Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread

[48Highlander]

Ok, this is going to jump around a little.
First. The basic tenant that you seem to be forgeting (whether it is cell compitition, or the strongest survive) is that modern society recognizes that ALL people are equal under the law.

But what does that have to do with taxation?  Or supporting anyone?  The law deals with criminal behaviour, it has nothing to say on wether the homeless guy on the corner should get my money or not.

The society that you seem to buy into is that you everyone MUST work hard, get all they want, and to hell with everyone else. The problem with this is that those who have, have an easier time of having. While those who do not have, must work much harder to have. While this, in and of itself makes sense, and is the way it works for the most part. The problem I have is with those people who cannot have.

Like John said:  what?
Everyone can "have".  That's the whole idea behind a capitalist society.  You work for something, you get it.

There are whole sections of society (handicapped, mentally ill, accidents, etc.) that need the opportunities to participate in order to be self sufficent within society. Your model would cast them aside and let them rot. Or even worse, make their futures dependant upon those who have, feeling that they would like to contribute something to help them.

Isn't that what you're suggesting?  By creating social programs at the expense of the taxpayer, are we not making these people dependant on "those who have"?  Or even worse, by taxing people to death, are we not creating EVEN MORE people who are dependant on the state?  $24,000 a year is enough for a person to survive somewhat comfortably, but not when they have to pay 40% of it on taxes.

I am not advocating that only the weakest recieve help, or that we get rid of compation, nor that we have to all be upon some kind of false "level" playing field when it comes to income.

I am also not going to buy into the staunch individualism of libertarianism. This reliance upon the "goodwill" of those who have does not work as we all know that people are basically selfish bastards, and when left to their own devices will look after themselves only. And this also leads to surfdom in that those who have, eventually have all. And those who do not, have to beg those who do for jobs, etc. This is why we're seeing such a widening gap of the rich and poor (and destruction of the middle class) in the States (and here as well in many cases). Total corporatism works off of this ideal.

If people are selfish bastards, then how did these social program get created?  If what you're saying is true, then nobody would support social programs, we'd have lower taxes, and we'd all take care of ourselves.  Instead you've got homeless advocacy groups, and you have people raising money for everything from breast cancer research to saving the baby seals.  Peoples desire to help the "less fortiunate" is what causes excess taxation and misguided social programs.

What I am trying to get at is the basic ideals of libertarianism where you look after yourself and your family (through hard work), but expand that to include your neighborhood. My points are that community "health" (job oppurtunity, health, enviroment, etc) is more important to the whole then a single individual who has more then all those around them. Yes there will be those within the community with more then others, but so what. As long as each person is doing something for the health of the community (whatever that may be), it works. It is a shift in thinking. Nothing more. Is it utopian? Yes, but I would not want to see it go that far down that path, as its starts entering into dangerous ground. If we all thought this way, we would not necassarily need all the social programs because they would already be taken care of within (an by) the community. The only question is, how large a community (family unit on up) could this model support?

Does this require social programs run by government? I don't know.

My problem with the economic model that todays world (since Adam's introduction of such) seems to buy into is that it assumes that all resources are unending, and that absolutely everything is a resource. From human workers, to air, water, oil, gas, metals, to time, etc... And thus everything is for sale, and money can be made from it. Its wrong. All things have an end.

As John pointed out, resources are only limited by human desire and ingenuity.  Assuming that we'll eventualy run out of everything is defeatist.  If we all thought that way, we might as well wipe eachother out right now because by your logic, wether we consume something at a slow rate or a fast rate, we'll eventualy run out anyway.  The only difference then is wether our race lasts a hundred years or a thousand.  That's not the way it works though, and it never has been.  Whenever we hit a hurdle, some cataclysm that makes it seem as if the world will end tomorrow, we "adapt and overcome".  We develop new technologies, new resources, new ways of thinking.  And that's another reason why a free capitalist society is important; it's much more adaptive.  In a capitalist society, free companies will always step in to fill the gap, and they'll do so a lot more quickly and efficiently than any government beurocracy.  This is one of the things I was trying to get at when I explained competition and cooperation.  In a natural society, competition and cooperation aren't two seperate things, they're the same.  For instance, you'll get companies competing against eachother to develop an alternate fuel source, and they'll do so out of pure self interest, but their competition will benefit all of society because it'll fuel the pace at which research is conducted, and it'll ensure we develop and refine a variety of new methods for producing fuel.  Whereas if the research is government directed, you end up with just one mediocre product.  In a communist society, or a socialist nanny state like you advocate, MOST solutions will need to come from the government.  There's a reason the USSR fell apart while the US prospered.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The economic argument against complete depletion of a particular resource is sound, but a sounder argument is technological.

