carepov

How do you know that the majority of separatists are not aware of the costs of separation?

Thanks for clarifying, but still when you say "Separation is based in large part on ignorance" I do not think this is true or helpful. Separation is more besed on different values where other interests outweigh economic interests. For example when children move out from their parent's house or when couples separate there is almost always a lowering of standards of living... What happened when Czechoslovakia separated? Not much. What would happen if Scotland separated? Not much.

I am not in favour of separation but I respect the views of separatists and am strongly against your calling them "ignorant blockheads". You state "Quebec is still largely rural", yet it is 81 % Urban http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo62f-eng.htm why would you say that? If it were to separate, there is no reason to believe that life in Quebec would be significantly different than what it is today. For example why would the credit rating of the "nation of Quebec" be any different than the current credit rating of the Province of Quebec? Economic standards of living would likely decline in Quebec but not by much.

"Britain, for example, opted to build its four new naval supply ships much more cheaply, at the Daewoo shipyard in South Korea. The contract is for roughly $1.1 billion Cdn. That's for all four. By contrast, Canada plans to build just two ships, in Vancouver, for $1.3 billion each. So Canada's ships will be roughly five times more costly than the British ones. But there's a twist. Canada's supply ships will also carry less fuel and other supplies, because they'll be smaller — about 20,000 tonnes. The U.K. ships are nearly twice as big — 37,000 tonnes. Canadians will lay out a lot more cash for a lot less ship." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shipbuilding-memo-shows-more-delays-cost-overruns-1.2563948 Does anyone know why our (smaller) ships cost five times as much as Britain's? Does anyone care that we are wasting so much money?

While not perfect, Stats Canada provides many ways to conduct good apples-apples comparisons. The CPI does include energy, food and shelter: http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb-bmdi/document/2301_D45_T9_V2-eng.htm Therefore real incomes are a good way to compare standards of living over time. Here is a good indication on Canadian spending in 2009, for the poor, middle-class and rich: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/62-202-x/2008000/t070-eng.htm Notice that education eats up a very small percentage of the average Canadian spending. Home ownership is up: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-014-x/2011002/c-g/c-g01-eng.cfm Total debt is at record highs, however: -with today's interest rates I am sure that debt servicing is far from its peaks -What matters more is the ratio of debt/income or debt/assets. Net worth is clearly way up for the middle class: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/140225/t140225b003-eng.htm; debt to assets is up but it does not seem alarming: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/140225/t140225b004-eng.htm Another indicator of the quality of life for the middle class are life satisfaction surveys, everything I've read on these sheds a very positive light and improving level of satisfaction for Canadians. And finally we can compare the data for middle-class Canadians, including life-satisfaction surveys, with other countries and see how we are consistently in the top 5 countries in the world. For all of these reasons I think that we should stop whining about how hard life is for the middle-class in Canada and demand that our leaders attack real problems. Two issues that come to my mind are aboriginal poverty and mental health.

Yes, but less car, less food, and less clothing, problably less natural gas, less appliances (and less efficient too)..

Good theory and I'm sure it's true for some families but not most. The fact that families are spending a lower percentage of their income on necessities disproves your idea that purchasing power is dropping. Look at all the discretionary spending it is certainly not all rich people eating at the new sushi restaurant at every corner, getting their nails done, grooming their pets, filling their way larger houses with massive ammounts of useless stuff, club memberships, concert/sporting events, tavel, maid service, lawn service, etc... My theory is that most people think that they are worse off because they are not spending wisely.

And yet more Canadians than ever own homes and have post-secondary education degrees. Add to the fact that real incomes, disposable incomes and net worth are at all time highs tells me that the average middle-class Canadians have never had it so good. If you disagree, when do you think life was any better?

Oh but growth does care about inequality, your author says: "...economists have long recognized the conflict between economic equality and maximizing economic growth. Put most simply, penalizing investors, successful entrepreneurs, and job creators with higher taxes, to reward the less productive with government handouts, to make everyone more equal, is a sure fire way to get less productivity, fewer jobs, lower wages, and reduced economic growth." while my guys say: "lower net inequality is robustly correlated with faster and more durable growth" Compare your article with the IMF report and it is clear that your guy is full of...

"on average" means that the rule will apply to most cases, and in the long run will apply to practically all cases. On average, roulette players will loose money. In the long run, all roulette players will loose money.

There is a 30 page IMF report that concludes "yes" but you you say "no" for no clear reason. These points are true but beside the point.

