TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2026-03-03 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00029405

CANADA THE STEEL INDUSTRY ... Robert Reich Joly’s $500M Steel Move Stuns Trump and Washington PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNxkj3HlkEc
Joly’s $500M Steel Move Stuns Trump and Washington \| Robert Reich eejhei5 and Bitacora 3000 Dec 22, 2025 232,640 views ... 9.6K likes Discover the shocking truth behind Canada's bold $500M steel strategy that flips Trump's 50% tariffs on their head, as revealed by economist Robert Reich. Far from a desperate defense, Foreign Minister Joly's move signals a strategic pivot to domestic markets like shipbuilding and infrastructure, reducing U.S. dependency and building long-term resilience for workers and communities. Watch now to uncover who really benefits, the hidden economic shifts at play, and why this could redefine global trade power dynamics. How this was made Altered or synthetic content Sound or visuals were significantly edited or digitally generated. Learn more Peter Burgess COMMENTARY Peter Burgess Transcript 0:00 I want to start tonight by talking about a headline that looks straightforward on the surface, but hides a completely different story underneath. You may have seen the coverage about Canada's foreign minister responding to Trump's 50% steel tariffs and thought this was just another round of crossber political sparring or a government scrambling to do lastminute damage control. But when I dug into what was actually revealed in that press conference and when I looked at the economic logic behind it, something far more consequential 0:30 emerged. If you're finding value in this 0:33 kind of analysis, please subscribe to 0:35 this channel, hit the like button, and 0:37 share this with others who want to 0:39 understand what's really happening in 0:40 our economy. And tell us in the comments 0:43 where you're watching from. I love 0:45 hearing from viewers around the world. 0:47 I'm Robert Reich. I'm a professor of 0:49 public policy at the University of 0:51 California, Berkeley, and I've spent my career studying the intersection of economics, power, and democracy. Today, I want to explain what's really going on 1:00 here, who benefits, who pays the price, 1:03 and how the underlying economic forces 1:06 are shaping these outcomes. What looks 1:08 like Canada on the defensive may 1:10 actually be the early stage of a much 1:13 larger structural shift. One that 1:15 changes who holds leverage, who absorbs 1:17 the pain, and who ends up more resilient 1:20 on the other side. And if you came into 1:22 this thinking tariffs are a simple 1:24 punishment and response game, I want to 1:26 show you why that old playbook doesn't 1:28 fit what's happening right now. So, 1:30 let's start with the basics. Trump hits 1:32 Canadian steel with a massive tariff. On 1:35 paper, that should weaken Canadian 1:37 producers, raise their prices, trigger 1:40 layoffs, and pressure Canada to concede 1:42 to whatever trade terms Washington 1:44 wants. For decades, that's how economic 1:47 coercion worked. When a larger market 1:50 squeezed a smaller supplier, the smaller 1:52 one usually had to bend. And if you're a 1:55 Canadian steel worker facing real job 1:57 loss right before the holidays, none of 2:00 this feels theoretical. It feels like 2:02 your livelihood is being used as a 2:04 bargaining chip in a fight you never 2:06 asked for. But here is where things get 2:08 interesting. The response from Ottawa 2:11 wasn't simply reactive. It wasn't 2:13 panicdriven. It was strategic. And in 2:16 certain ways, it was already in motion 2:18 before the layoffs reached public 2:20 attention. What the government made 2:22 clear is that they anticipated this 2:24 pressure point months ago. Instead of 2:26 clinging to a business model that 2:28 depends overwhelmingly on American 2:30 automakers, they started quietly 2:32 building out a transition plan. They put 2:35 hundreds of millions of dollars into 2:37 stabilizing key steel producers. Even 2:39 before the tariff shock landed, they 2:41 coordinated with provincial partners, 2:43 and they started laying the groundwork 2:45 for new production lines geared toward 2:48 domestic industries that are growing, 2:50 not shrinking. If you're watching this 2:52 from the outside, you might think this 2:54 is just political messaging. But when 2:56 you look at the mechanics, you can see 2:58 the outlines of a pivot that could 3:00 fundamentally reshape where Canadian 3:02 steel goes, and who gets to dictate its 3:04 price. Now, why does that matter to you? 3:07 Because tariffs aren't just about 3:09 international politics. They shape the 3:11 cost of goods you buy, the jobs 3:13 available in your community, the 3:15 leverage workers have when they 3:16 negotiate wages, and the long-term 3:19 stability of entire industrial regions. 