Stop for a few minutes and think about the change witnessed by the oldest living generation - people born into a reasonably prosperous society and country (Canada) who for the first decades of their lives encountered the following novelties: water in (no more fetching water or pumping from a well), water out (no more backyard outhouse), water heaters (not over the top of a stove), gas- and electric-powered central heating (no more wood- or coal-burning appliances or central heating), widespread automobile use, radio, widespread telephony, grocery stores and supermarkets, etc.  Consider the change over their entire lives.  Consider how the pace of change has always been accelerating.  Now contrast the difference between what they had as children starting in, say, the 1920s, and what they have now.  Can you possibly predict or imagine what the acceleration of technological change will bring 20 or 30 or 40 or 60 years hence?

[Sidebar: we have always paid for water.  Whether we paid to dig one well, or a new well every few years, or "paid" in the time it took us to haul water from a source (necessitating we buy a draught animal and/or cart, or a vehicle, or merely buy food for the calories to haul it on our backs), whether we paid for periodic water quality testing or not at a lab (as do most if not all people drawing from wells today)...do you get my point?  One way or another, we "pay" for everything, including the very air we breathe if by no other means than the calories we must expend to draw breath.  Time=wealth.  Everything else, including money, is just a medium of exchange for time.  My life is finite, and every piece of my time transferred from my life to someone else's is irreplaceable.  I continue to wonder how I should feel about that.]

I expect oil will not run out because alternate energy sources will be developed.  When that happens the primary use of oil will be as lubricants and as an industrial chemical.  Possibly synthetic lubricants will completely replace the former; perhaps ultimately some new materials will replace the latter (eg. the use of petrochemicals in plastics superceded by some as yet unknown material).

There have been some examples we know of peoples depleting resources, but they are characterized by being fairly closed systems (eg. the Easter Islanders) or very finite resources.  Given current population growth trends, this planet alone might be regarded as an approximation of an infinite resource pool.  The solar system certainly should be.

The main purpose of governments right now seems to be to create employment (ie. government jobs, not fostering of private enterprises).  There is a limit to how much productivity can be transferred by fiat.  If the statists are fortunate, the ability of the private sector to produce things and services people want will outstrip the continued growth of the public sector which provides things and services regardless whether the demand is 100% of capacity.  I am skeptical.  Even though manufacturing productivity increases in Canada (and the US) apparently continue to outstrip manufacturing job losses to other countries, I believe we are approaching a singularity in a curve - we can't predict whether productivity will continue to pace or lead job movement to foreign countries as they increase the education levels of their work forces and develop their service sectors.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

The economic argument against complete depletion of a particular resource is sound, but a sounder argument is technological.

Stop for a few minutes and think about the change witnessed by the oldest living generation - people born into a reasonably prosperous society and country (Canada) who for the first decades of their lives encountered the following novelties: water in (no more fetching water or pumping from a well), water out (no more backyard outhouse), water heaters (not over the top of a stove), gas- and electric-powered central heating (no more wood- or coal-burning appliances or central heating), widespread automobile use, radio, widespread telephony, grocery stores and supermarkets, etc.  Consider the change over their entire lives.  Consider how the pace of change has always been accelerating.  Now contrast the difference between what they had as children starting in, say, the 1920s, and what they have now.  Can you possibly predict or imagine what the acceleration of technological change will bring 20 or 30 or 40 or 60 years hence?

Excerpt from Michael Chricton lecture at Caltech (topic was global warming models, but the same point, nonetheless; http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html):

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS... None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.