There are exceptional time periods but even in the US, on average, the greater the gini the slower the GDP per capita growth. Proof: The slope of the first graph is the oposite as the slope of the second graph: This supprts the IMF report that states: "lower net inequality is robustly correlated with faster and more durable growth" All else being equal, a more equal economy will grow faster than a less equal economy.

Diet and lifestyle go hand-in-hand: "Americans are fat because they eat too much and exercise too little. But they eat too much and exercise too little because they’re addicted to sugar, which not only makes them fatter but, after the initial sugar rush, also saps their energy, beaching them on the couch. “The reason you’re watching TV is not because TV is so good,” he said, “but because you have no energy to exercise, because you’re eating too much sugar.” The solution? Stop eating so much sugar. When people cut back, many of the ill effects disappear." http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/sugar/cohen-text

One reason is that it would be impossible to objectively define and then prove the difference between regularly and occasionally. Another reason is that having your parent accused of child abuse is probably more harmful than regularly eating meals that are garbage.

So what - I can find a whole bunch of smokers that outlive non-smokers.

GDP is increasing due to population growth, real US GDP growth per capita is steadily declining.

Figure 7 on page 23 of the IMF report (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf) sheds light on this distinction: Gini of Market income: not including all sources Gini of Net income: including all sources

IMF: "the combined direct and indirect effects of redistribution—including the growth effects of the resulting lower inequality—are on average pro-growth." It is not income redistribution that is directly pro-growth it income equality. US data since the 1960's does support this. As you've posted earlier, inequality has been rising (gini), while growth is falling: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Real-GDP-Per-Capita.php The relationship between inequality and growth makes sense. Imagine the government reaching into the wallets of citizens and stealing their money. Which scenario would have the most negative impact on the GDP? a) stealing $1000 form a rich person? stealing $100 from 10 poor/middle class people?

No, this is not a strawman - earlier I wrote: "Yes probably, but in Canada and most other OECD countries the lot of the poor has improved much faster and has surpased the standard of living of the poor in the US." Thanks to BC's links I learned that the bolded part of my statement was probably wrong. Poverty is a serious issue and for that reason we should all have facts straight. The poor in the US are worse off than those in Canada, Sweden and Australia, but better off than those in all other OECD countries. Here another fact, in Canada the (real) incomes for the middle class and poor have been steadily growing and never been higher than it is today. This does not mean we should ignore the issue but neither should we making false statements like, "the declining/hollowing out of the middle class" or "all the economic benefits are going to the rich"...

Thank you for the links and graphs. IMO, you are right, the plight of the poor in the US is not as bad as most countries and is overhyped in the media. However, there are poor people suffering in the US including poor children. And it looks like both the severity of their poverty and the number of poor people has not improved in at least 15 years. This is not the case in Canada where the bottom 10% have a significantly higher socioeconomic status http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-17?Fsrc=scn%2Fgp%2Fwl%2Fdc%2Fbetterlifeindex Poor people cost money and generate little revenue. It seems obvious that reducing poverty is a clear win-win for the poor and for the overall economy including debt reduction. It also seems obvious that reducing poverty is best done through increased economic growth. Now the IMF is saying that reducing inequality will help economic growth. It also seems obvious that government policies and their annalists should be targeting results 5-10+ years out - not the next budget crisis or election...

Despite your very real concerns Canadians are still better off today than 30-40 years ago. The increase in housing costs is more than offset by decreases in food and clothing: Average share of household spending on major items 1969Food - 18.7 per cent Shelter - 15.2 per cent Clothing - 8.1 per cent Transportation - 13.1 per cent Personal taxes - 13.5 per cent 2009Food - 10.2 per cent Shelter - 19.8 per cent Clothing - four per cent Transportation - 13.7 per cent Personal taxes - 20.2 per cent http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/food-eats-up-less-of-our-spending-but-costs-us-more-1.1054574

Yes, all good points, however, historically the USA that outperformed many others, was a much more equal than the USA today and had significantly higher tax rates. Perhaps the Bush tax cuts went too far?

Some places are divisible and some are not, some are in-between. Every place has it's unique reasons. Quebec is divisible from Canada as per the clarity act. No US state is divisible from the Union, as per the Civil War. The island of Montreal is indivisible from Quebec. It looks like the Crimea is divisible from the Ukraine.

Do you agree that, if a society, such as the USA, would reduce inequality by increasing taxes on the rich with a revenue neutral tax cut for the poor, growth would increase?

For starters, compare the incomes, and more importantly the trends over time, of the bottom 20% in Canada and US in the above graphs provided by Stats Can and the US Census.