3:21 When a country relies heavily on a 3:23 single export market, it becomes 3:25 vulnerable to sudden policy shocks. 3:27 We've seen this before with lumber, with 3:29 dairy, with aluminum. But steel is 3:32 different because it sits at the center 3:33 of so many critical supply chains. 3:36 Housing, infrastructure, defense 3:38 procurement, ship building, and domestic 3:40 manufacturing all depend on it. If that 3:43 sector becomes more insulated from 3:45 unpredictable foreign pressure, it 3:47 changes the balance of power, not just 3:49 in trade negotiations, but in everyday 3:52 economic planning. And that's why this 3:55 moment deserves more than a passing 3:56 headline. Let me break down how we got 3:59 here. For decades, Canadian steel moved 4:01 south because the US auto industry 4:03 needed it. It was efficient. it was 4:06 profitable and it worked until it 4:08 didn't. When tariffs make your main 4:11 export uncompetitive overnight, the old 4:13 model collapses. In the past, 4:16 governments might have tried to 4:17 negotiate carveouts or retaliate with 4:19 counter tariffs, hoping to push the 4:22 larger partner back to the table. But 4:24 Ottawa didn't do that this time, at 4:26 least not as their first move. Instead, 4:29 they looked inward. They asked a 4:30 different question. What would it take 4:32 to make the steel sector sustainable 4:35 without relying on American purchasing 4:37 power? That's the part that caught my 4:39 attention because once you start asking 4:41 that question, you shift from crisis 4:44 management to structural redesign. You 4:47 begin treating tariffs not as temporary 4:49 shocks to endure, but as catalysts for 4:52 independence. And that is exactly the 4:55 dynamic unfolding right now. The 4:57 investments announced months earlier 4:59 weren't just bailouts. They were bridge 5:01 funding for a transition toward new 5:03 product lines that serve Canadian 5:05 demand. Think about what that means. 5:07 Instead of exporting raw or 5:09 semi-finished steel to the US, producers 5:12 are preparing to supply domestic 5:14 shipyards, defense contracts, and 5:16 infrastructure builds. These are markets 5:18 where Canada controls the spending and 5:20 the timelines. Markets where foreign 5:22 tariffs don't dictate competitiveness. 5:25 Markets where national priorities 5:27 outweigh crossber politics. And if 5:29 you're wondering whether this is just 5:31 political storytelling or if it's 5:33 actually happening on the ground, 5:34 consider the new orders already secured 5:37 from major Canadian ship builders. These 5:39 aren't symbolic wins. They represent 5:41 long-term procurement cycles tied to 5:43 multi-billion dollar federal projects. 5:46 When a steel mill diversifies like that, 5:48 it's not just hedging its bets. It's 5:50 rewriting the assumptions that governed 5:52 its operations for decades. And while 5:54 that transition isn't painless, 5:57 especially for workers caught in the gap 5:58 between old production lines and new 6:00 ones, it points toward a more stable 6:03 future where a single foreign policy 6:05 decision doesn't threaten entire 6:07 communities. And I want to pause here 6:10 because if you are someone living in a 6:12 steel town right now, you might be 6:14 thinking that long-term strategy doesn't 6:16 help you pay next month's bills. You 6:18 might feel like policymakers are telling 6:20 you to wait for a future that seems 6:22 abstract while your present feels very 6:24 real. I hear that and I don't want to 6:27 gloss over it. The layoffs happening in 6:29 places like Saul Staint Marie are not 6:31 footnotes in an economic experiment. 6:34 They are lifealtering shocks. But part 6:36 of the truth we need to confront is that 6:38 old production systems often shrink 6:40 before new ones expand. 6:43 And when a country decides it's going to 6:45 rebuild an industry in a more 6:46 self-sufficient way, there is almost 6:48 always a period where workers bear the 6:50 brunt of that transition. The real test 6:53 of leadership is whether governments 6:55 cushion that blow, whether they plan for 6:57 the gap, and whether they use that time 7:00 to build a system that won't collapse 7:01 again the next time a foreign leader 7:03 tries to weaponize trade. What Ottawa 7:06 revealed is that they are trying to do 7:08 exactly that. The funding they provided 7:10 wasn't simply meant to paper over 7:12 losses. It was intended to stabilize 7:15 companies long enough to retool. 