I remind you that in the lifetime of most scientists now living, we have already had an example of dire predictions set aside by new technology. I refer to the green revolution. In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergoe famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ten years later, he predicted four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million Americans. The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it isn't ever going to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In 1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows for sure.

[Sidebar: we have always paid for water.  Whether we paid to dig one well, or a new well every few years, or "paid" in the time it took us to haul water from a source (necessitating we buy a draught animal and/or cart, or a vehicle, or merely buy food for the calories to haul it on our backs), whether we paid for periodic water quality testing or not at a lab (as do most if not all people drawing from wells today)...do you get my point?  One way or another, we "pay" for everything, including the very air we breathe if by no other means than the calories we must expend to draw breath.  Time=wealth.  Everything else, including money, is just a medium of exchange for time.  My life is finite, and every piece of my time transferred from my life to someone else's is irreplaceable.  I continue to wonder how I should feel about that.]

Failure to acknowledge what you have just written might just be the one thing we should be concerned about: in order to ensure an infinite supply of clean air and water we should be paying for it at the individual level.  Otherwise, we risk the Tragedy of the Commons:

Hardin uses the example of English Commons, shared plots of grassland used in the past by all livestock farmers in a village. Each farmer keeps adding more livestock to graze on the Commons, because it costs him nothing to do so. In a few years, the soil is depleted by overgrazing, the Commons becomes unusable, and the village perishes.

The cause of any tragedy of the commons is that when individuals use a public good, they do not bear the entire cost of their actions. If each seeks to maximize individual utility, he ignores the costs borne by others. This is an example of an externality. The best (non-cooperative) short-term strategy for an individual is to try to exploit more than his share of public resources. Assuming a majority of individuals follow this strategy, the theory goes, the public resource gets overexploited.

The tragedy of the commons is a source of intense controversy, precisely because it is unclear whether individuals will or will not always follow the overexploitation strategy in any given situation. However, experiments have indicated that individuals do tend to behave in this way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons

 

[squealiox]

All this gloating i seee earlier in the thread about europe's and canada's problems conveniently ignores one very large elephant sitting in the room.
That's the fact that at least some portion of the high US standard of living is borrowed, financed by foreign bond-holders who are hanging on to the world's reserve currency -- for now. But what do you think will happen when americans are no longer able to be net importers of cheap goods, thanks to their artificially strong dollar? Those cheap imports have been doing the US economy and standard of living a lot more good than any amount of protectionism ever could (that in itself should be a hard lesson for lefty anti-globalisation types out there, too, btw). And it's unsustainable.
When the US finally starts having to pay true market prices for their foreign inputs they just might see their lead in PPP-adjusted per-capita GDP start to slip away. The casualties (besides my own US dollar exposure ) could include their commitment to international trade and their distaste for government intervention. (It's happened before, in the 30s and to lesser degrees at other times too).
The moral of the story? There is never going to be a free-market utopia in this world, as long as there are electorates to please. And ayn rand can roll over in her grave all she wants. Over the long run, the closest any country can come to one is by funding a semi-generous social safety net (merely expensive) while refusing to subsidize, protect or overregulate any industries (expensive AND distorting). That will be the real lesson for the us, europe, canada and everyone else to take on board if they want to compete economically in the future, long term. Either that, or stop listening to those stupid voters...

 

[Brad Sallows]

I keep hearing about the impending US collapse.  I have yet to find a concise and persuasive answer as to what should really happen.  A trade imbalance is deemed bad if capital is exported in exchange for consumption.  I can't imagine why the US could not survive tightening its consumption.

Today I read someone, who presumably is thought knowledgeable in such matters, explaining the danger of the Chinese changing their US dollars for another currency.  Ok, but my question is: who in their right frigging mind, in light of all the doomcrying about the US economic situation, is going to be lining up to buy US dollars?

 

[a_majoor]

An alarming view by "Stratagypage". Lets hope the author is too pessimistic.

http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/articles/2005427.asp

The Next Failed State
by Austin Bay
April 27, 2005


A political specter haunts North America -- the specter of the world's next failed state.

