The ongoing trade conflict between the United States and Canada—specifically between their respective governments—serves as a vivid illustration of two contrasting economic philosophies: the principle of free trade among individuals or private entities, which cultivates mutual benefits and fosters peaceful engagements; versus government-directed trade, akin to mercantilism, which often breeds discord and animosity.
Following President Donald Trump’s announcement of a 10% tariff on Canadian “energy products” and a hefty 25% tariff on a broader range of goods, Canada’s federal government responded with retaliatory tariffs on American exports. In a bold move, Ontario Premier Doug Ford declared a provincial 25% tax on Ontario’s electricity exports to New York, Michigan, and Minnesota. He proclaimed (as reported in Financial Times on March 10, 2020):
If necessary, if the United States escalates, I will not hesitate to shut the electricity off completely.
Previously, he had asserted (in an article from Newsweek on March 4, 2025):
If they want to try to annihilate Ontario, I will do everything—including cut off their energy—with a smile on my face, and I’m encouraging every other province to do the same. They rely on our energy. They need to feel the pain.
While individual traders engage in commerce with goodwill and smiles, governmental trade interventions impose suffering, all while donning a collective grin, if one may adopt that analogy. The fact that the Ontario government holds significant control over both the production and distribution of electricity in the province—“our energy”—does little to depoliticize the market. With only feeble constitutional constraints, governments can impose tariffs, taxes, and bans at their discretion, leading to a consequence far removed from universal affection.
It’s worth noting that Mr. Ford, a conservative with a populist flair who once expressed admiration for Mr. Trump, serves as a reminder to remain cautious of the so-called “will of the people.”
In a recent discussion, I referenced the thoughts of Henry Adams, who observed:
Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.
From a moral perspective, as opposed to a strictly economic one, the identity of the instigator in this conflict is not without significance.
******************************
Two mercantilist kings
