. If you have issues with using the bathroom too much, fiber will help with that.
- Americans don’t use bidets, largely. Simple water use cuts down on toilet paper significantly
- SAD (standard American diet) is awful for digestive quality. Little to no fiber = using the toilet will not be pretty
- healthcare costs. Americans with digestive issues probably just put up with it most of the time. Nobody is out here seeing a gastroenterologist because they poop more than average
Same energy as a 13-year-old boy bullying his little brother just because of his own hormone-driven insecurity.
Other than the current tariff narrative, it's fairly standard CIA play when we look at what they did to Latin America already.
Donald Trump wants to make the USA bigger. It will put him in the history books. He also wants a lot of chaos so he can be bribed to stop(he won’t).
There is no master plan, just greed.
This is a thought terminating cliche. This is just the latest move in a long term strategic effort to undermine Canada's sovereignty. Zoom out, and that in it of itself is part of an even broader strategic effort to reorganize alliances which built the world order.
Everywhere there are criticisms of Trump, his administration, and their goals, there is always this commentary which not only fails to serve as an accurate representation of present situations, but more importantly, it serves to distract from the chronology of events which led us here, blinding the broader conversation from creating inferences of what will happen next which stifles the conversation from its most natural next reply: What are they actually doing, and what do we do if it does not benefit us?
You are underthinking this.
Donald wants to bully anyone he can into submission; the requirements are designed to be obscene so that agreeing to them is akin to kissing the ring.
That and trying to get more willing sycophants installed in power whenever possible (a little gem hidden in the latest batch of requirements: Canada should stop protecting the French language status. If you know anything about Canada, you know that agreeing to this would be a political suicide for the party in power).
Everyone is going to lose here.
>Everyone is going to lose here.
I believe in sovereign states well enough to have 100% respect for Canada-first policies as well as America-first in the US.
Things worked so well for so many decades with much lesser rebalancing, that the only explanation would be some serious defect arising that was not there until recent years or days.
This is just Trump's way of telling Americans, if they can't afford to pay way more going forward for everything into the foreseeable future, toilet paper is the least of their worries.
He doesn't have to detail it out loud, but there are plenty of good old American corncobs which have fallen into disuse for this purpose, and it wouldn't be nearly as unpleasant as it was in the outhouse days.
Except for those who may not be able to afford a rising water bill at some point :(
In the end it confirms his idea of "winning" amounts to shit on a stick.
Let's hope victory against Canada looks better than victory against Iran else we'll be paying $10/roll for toilet paper as well as $4/gal at the pump.
China is the long term winner here.
OTOH, upgrade to a TOTO, or other 'smart' toilet. Need less paper that way.
https://www.consumerreports.org/home-garden/toilets/best-sma...
My experience with these has been that I use more paper, because I always feel "wet" afterward.
Whereas with a good, solid, no-nonsense beef bomb, I can skimp a little as long as there's a good pinch at the end.
after a bidet you can dry with one square
As for the bidet, the ones I've used in Japan make me wipe more, again, because it's all wet back there, and even the ones with the air dryers don't seem to get the job done.
I use the 3D-printed one for travel (I'd gladly pay extra for hotels that have bidets) and outdoor use.
Using a bidet is such an easy life upgrade for anyone relying on TP.
I think it could use something more, like a lever/handle/button at the top, and a C02-cartridge. Or pump.
Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soda_siphon
But for someone starting out, I do think having something to propel the water upwards helps a bit.
Insiders say he's bored of being president, bored of his Iran war, and has no interest in going out stumping for others in the midterms since there is nothing in it for himself.
The only enjoyment he's got left is trying to get a rise out of the press and get some adulation from his base with playground antics like his "Lake America".
At this point it's not just that he started out stupid (even his own mother said so), but that he's pretty seriously suffering from dementia - I'm sure any nursing home staff recognize the symptoms.
Edit: I mixed up my words originally -- switch _from_ wood-based TP to bamboo is what I meant
I should use AI to write my HN comments and avoid typos :p
I thought this was a fun tidbit:
"The US accounts for more than 20% of global tissue consumption despite having only 4% of the world’s population. The average American uses 141 rolls of toilet paper per year, making them No 1 for No 2s globally, just ahead of Germans, each using an average of 134 rolls annually."