We can still call it Canada, at least for a couple years. And who knows, like news of Mark Twain's demise, my cheeky pessimism may be greatly exaggerated. Our northern neighbor's polyglot populace of beer drinkers, peaceniks, Mounties and socialists may yet dump their crooked politicians and craft a new, more robust deal with Quebecois separatists.

If you don't know about Canada's crooked politicians, you're not alone. Democracy and free speech are breaking out in Beirut, but they're both taking a beating in Ontario. The Canadian government has a press clamp on an investigation into the ruling Liberal Party's "Adscam" kickback scheme. A "judicial publication ban" is the term. It may soon rank with the Watergate rhetoric like "modified limited hang-out." Canadian Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader Paul Martin is implicated in the Adscam fiasco, and he's starting to look like the northland's Richard Nixon.

In the Internet Age, clamps and bans crack quickly, and the Liberals have seen their popular support go poof. A U.S. Web site (www.captainsquartersblog.com), run by Minnesotan Ed Morrissey, started posting leaked statements from the judicial hearings. The Web site instantly became Radio Free Canada and Deep Throat combined, with hundreds of thousands of Canadians going online to read the damning evidence. Now Canadian newspapers are on the story, but it's another case of major media following the Internet's lead. On his Web site, Morrisey sums up Canada's Adscam as "... transfers of cash to the Liberal Party as part of the money-laundering effort ..."

Linda Seebach of the Rocky Mountain News, in a column about Morrissey's coda of Watergate's Woodward and Bernstein, observed that there's "hardly any coverage of what the Canadians call 'AdScam' in the U.S. press, although something that could cause the Canadian government to fall ought to be of interest to that country's southern neighbor ..."

But "federal" Canada remains an iffy proposition, and becomes iffier as the separatist Parti Quebcois (PQ) gains political clout at the expense of the corrupt Liberals.

Bewitched by a Never Land notion of a francophone French Quebec freed from the yoke of "English-speaking" Canada, the PQ radicals regard themselves as culturally unique, prime ethnic candidates for their own nation state and United Nations seat. It's not a new concept. Charles De Gaulle, in a 1967 act of French unilateralism, gave Canadians the jitters when he quipped, "Vive Quebec libre."

What happens to Canada if Quebec secedes? Canadians are once again pondering this question -- live on the CBC -- and given Canada's status as America's number one trading partner and continental neighbor, U.S. citizens should consider the ramifications.

Canadians in the western and maritime provinces already dread the political power of populous Ontario. (Quebec serves as a political balance to Ontario.) If Quebec bids adieu, "remnant" Canada's political rules will be subject to revision. Subsequent regional bickering could lead to further fragmentation.

What might a grand Canadian breakup look like? Jim Dunnigan and I, in the 1991 edition of "A Quick and Dirty Guide to War," played speculative cartographer and redrew Canada's political map.

Here's a thumbnail sketch of that analysis: Say Quebec does become a separate European-style nation-state -- a "people" with cultural, linguistic, religious and historical identity (never mind the objections of Mohawk and Cree Indians living in Quebec). Quebec has the people and resources to make a go of it, though the economic price for its egotism will be stiff. British Columbia also has "nation-state" assets: Access to the sea, strong industrial base, raw materials and an educated population.

Oil-producing Alberta might join the United States and instantly find common political ground with Alaska, Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma. Canada's struggling Atlantic provinces might find statehood economically attractive and extend the New England coastline. A rump Canada consisting of "Greater Ontario" -- with remaining provinces as appendages -- might keep the maple-leaf flag aloft. As for poor, isolated Newfoundland: Would Great Britain like to reacquire a North American colony?

To find out more about Austin Bay and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2001 - 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

My own take on the separatists is to simply set the rules as follows:

1.The question is "Do you wish to remain a Canadian Citizen, Yes or No?"
2. Any riding which has a super majorety (60%+, although I would go for 66% myself) is declared separated from Canada
3. Crown property in "separated" ridings would be claimed and removed, and a portion of the Federal Debt equal to the population of "Quebec" would be transferred to the "new" nation
4. The portions of former Quebec which voted to remain part of Canada would be administered as the Territory of Ungava, until the people of Ungava had a chance to organize their own legislature etc.