7:17 Retooling is expensive. It means 7:20 shutting down lines, investing in new 7:22 equipment, and securing entirely 7:24 different supply contracts. And during 7:26 that period, demand doesn't vanish, it 7:28 just shifts. When Canadian mills 7:31 reorient themselves toward ship 7:32 building, housing, and defense, they're 7:34 aligning with sectors that are 7:36 themselves undergoing expansion. A 7:39 country facing a housing shortage needs 7:41 beams and plates. A country updating its 7:43 naval fleet needs armor, steel, and 7:45 specialized components. These are needs 7:48 that persist regardless of which party 7:50 holds power in Washington. And that 7:52 predictability is something Canadian 7:54 producers haven't enjoyed in years. But 7:57 there's a deeper layer here, and it has 7:59 to do with leverage. Tariffs work 8:01 because the targeted country depends on 8:03 the foreign market more than the foreign 8:06 market depends on them. The larger 8:08 economy can absorb the shock. The 8:10 smaller one can't. But once the smaller 8:12 economy begins building internal demand 8:14 and alternative customers, that 8:16 asymmetry changes. Suddenly, a tariff 8:20 that was once devastating becomes 8:22 something closer to background noise. 8:24 The foreign government can raise it, 8:26 lower it, threaten it, or campaign on 8:28 it, and the impact is muted. And that 8:30 gives the smaller economy something it 8:32 didn't have before, bargaining power. 8:35 Because now the threat of economic 8:37 coercion loses its teeth. You can't 8:39 force concessions from a country that no 8:41 longer needs what you're withholding. 8:43 This isn't hypothetical. We've seen 8:45 variations of this pattern throughout 8:47 history. Countries that reduced their 8:49 dependence on single markets emerge 8:51 stronger, not weaker. They paid a price 8:53 during the transition, but they came out 8:55 with more control over their economic 8:58 destiny. And this matters because 9:00 economic independence isn't just about 9:02 national pride or political symbolism. 9:05 It's about whether ordinary people have 9:07 stable jobs, predictable wages, and 9:10 communities that don't get hollowed out 9:12 every time a foreign government decides 9:14 to play hard ball. When you build an 9:16 economy around domestic demand rather 9:18 than foreign dependence, you're building 9:20 a foundation that can't be pulled out 9:22 from under you. That doesn't mean 9:24 isolation. It doesn't mean rejecting 9:26 trade. It means diversification. It 9:29 means not putting all your eggs in one 9:31 basket, especially when someone else 9:33 controls the basket. Now, let's talk 9:35 about what this means for workers 9:37 because that's ultimately what matters 9:39 most. Economic restructuring sounds 9:42 abstract, but for families in steel 9:44 towns, it's intensely personal. It's 9:47 about mortgage payments, health care, 9:49 kids education, and whether you'll have 9:51 to uproot your life again. The workers 9:54 being laid off right now didn't cause 9:56 this situation. They're not responsible 9:58 for decades of policy choices that left 10:01 their industry vulnerable. They showed 10:03 up, did their jobs, and built their 10:06 lives around the promise that if they 10:07 worked hard, they'd have security. That 10:10 promise is being broken not because they 10:13 failed, but because the system they were 10:15 working within was built on shaky 10:17 ground. And when I say the system was 10:19 built on shaky ground, I mean that 10:22 relying on a single export market, 10:24 especially one prone to political 10:26 whiplash, was always a risk that workers 10:28 shouldn't have had to bear. But here's 10:30 the crucial point. The transition 10:32 happening now, as painful as it is, is 10:35 an attempt to build something more 10:37 stable. It's an attempt to create an 10:39 industry that serves domestic needs and 10:42 isn't constantly at the mercy of foreign 10:44 political calculations. If it works, if 10:47 the new production lines take hold, if 10:49 the domestic demand materializes, then 10:52 future generations of steel workers 10:54 won't face the same vulnerability. 10:56 They'll work in an industry that's more 10:58 insulated from external shocks. That 11:00 doesn't erase the pain people are 11:02 feeling now. It doesn't make the current 11:04 layoffs any less devastating, but it 11:06 does mean we're potentially moving 11:07 toward a system where these kinds of 11:09 shocks become less frequent, less 11:12 severe, and less capable of destroying 11:14 entire communities. And this is where 11:16 government responsibility comes in. When 11:19 a country decides to restructure an 11:21 industry, it has an obligation to 11:23 support the workers caught in that 11:25 transition. That means strong 11:27 unemployment benefits, retraining 11:30 programs that actually lead to good 11:31 jobs, health care that isn't tied to 11:34 employment, and investment in the 11:36 communities being affected. These aren't 11:38 luxuries, they're necessities because 11:41 without them, economic transitions 11:43 become human catastrophes. 