EventStatement
Stephen Miran, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, lists five ideas for how other countries could share the burden; none is resource development
At the Hudson Institute, Miran said there were "many options" for burden sharing and offered "a few ideas": accept US tariffs without retaliating; open their markets and buy more from America; raise defence spending and buy more from US suppliers; invest in and build factories in America; or "simply write checks to Treasury". The prepared remarks do not mention Canada.
- Date
- Kind
- Statement
- Where
- United States
- Evidence
- Statement: Something was said. Weighted lowest: words cost less than actions. How evidence is weighed
- Who
- Stephen Miran (spoke); Hudson Institute (counterparty)
Articles that cite this record
Sources
- The White House, “CEA Chairman Steve Miran Hudson Institute event remarks” (external site), . source record
Quotes
“Fourth, they can invest in and install factories in America… Fifth, they could simply write checks to Treasury that help us finance global public goods.”
From The White House: CEA Chairman Steve Miran Hudson Institute event remarks, list following "What forms can that burden sharing take?" (items 4 and 5)
Claims that rest on this event
- Canada's build-out was not obvious in advance. The US Energy Secretary said new Canadian pipelines were hard to build and did not expect the oil trade to change; conservative US analysts expected only a Conservative government to unleash oil and gas; and after Northern Gateway and Energy East fell through, 'Canada won't build' was a reasonable default. Some analysts foresaw Canada selling elsewhere, but in the US public record we found no one who predicted it would build fast and keep supplying the US. It is a surprising result that needs explaining.
The White House economic adviser's burden-sharing list has no resource development.
Tested hypotheses: a thought experiment
Suppose Washington foresaw and wanted this. Would this event look any different than under the rival readings? This is a deliberately contrarian test, explained here, not the author’s belief. Judgments, not measurements.
Judged to fit the plain self-interest reading better than the foresight reading. What this means
| Reading | Fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| I0a Accident Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | Remarks that do not mention Canada; on this reading they fit equally with the others. |
| I0b Plain self-interest; Canada's response not considered Tested hypothesis (intent) | Fits weak | The burden-sharing list (accept tariffs, buy American, invest in America, pay Treasury) is consistent with plain US self-interest with no role for partners' resource build-outs. |
| I1 Foreseen and welcomed, not the reason Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | Remarks that do not mention Canada; on this reading they fit equally with the others. |
| I2 Foreseen and wanted (this level or higher) Tested hypothesis (intent) | Against weak | None of the five listed ways partners can help involves resource development; that would be mildly surprising if partners' resource build-out were a sought response, though the list was not exhaustive. |
| I3 Worked-out plan with specific targets Tested hypothesis (intent) | Against weak | No resource targets or named projects appear in a senior official's list of what partners should do. |
| R-annex Annexation Rival reading | Neutral weak | Remarks that do not mention Canada; on this reading they fit equally with the others. |
| R-frag Fragmentation Rival reading | Neutral weak | Remarks that do not mention Canada; on this reading they fit equally with the others. |
| R-weaken Weaken-Canada rivals (annexation or fragmentation) Rival reading | Neutral weak | Remarks that do not mention Canada; on this reading they fit equally with the others. |