Relatively neat in principle, and it makes separation clean, balances the books, people who want to go can go, but people who want to stay can stay. The long term fall out is beyond my powers of prediction, but at least this idea breaks the endless deadlock once and for all. If Canada still unravels as in the above scenario, then perhaps our problems are far deeper than we want to admit.

 

[squealiox]

I keep hearing about the impending US collapse.   I have yet to find a concise and persuasive answer as to what should really happen.   A trade imbalance is deemed bad if capital is exported in exchange for consumption.   I can't imagine why the US could not survive tightening its consumption.

Today I read someone, who presumably is thought knowledgeable in such matters, explaining the danger of the Chinese changing their US dollars for another currency.   Ok, but my question is: who in their right frigging mind, in light of all the doomcrying about the US economic situation, is going to be lining up to buy US dollars?

no-one serious is predicting a us collapse. but there will be a correction, sooner or later. the only question is will it be a sudden crash or (hopefully) gradual. and if the asians (not just china) start unloading their us dollars, there'll be plenty of buyers -- at a deep discount. the dollar's current softness is probably pricing in the risk of that eventuality already.

 

[48Highlander]

An alarming view by "Stratagypage". Lets hope the author is too pessimistic.

http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/articles/2005427.asp

My own take on the separatists is to simply set the rules as follows:

1.The question is "Do you wish to remain a Canadian Citizen, Yes or No?"
2. Any riding which has a super majorety (60%+, although I would go for 66% myself) is declared separated from Canada
3. Crown property in "separated" ridings would be claimed and removed, and a portion of the Federal Debt equal to the population of "Quebec" would be transferred to the "new" nation
4. The portions of former Quebec which voted to remain part of Canada would be administered as the Territory of Ungava, until the people of Ungava had a chance to organize their own legislature etc.

Relatively neat in principle, and it makes separation clean, balances the books, people who want to go can go, but people who want to stay can stay. The long term fall out is beyond my powers of prediction, but at least this idea breaks the endless deadlock once and for all. If Canada still unravels as in the above scenario, then perhaps our problems are far deeper than we want to admit.

Neat and impractical   And not to nitpick, but if we're going to offload a portion of our national debt on them, they should also get a portion of the "crown property" you spoke of.  I'm not a big fan of Quebec, but fair's fair.

 

[Zipper]

Ok, I think things got lost in all that economic crap somewhere.

First. I'm talking about people and their needs. Not money. Not economies. Not resources.

People are what are important in this country. Not how much the dollar is worth for their lives. I think in some ways I am agreeing with what Brad has said about the idea that their cannot be a total free market system. We need to find our own balance and not fall to a US model, nor to something too social in nature (we all saw what the NDP did to Ontario :). Damn, I wish I could explain myself better.

Your right on many points Gault. The problem I see is that you are paying more attention to the economic side of things as opposed to the people who are being helped by the programs that are in place. Yes their are those who abuse it. Our government also abuses it at times. But then again so does every government in the world, including the US. I believe Enron (private sector) and the lack of any cases of mad cow (government) says a few things. But we cannot let people fall between the cracks without at least trying.

Also your right about Oil in that alternative energies will come up to replace them. However your economic model is flawed in that (as I said before) all things DO come to an end (on this planet). But then again, we may be building bases on the moon or in the astroid belt by then and may discover new fields there. I can only hope we do expand our alternative energy use quickly, or things will get even worse.

No there are no back logs for those who can afford to go to a hospital. But try being one of those who cannot and must fall back on the publicly funded health care down there. Good luck.

AMajoor - I have heard that theory before and say it is doomsaying. Never happen. Although will Canada last 1000 years? Who knows. As for Quebec. I agree. Good plan (although an oldie as well).

As for the States and their melt down. Well with their trade deficit and debt load, something is going to happen that won't be pretty. I doubt it will be a melt down so much as a slight crash. One thing that could hurt them bad is if OPEC decides to use another currency as the basis for oil. Although I agree with Squeal for the most part on that.

 

[TCBF]

"is if OPEC decides to use another currency as the basis for oil."

Interesting point, Zipper, as a lot of Islamic countries are beginning to seriously consider the Gold Dinar.  Imagine, paper money replaced by actual gold.  "Pay to the bearer on demand" indeed.

