I'm curious what ways you would argue Canada has a significantly lower standard of living.
I'm Canadian.
Our GDP/cap is usually lower.
I work in tech, my salary is less than 1/2 what it would be in the US (not just Silicon Valley).
Most goods are more expensive here.
We do have Universal Health care, and generally good schools and Unis, it's generally safer, cops are more low key etc. etc.
It's hard to compare societies, and I think the US could learn a lot from our system, but in most 'individual metrics' Canada is just poorer, economically. (Though I'd hate to be poor in the US.) There's just so, so much more economic activity and points of prosperity in the US sometimes I find it mind-boggling, again, it's a lot of Apples to Oranges admittedly.
Yes, but I'd argue that SV income might look higher, but after you try living there you'd gladly go back to Canadian expenses if the compromise was that you also had to take your Canadian income once again. Also, income inequality in Canada isn't as bad as the US (yet...)
Is it just bay area zealots on both sides embracing the meme that "IT'S SO EXPENSIVE".
We get it. we know. We don't look at SF and go "oh wow, 10 k more a year" while paying 2000 a month more in rent. We look at it and go "oh wow, 110k more a year, even with the rents thats a lot of money".
Also, isn't the median household income higher in Canada than the US?
honestly, the thing that made me question was lumping Canada in with Mexico. Not shitting on Mexico, but the standard of living there is clearly lower.
There is no direct link between the executive/legislative and the Fed.
The Fed does what's roughly best for American economy, which disproportionately favours those with assets, banks etc. - but they are fairly independent in normal times.
In times of crises, you could start to point to some things like all those homes right now sitting on the Fed balance sheet, surely. But regular operations are not politically controlled.
But in China, the currency is literally worth whatever the government wants it to be at any time. They can literally press a button and 'poof'.
Because of the amazing control and power of the Chinese government, the RMB might be the most tightly politically controlled currency in all of history: at least all of the fiat money that failed in the past ... leaders had to water it down or print money behind the scenes over time.
Not to say that's entirely bad - one could make the claim that 'it's better for China' to have this, there'd be some good points there. But in terms of 'free trade' it's not good.
In any event, the US does not have open trade with China really, so there's constant trade tensions, there probably always will be.
I don't thin anything I'm saying is controversial or new, it just might be new data for the folks here on HN who I find are generally more tech than finance oriented.
When 2 nations are each protective, it's bad for both.
If they are both open, it's generally good for both.
But - if one protects in a sneaky way, and the other is open - the it's amazing for the protectionist country.
So nations strive to be 'open' but then to sneak in stuff, or rather, sometimes they are open, but really are not.
It's impossible for American companies to sell into Japan for many reasons, arguably quality, but the way Japanese business syndicates work, they'll keep America out, irrespective of what the government says.
This was a huge thing in the 1980's and is the 'memory' that gripes Trump.
As for China - we don't have open trade with them.
America is considerably more open than China.
+ China has massive state-owned agencies, the subsidized markets
+ They have a 100% politically controlled currency
+ They have political capital controls
+ They require foreign entities to hand over key IP
+ They have any number of barriers (some on purpose, some not so much) to foreign participation.
+ China does not pursue those breaking IP rules.
China has had these advantages for some time, it's just that when they were poor, nobody really cared, but as they get powerful, it becomes an issue.
So the only choice is to play 'hardball' with such nations - because these nations won't react to anything else, and they'll only react to threats that are credible.
As for Europe, it's a different bag, but America has some decent beefs with Germany in particular.
As for NAFTA - that's a tough one. I don't think America has such a huge advantage, but wages are weaker in Cana/Mex which gives big opportunities in some ways ... but it also keeps Can/Mex standard of living lower in many ways. So the NAFTA gripe is more difficult to understand.
Put another way - the US has been having a 'trade war' with China for 30 years, it just wasn't ever a big deal.
And there are some issues (cars) that America has a reasonable beef with on Germany, for example.
I think Trump is a douche but he's not 'all wrong' on these things.