I'm also curious, is there any reporting on increases in Canadian prices as a result of their tariffs on American products or does that only go one way? I always read (especially in international papers like the Guardian) about Americans seeing price increases but I see very little reporting on price increases/decreases or changes in other countries.
Also maybe someone can remind me, in the past (before Trump 1 even) were there any tariffs on American products that anyone can point to? I see on the news channels discussion about how Canada has historically placed tariffs American dairy products. Did that result in higher prices in Canada? How did their economy handle the lack of American dairy imports at lower prices (if they were lower)?
As someone on the border, the tariffs do screw over individual folks on both sides of it.
Canadian grocery prices are awfully high and they've been known for various price-fixing scandals (the Loblaws bread-fixing apology gift cards come to mind) so there's often a lot of Canadian Walmart/Sams Club/Local Grocery shoppers.
One of the odd things is that Americans had it better coming back to the US from Canada after a day out shopping - we could bring back $800, but the Canadians going home could only bring back $50 or so, unless they were out for more than 48 hours then got $800. US Customs was also hilariously lax on actually enforcing things ("anything to declare?" "ah, I spent $200 at IKEA" gets a handwave) compared to the Canadians that'll fine-tooth comb the vehicle to pull every penny of duty they can coming home to Canada.
I'm simultaneously surprised and not surprised that this exists (we buy washable paper towels and beeswax items and similar for reusability) but even I think that's even a bridge too far. More power to anyone who is using those products though.
I've personally always found US customs easy to deal with for purchased products. When we came back from France last year with around a case of wine my wife was worried and I'm like what is there to worry about? we're not smuggling anything and the worst case is we just pay a duty on the wine of a $1 or $2. You just declare it and if duties are applicable you just pay them. It always seemed to me they were really there to just keep people from doing crazy things or outright breaking import laws. Similar to your experience, coming back from Toronto with a few purchased items, US customs just did not care at all.
I saw some spirits that were quoted at $40-80+ a bottle, depending on a bunch of factors, when you go over the relatively small limit. Bringing home a case of Kentucky sipping burbon to Toronto will hurt you right in the wallet a few times over.
We use so much less tp since we got one.
I tried a bidet previously because people rave about them. But when trying them, there seems to be two problems. The water that hits you sprays around on impact. So that immediately-sullied water now has a bit of blast radius to it. I also can't see down there, so having done what certainly felt like a pretty thorough job bidet-ing, I would wipe and discover the job was not so thorough. So although you could potentially use a bidet to reduce your toilet paper usage, toilet paper itself allows you to actually check whether or not you got everything, which just seems impossible with a bidet alone. And if I only used the bidet, then what am I supposed to do to dry myself? It feels like TP needs to be in the mix at least a little bit.
Am I just using it wrong? Does a lifetime of using it give your brain a clearer sense of where the water has hit and what "clean" feels like.
The main benefit is those times you'll otherwise go through half a roll (also means you don't rub through the skin).
I contemplated a bidet during the lockdowns, and some YouTubers were touting their convenience and comfort. But ultimately, I rent an apartment with a landlady, and there's no way a bidet could get installed and survive my lease agreement.
So I decided that a good compromise was to start buying wet wipes. I found the "Sensitive" Huggies to be fairly good. Unscented and gentle. There's also "Honest" brand at Target, marketed to adults. Supposedly flushable. I don't flush them.
It's been working out so well that I carry around the wet wipes in my pocket, everywhere I go. They have saved me in many situations in many public restrooms. And they can also clean up my hands if I happen to get muddy or gritty while I'm out and about.
B) They make bidets that are trivial to install/remove. I have one that connects inline with the water lines and it took like 4 minutes to install. But you can also get a portable one. They range from squirt bottle for your bum to fancy battery powered devices with USB-c charging.
Canada has the same issue in many industries, where the need/desire for Canadian firms to compete against US firms - even though Canada has a population roughly a tenth the size of the US - results in a handful of bloated monopolies/monopsonies that the Canadian population has to deal with.
For an alternative perspective you can look at the US healthcare system, where the US has a protectionist system that props up its healthcare industry (insurance, providers, pharma companies, etc) at the expense of its population, to the tune of about 2x what Canada spends per capita.
Canadians who live near the border will commonly hop over for some shopping and fill up their tank with cheap gas, while Americans try to fill their prescriptions from Canadian pharmacies and travel to Mexico for procedures they can't afford to get done in the US. It's all a matter of what the system is set up to do.