 

[Infanteer]

I personally feel that any vote on Quebec separation should be a matter for the entire country to decide.  "Quebec" - meaning the land within the province - does not belong to a specific ethnic group or anyone with a specific drivers license; it is Canada and it belongs to Canadians.  I can move to Quebec as a Canadian and someone from Quebec (regardless of mother tongue) can move to BC.

 

[a_majoor]

Ok, I think things got lost in all that economic crap somewhere.

First. I'm talking about people and their needs. Not money. Not economies. Not resources.

Economics is the science which describes the activities people undertake to fulfill their wants and needs. Economies can exist in the absence of money (barter), with money having an innate value (gold coins), representing units of value (Copper ignots from Cyprus were in the shape of a stylized Ox skin in Mycenean times), or having value by fiat (today).

Money is just a unit of exchange which allows people and economists to measure what is going on, the same way a meteorologist uses a temperature scale and barometric measurments to understand the weather.

If you want to talk about values of any sort, you need a system of measurement with some common standard (if I talk about things in terms  of dollars and you talk about the same thing in terms of colour intensity, then we are really pooched). So if we seem insensitive because we talk in terms of dollars and GDP, it is because "we" generally agree on that system of measurement.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

All this gloating i seee earlier in the thread about europe's and canada's problems conveniently ignores one very large elephant sitting in the room.
That's the fact that at least some portion of the high US standard of living is borrowed, financed by foreign bond-holders who are hanging on to the world's reserve currency -- for now. But what do you think will happen when americans are no longer able to be net importers of cheap goods, thanks to their artificially strong dollar? Those cheap imports have been doing the US economy and standard of living a lot more good than any amount of protectionism ever could (that in itself should be a hard lesson for lefty anti-globalisation types out there, too, btw). And it's unsustainable.
When the US finally starts having to pay true market prices for their foreign inputs they just might see their lead in PPP-adjusted per-capita GDP start to slip away. The casualties (besides my own US dollar exposure ) could include their commitment to international trade and their distaste for government intervention. (It's happened before, in the 30s and to lesser degrees at other times too).

US has a much more manageable level of debt, relative to GDP: the fact that the US dollar is used as the international medium of exchange (and Reserve Currency) suggests that the US should be running trade deficit over time to remain in equilibrium.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Money is just a unit of exchange which allows people and economists to measure what is going on, the same way a meteorologist uses a temperature scale and barometric measurments to understand the weather.

If you want to talk about values of any sort, you need a system of measurement with some common standard (if I talk about things in terms  of dollars and you talk about the same thing in terms of colour intensity, then we are really pooched). So if we seem insensitive because we talk in terms of dollars and GDP, it is because "we" generally agree on that system of measurement.

Further to Mr. Majoor's point:

The meaning of wealth is often confused with money: wealth is an accumulation of utility, for which money is only a means of keeping score.

Utility is a measure of the happiness or satisfaction gained from a good or service and is entirely subjective: in this sense, money has value because it can be used to purchase other items which provide utility.  I go to Safeway and buy milk because I derive greater utility from the milk than the money I have to give Safeway in return for it.  Similarly, Safeway derives more utility from the money I pay them than from the milk they have given me in return.  We are both happier, as we both have something that we value more highly than what we had before: wealth has been created, and it is a win-win situation: free exchanges are never win-lose: at worst one party is neutral and the other wins (which is why, despite NDP propaganda to the contrary, you cannot "exploit" labour, except in the case of indentured servitude).

Utility accounts for charity, too: I am happier donating $100/year to cancer research, than for any other purpose.  It is a purely selfish action: I feel better about myself for having done it.

Money is really cool because it acts as a universal unit of exchange: I can get paid in money for any (valuable) work I do and can use that money to buy milk or anything else I want.

 

[Infanteer]

Econ 100 is rushing back to me now - gotta love the Lydians....

 

[Cliff]

If the majority of the people support democratic socialism = then Canada is not doomed = since they are getting what they asked for. I personally have no use for a busy-body state where micro-management of the individual is the norm.