11:45 Workers end up paying the entire cost of 11:47 adjustments they didn't create and don't 11:49 control. What I've seen in too many 11:52 cases is that governments announce grand 11:54 strategies while workers are left to 11:56 fend for themselves. The rhetoric is 11:59 about national resilience, but the 12:01 reality is individual hardship. That's 12:03 why I always insist that any 12:05 conversation about economic policy must 12:08 center on who bears the costs and who 12:10 reaps the benefits. 12:12 If the benefits flow upward to 12:14 executives and shareholders while the 12:16 costs flow downward to workers and 12:18 communities, then we're not building a 12:20 better system. We're just rearranging 12:22 deck chairs on the Titanic. In this 12:24 case, the test will be whether the 12:26 public investment in steel producers 12:28 comes with strings attached. Are there 12:30 requirements for worker retention? Are 12:33 there commitments to wage standards? Are 12:35 there protections against companies 12:37 taking the money and then relocating or 12:39 cutting jobs anyway? These are the 12:41 questions that separate genuine 12:43 industrial policy from corporate 12:45 welfare. And they're questions we need 12:47 to be asking loudly and consistently. 12:50 Now, let's step back and look at the 12:52 bigger picture. What's happening with 12:54 Canadian steel is part of a much larger 12:56 global shift. For decades, we've 12:58 operated under an economic model that 13:01 assumed open markets, stable trade 13:03 relationships, and predictable supply 13:05 chains. That model is breaking down. 13:08 We're seeing it in semiconductors, 13:10 pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, and 13:13 now steel. Countries that once relied on 13:16 global markets for efficiency are 13:18 discovering that efficiency comes with 13:20 vulnerability. When supply chains 13:22 stretch across continents and depend on 13:24 complex political relationships, they're 13:27 fragile. One policy shift, one political 13:30 dispute, one pandemic, and suddenly 13:33 critical goods become scarce or 13:35 prohibitively expensive. So, governments 13:37 are rediscovering something that used to 13:39 be common sense. You can't outsource 13:42 everything and still maintain economic 13:44 sovereignty. You need domestic capacity 13:47 in key sectors, not because you want to 13:49 cut yourself off from the world, but 13:51 because you need a foundation that can't 13:53 be undermined by external shocks. This 13:56 is what I call strategic economic 13:58 independence. It's not about ottery or 14:00 isolation. It's about having enough 14:02 domestic capability that you're not at 14:05 the mercy of other count's political 14:06 decisions. And here's what makes this 14:09 approach different from old-fashioned 14:10 protectionism. It's not primarily about 14:13 protecting corporate profits. It's about 14:15 protecting workers, communities, and the 14:18 stability of essential industries. When 14:20 done right, strategic economic 14:22 independence means building industries 14:24 that serve public needs, that provide 14:27 good jobs, and that strengthen 14:29 democratic institutions by giving people 14:31 economic security. When done wrong, it 14:35 becomes an excuse for corporate 14:36 subsidies without accountability, for 14:39 maintaining inefficient industries 14:40 without reform, or for enriching 14:42 connected insiders while ordinary 14:45 workers still struggle. The difference 14:47 comes down to governance, transparency, 14:49 and who gets to shape the priorities. If 14:52 industrial policy is driven by corporate 14:54 lobbying and backroom deals, it will 14:56 serve corporate interests. If it's 14:58 driven by democratic input and public 15:01 accountability, it has a chance of 15:03 serving the public interest. That's why 15:05 I keep emphasizing the need for 15:06 transparency and worker voice in these 15:08 transitions. When steel companies 15:11 receive hundreds of millions in public 15:12 funding, workers and communities should 15:15 have a seat at the table. They should 15:16 have input into how that money is used, 15:19 what commitments come with it, and how 15:21 success will be measured. Without that 15:23 democratic accountability, we end up 15:25 with the worst of both worlds. Public 15:28 risk, private profit, and workers still 15:30 bearing the brunt of economic 15:32 instability. Now, I want to address 15:34 something that often gets lost in these 15:36 discussions. the connection between 15:38 economic policy and democracy itself. 