Toro

Leafless You do understand that I was making an argument against separation, right? The numbers I put out are to show that there would be a greater economic burden on Quebec as an independent state. You do understand that, right? But English Canadians are deluding themselves if they believe Quebec isn't viable on its own. All anyone has to look on a map to figure this out. If Slovakia and Slovenia are viable as independent countries, then so is Quebec. Of course, the separatists in Quebec are also deluding themselves when they say that Canada has no choice but to come to the table and give Quebec everything it wants. If Quebec separates, everything is on the table, including borders.

I've generally found that the people who propogate this argument are prone to wild conspiracy theories, have little understanding of capital flows, do not understand the role of reserves in central banks, and do not understand the composition and holdings of reserves.

This is just conjecture. The newspaper is fishing. Nothing new has happened to think that the tournament would be pulled from South Africa. These were issues before the World Cup was first awarded to South Africa.

I think being reasonable increases your chances of being booted at FD.

The number is from the OECD, in US dollars and using purchasing power parity. But even such, it depends how it is calculated. Here is an example of different estimates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...y_GDP_%28PPP%29 But that's really besides the point. I was using like for like numbers to reach an estimate for Quebec's sovereign debt after separation. And I wouldn't use Italy as a good role model going forward. I'd bet there isn't a bond trader alive who thinks Italy manages their debt "right", considering its deficit is around 6% of GDP (the US is 3%) and total debt to GDP is 122% (US 65%) http://www.oecd.org/topicstatsportal/0,264...1_1_1_1,00.html Table EO79 I've posted this somewhere here before, but I'll do it again. Besides, I didn't say Quebec wouldn't be wealthy. What I said is that they'd be poorer, not poor.

Plus, its bizarre.

The link between the end of the recession and the tax cuts are tenuous at best. The tax cuts occured pretty much when the economy was turning. Since fiscal policy has a lagged effect, the tax cuts most likely had little or no effect on the ending of the recession. However, they would have had an effect on the magnitude and the duration of the expansion. Likewise, since this administration has been spending like a drunken sailor, government spending would have also had the same effect. Deficit spending and government expansion. Keynes would have been proud.

I don't like the idea. Canada's economy is much more commodity-oriented, and the ebbs and flows of commodities have effects on Canada that do not exist in the United States. I haven't looked at Grubel's paper - and I like the man - but a currency union without the free flow of labour across boundaries could set up Canada for disaster. Besides, it will never happen. America will never give up the dollar. If Canada wants to enter a currency union with the United States, it will have to accept the dollar with no say at the Federal Reserve.

Lots of nuts at FD. Proudpegger has shown up at CanCon while cagerattler is posting - and getting hammered - at CKA

Quebec is viable. But they'd be poorer. According to the CIA table, Quebec would rank 29th per capita GDP. (Canada is 14th) However, that's assuming no dislocation, which there would be with separation and Quebec no longer being in Confederation. Also, more expenditures would have to go to "deadweight" government expenditures, lowering GDP. Finally, Quebec would be would one of the most heavily indebted countries in the industrialized world. Here.Canada total debt is projected to be 62.5% of GDP in 2006. OECD, table EO79 Canadian GDP is US$809 billion. (here). Canada is expected to grow 3.1% in 2006 (here). So Canada's GDP will be $833 billion. Thus, Canada's total debt is about $520 billion. Thus, Quebec's share, at about 20% of GDP, is $104 billion. Thus, Quebec's total debt after independence would be $222 billion, or 81% {$222 billion / ($118 billion/0.427)} of GDP, which would mean Quebec would be the 5th most indebted country in the industrialized world. Only Belgium, Greece, Italy and Japan would be in worse shape. So Quebec is certainly viable on its own, but the country would be poorer. I betcha the sovereigntists aren't advertising that.

The NDP have only ever won three elections, and Clarke actually had 3% less of the popular vote when he was elected premier, I believe. So its difficult to say that BC is an NDP province.

Just goes to show you that foilers inhabit both sides of the spectrum.

Canadians are much more patriotic flag-wavers than Canadians realize.

North Korea is starving. That's why they are shouting at the top of their lungs that they are developing nuclear weapons, so they can extract food and dollars from the WEst.

I don't think people yet see it as a failure. Its still too new, and has a good, fuzzy feeling about it. The question is if people will change their views when these studies become more widespread.

Bang on.

Chavez helped elect Alan Garcia President of Peru by supporting his opponent. And the PAN candidate in Mexico started rising in the polls when they started linking Chavez with the left-wing candidate in Mexico.

This thread cannot be serious. Because unemployment is 10%. The demonstrators in streets of Paris certainly thought so.

What an incredibly stupid policy. If the government wants to lower the price of gas, lower taxes.

Everything has to boil it down to root causes, particulary due to some fault of the West, doesn't it?

Or the last.

From the excellent Worthwhile Canadian Initiative blog.

http://www.nber.org/digest/jun06/w11832.html

God knows it can't get much more slanderous than that!

No. But they are smart. They're trying to maximize revenue.