 

[a_majoor]

In regards to the capacity of an enemy to deliver a "knockout blow" in economic or demographically based areas, unwittingly or not, you have identified the main US technique of destabilising unfriendly regimes. Unfortunately, this is only effective against nations/economies with narrow bases - like only exporting one commodity. Canada is not a candidate for this. Our 13.4% of foreign born Canadians and diverse demography in almost all areas preclude the effectiveness of destabilising groups on the national scale as well.

Canada seems very diverse, but it is actually quite centralized both politically (as we see to our cost) and economically. Much of our industry is based on a rather narrow strip in SW Ontario, resources are concentrated in a few geographic areas (you don't drill for oil in Quebec, nor build huge Hydro projects in northern Alberta), media and banking is largely centred in Toronto...

Compounding the problem (for us) is the very narrow and brittle political structure we live with. Watching Mr Dithers deal with his self induced problems is bad enough, what would happen in a crisis situation? Feeding misleading data to the PMO, or simply overwhelming it with a flood of data would paralyze the government (as we are seeing with the Gomrey inquiry).

This suggests there are nodes which could be attacked or "levered" to disrupt Canada politically or economically. As a very small nation in the global economy, it would not take a potential enemy a great deal of resources to conduct this sort of 4GW operation, and as an added benefit, disrupting Canada would draw the attention of the United States, which is not too keen to see disruption on either border. While the Americans see to their northern border, some of their attention and resources become unavailable for other purposes.

This could be a very interesting topic.....

 

[Canuck_25]

Canada seems very diverse, but it is actually quite centralized both politically (as we see to our cost) and economically. Much of our industry is based on a rather narrow strip in SW Ontario, resources are concentrated in a few geographic areas (you don't drill for oil in Quebec, nor build huge Hydro projects in northern Alberta), media and banking is largely centred in Toronto...

Compounding the problem (for us) is the very narrow and brittle political structure we live with. Watching Mr Dithers deal with his self induced problems is bad enough, what would happen in a crisis situation? Feeding misleading data to the PMO, or simply overwhelming it with a flood of data would paralyze the government (as we are seeing with the Gomrey inquiry).

This suggests there are nodes which could be attacked or "levered" to disrupt Canada politically or economically. As a very small nation in the global economy, it would not take a potential enemy a great deal of resources to conduct this sort of 4GW operation, and as an added benefit, disrupting Canada would draw the attention of the United States, which is not too keen to see disruption on either border. While the Americans see to their northern border, some of their attention and resources become unavailable for other purposes.

This could be a very interesting topic.....

You made your political view apparent in your first sentence, well done!

 

[Brad Sallows]

The Kyoto Accord is an example of economic warfare.  I think it was intended at the deepest level to retard the USA, but Canada obligingly signed on.  It is a mistake to concede any possibility of slowed economic growth or transfer of wealth in which not everyone participates to equal detriment.

 

[GO!!!]

a-majoor brought up a very good point, but was unfortunately incorrect in his reference to the lack of diversity in Canadian Industry. First of all, While Canada's is a natural resource based economy, with the appropriate spin offs, there are fourteen major (10 billion+$/year) natural resource sectors alone. Given the relative scarcity of many of these products - this on it's own would be a safely diverse economy.

The idea that the major industrial centers are concentrated in SW Ontario was true, but is slightly dated now, with employment levels in places such as Windsor being propped up by the unions. Those jobs are being sourced in places like Mexico and India now, a trend common in the industrialised world as wages rise.

Having said all of this, Canadian entry into the Group of 8 was not granted just because we asked. It was granted because Canada is one of the 8 largest economies on the planet - period. Canada is a very wealthy nation in proportion to it's population, but is by no means a "small economy" by US standards or any other.

Lets try to shake off this inferiority complex. Canada as a nation could do irreperable damage to China or any other developing nation on the economic level if sufficiently provoked. Simply the withdrawal of development aid and the cancellation of loans would collapse the Communists, who have insufficient cash resources to even hold out for a renogtiation. A default would damage their credit so badly so as to put economic growth at 1% or less for 5yrs plus.

Economically, Canada and China are not comparable.

As for "leveraging" Canadian interests, could you provide a realistic example - I'm having trouble thinking of one.