I'm curious what options Canada has to break up these monopolies and lower prices with respect to their ongoing protectionist policies?
Think of the Canadian aircraft manufacturer Bombardier. Canada wants to keep a domestic aircraft manufacturer around so they have a backup in case of US shenanigans (like what just happened with the F-35) so the government ensures there's ongoing contracts for those domestic aircraft as well as subsidies for things like manufacturing plant expansion or modernization. But Canada's population only needs so many aircraft, so why would they waste government resources on a new upstart rival aircraft manufacturer? Bombardier knows this too, so why would they spend their own resources on R&D or modernization when they know they can get the government to pay for it instead? It's a feedback loop, and not necessarily a good one.
To your point - Even as domestic "competition", the market is still separated by aircraft type.
And honestly, their history is a good example of why countries act in this way. When they were sold to Boeing, it seemed to be a way for Boeing to "grease the wheels" in order to land a big Air Canada contract. When Airbus got the contract instead, Boeing immediately put De Havilland up for sale and let the company languish until it was purchased by Ontario/Bombardier. Corporate histories can be interesting!
It really seems like Canada is in a tough spot economically. They don't have the scale to compete against, say, China or the United States but they want to protect domestic industries against foreign competition and so have enacted trade barriers and other protectionist policies like supporting Bombardier (or the dairy industry or whatever) even if it means higher prices for Canadiens and goes against free trade practices.
In my mind that makes a lot more sense as to why, at least in part, there is the ongoing trade dispute between the US and Canada (whether I agree or disagree with it and how it is handled would be a different matter). The US also seeks to in part protect domestic industries that are being outcompeted by China or face significant regulatory barriers (diary industry in Canada for example, other various exports to the EU, Chinese ban on American technology companies) and so we're winding up in a world where the US is now also putting the hammer down on protecting industries like the EU, China, and seemingly Canada does which is causing a lot of political conflict over trade and jobs.
It seems inevitable that as one or more countries put up trade barriers (EU, Canada, China being some large ones here) the US and others would eventually respond if they found that they were unable to compete on price due to government intervention.
In dairy, for example, if prices get "too low", the US directly buys excess supply to increase the price, makes direct payments to dairy farmers, and subsidizes feed (corn/soybeans) and farmers' insurance.
Most historical trade agreements between the US and friendly nations tolerated minor interventions and subsidies on both sides.
Trump is taking a completely different tact. His goal is not free trade or sustainable relationships. He recognizes the US is the stronger party in most of these negotiations, and wants to use that to extract concessions that explicitly favor the US, even if it strains and damages the economies of historical allies.
But I think your comment about Trump is not quite nuanced enough and of course you have to include that the US is negotiating with other powerful parties like the EU and China so it's not really always the US negotiating with weaker parties. At the negotiating table I view each of those big 3 has having many cards to play, and both weaknesses and strengths that can be exploited.
When I say it's not nuanced enough what I mean is that, for example, American technology companies are simply banned from operating in China. In Europe, until I believe July or something American car exports were tariffed at a 10% rate, and then you have policies like the Online Streaming Act in Canada (I'm not exactly up to date on the current status but just recall it existing).
So while Trump's negotiating style is, arguably something to abhor, I think painting these engagements as simply a matter of Donald Trump isn't interested in free trade or sustainable relationships to be a bit off the mark. For example, you can't simultaneously claim that Donald Trump isn't interested in free trade while ignoring trade barriers put in place before he was even elected president. I'd also argue that in general most countries and people aren't actually interested in free trade and that it's more of a political tool, because that would require abandoning subsidies and protections and there are obviously very bad potential repercussions of doing so.
I don't think that's even it. The end goal is humiliation of the other party. Trump would be pro-humiliation even if that didn't favour the US economically. (As it typically doesn't.)
The current counter-tariffs haven't taken effect yet, but yes, various products saw price increases with the previous sets.
Though TBH, I personally saw more increases in prices from American tariffs on Chinese goods where American sellers couldn't be bothered to sell goods to Canada without first importing to the US and just tacked on a price increase for all buyers. To the best of my ability I've avoided those products/sellers.
Also even though the fire was in Ontario CA, it was Ontario California not Ontario Canada.
Get enough for a year for a family.
400 rolls would be a good start.
Act now and save money.