15:41 When people feel economically insecure, 15:44 when they see their communities hollowed 15:46 out by forces beyond their control, they 15:48 lose faith in democratic institutions. 15:51 They start to believe that the system is 15:53 rigged, that their voices don't matter, 15:55 that political elites are making 15:57 decisions that benefit everyone except 15:59 them. And you know what? Often they're 16:02 right. Economic vulnerability feeds 16:05 political instability. It creates the 16:08 conditions for authoritarianism, 16:10 scapegoating, and the erosion of 16:11 democratic norms. People who feel like 16:14 they're drowning economically are more 16:16 likely to support demagogues who promise 16:18 simple solutions and clear enemies. This 16:21 is why economic policy isn't just about 16:24 GDP growth or trade balances. It's about 16:26 whether people have the security and 16:28 dignity that allow them to participate 16:30 meaningfully in democratic life. When an 16:33 entire region depends on a single 16:35 industry and that industry is vulnerable 16:37 to foreign political whims, you're not 16:39 just creating economic risk, you're 16:42 creating political risk. You're giving 16:44 people reason to believe that democracy 16:46 doesn't work for them. So when I look at 16:48 what Canada is attempting, I see it not 16:50 just as economic restructuring, but as 16:53 an investment in democratic stability. 16:56 If they can build a more resilient steel 16:58 sector, if they can provide workers with 17:00 more predictable employment, if they can 17:02 give communities a foundation that won't 17:04 collapse at the whim of a foreign 17:06 leader, then they're strengthening the 17:08 social fabric that democracy depends on. 17:11 That's the real stakes here. Not just 17:14 jobs and profits, but the kind of 17:16 society we're building and whether it's 17:18 one where ordinary people have both 17:20 economic security and political voice. 17:23 Let me also address the elephant in the 17:24 room, Trump's role in all this. It's 17:27 easy to make this story entirely about 17:30 Trump's tariffs and his approach to 17:32 trade. And certainly his willingness to 17:34 use tariffs as a blunt instrument has 17:36 created real hardship and instability. 17:39 But here's what I want you to 17:40 understand. Trump didn't create the 17:42 underlying vulnerabilities. He exposed 17:44 them. The fact that a single policy 17:47 decision in Washington could devastate 17:49 Canadian steel towns was a problem long 17:51 before Trump took office. The 17:53 dependency, the lack of domestic market 17:55 diversification, the concentration of 17:58 economic power, all of that was built up 18:00 over decades. Trump's tariffs are the 18:03 trigger, but the gun was loaded by years 18:05 of policy choices that prioritized 18:08 corporate efficiency over economic 18:10 resilience. This is important because if 18:13 we make this story only about Trump, we 18:15 miss the deeper structural issues. And 18:18 when Trump eventually leaves office, 18:20 those issues will remain. What Canada is 18:23 doing now, building domestic capacity, 18:26 diversifying markets, reducing 18:28 dependency. Those are responses to 18:31 structural vulnerabilities, not just to 18:33 one president's trade policy. And 18:35 they're the kind of responses that need 18:37 to continue regardless of who occupies 18:39 the White House. Because the truth is 18:41 the era of stable, predictable global 18:44 trade is over. Whether it's tariffs, 18:46 sanctions, supply chain disruptions, or 18:49 climate related shocks, the future will 18:51 be more volatile, more uncertain, and 18:54 more politically fraught. Countries that 18:56 recognize this reality and start 18:58 building resilience now will fare better 19:01 than those that keep assuming things 19:03 will return to normal. There is no 19:05 normal to return to. This is the new 19:08 normal and we need economic strategies 19:10 that acknowledge that reality. Now, I 19:13 want to talk about what all of this 19:14 means for workers more broadly, not just 19:16 in Canada, but everywhere. The pattern 19:19 we're seeing here, sudden economic 19:21 disruption, workers bearing the costs, 19:24 governments scrambling to respond, this 19:26 is playing out across industries and 19:28 countries. And what it reveals is a 19:30 fundamental failure of our current 19:32 economic system. We've built an economy 19:34 that treats workers as disposable. that 19:37 allows capital to move freely while 19:39 labor is stuck geographically and that 19:41 socializes risk while privatizing 19:44 reward. When a factory closes because of 19:47 tariffs or offshoring or automation, 19:49 workers lose their jobs, their 19:51 communities suffer, and the social costs 19:54 are enormous. But the executives who 19:57 made the decisions that created that 19:58 vulnerability, they get their bonuses, 20:02 the shareholders, they move their money 20:04 elsewhere. This asymmetry is neither 20:06 natural nor inevitable. It's the result 20:09 of policy choices, legal structures, and 20:12 power imbalances that we've allowed to 20:14 persist. If we want a more stable, more 20:17 just economy, we need to change those 20:19 fundamentals. We need labor laws that 20:21 give workers real bargaining power. We 20:24 need trade policies that prioritize 20:26 workers interests, not just corporate 20:28 profits. We need social safety nets that 20:31 actually cushion people through economic 20:33 transitions instead of leaving them to 20:36 fall through the cracks. And we need a 20:38 fundamental shift in how we think about 20:40 economic policy. Instead of asking 20:42 what's good for GDP or what's good for 20:45 shareholders, we need to start with what 20:48 creates security and dignity for working 20:50 people and build our policies from 20:52 there. Because ultimately an economy 20:55 exists to serve people, not the other 20:58 way around. When we lose sight of that 21:00 basic truth, we end up with the kind of 21:03 instability and inequality we're seeing 21:05 now. The Canadian steel situation, 21:07 painful as it is, also offers a glimpse 21:10 of an alternative approach. When a 21:12 government says, 'We're going to invest 21:14 in building domestic capacity. We're 21:16 going to support workers through this 21:18 transition. We're going to create an 21:20 industry that serves our own needs 21:22 rather than depending on foreign 21:23 markets. That's a different vision of 21:25 how an economy can work. It's not 21:28 perfect. There will be mistakes, 21:30 unintended consequences, and ongoing 21:32 challenges. But it's an attempt to put 21:35 people and communities at the center of 21:37 economic decisionmaking rather than 21:40 treating them as afterthoughts. And that 21:42 matters because the choices we make now 21:45 will shape the economic landscape for 21:47 decades. Will we continue down a path of 21:49 increasing vulnerability where workers 21:52 are constantly at risk and communities 21:54 live in perpetual uncertainty? Or will 21:56 we start building something more stable, 21:58 more resilient, and more fair? I don't 22:01 have all the answers. Economics is complex and there are legitimate debates about the best approaches. But I do know this. We can't keep doing what we've been doing and expect different results. We need structural change. We need policies that actually protect workers and communities. We need economic institutions that serve democratic values rather than undermining them. The Canadian steel transition is one small piece of that larger puzzle. It's not the whole solution, but it's a step in a direction that might lead somewhere better. And I think that's worth paying attention to, worth learning from, and worth demanding from our own leaders. Because the alternative, continuing to build economies on foundations of sand, hoping that the next shock won't hit too hard, asking workers to bear all the risk while others reap all the reward. That's not sustainable. It's not just, and it's not the kind of economy that can support a healthy democracy. So, as you watch this story unfold, as you see headlines about tariffs and trade wars 23:01 and economic restructuring, I want you to ask yourself, who's benefiting from the current system? Who's paying the price? and what kind of economy do we actually want to build? Because those are the questions that matter. And the answers we give through our political choices, our policy demands, and our collective action will determine what kind of future we create. Thank you for watching. If this analysis helped you understand what's really going on, please subscribe, like, and share this video. And let me know in the comments where you're watching from and what you think about these issues. I read your comments, and they help me understand what matters most to you. Together, we can build the knowledge and the movement we need to create an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the

SITE COUNT