Should Canada Annex the Turks and Caicos Islands?

[Michael Hardner]

money will just go from one place to another... however it should be recognized the GDP is about perhas 250 million while government expenditures are about 450 million. Obviously some cost savings would be created. Essentially the government spends about $10,000 per person, while the PPP per capita is about $10,000... obviously the question would simply be can 50 million of new income be generated and 150 million of costs reduced? or something like that? The real barrier is that americans fuel corruption and money laundering there and amount to 75% of the tourism there. More or less the US will loose and Canada will win from it so the US will prevent it from happening. Afterall the use US dollars not british pounds. Take a look at thefinancial services sector there, who it services, and who makes money from it. Note their revenues exceed their expenditures meaning they can run a surplus.. With some efficiency savings ontop of that they would likely benefit from it. While Canada would have to average out service provision for an additional 45,000 people, however their income level is such they would not greatly contribute on a basis of income, but territorially as well as on a business and banking sector side of things Canada would benefit. The real problem is the Monroe doctrine.

The government there spends MORE than the GDP ? What ?? Your post seems to be garbled after that.

[shortlived]

The government there spends MORE than the GDP ? What ?? Your post seems to be garbled after that.

Yes the government spends more than the GDP but its revenue is higher than its expenditures......

"Gross domestic product (GDP) is the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time."

"Government revenue is revenue received by a government."

Peculiar yes, incorrect, no.

If you understand economics you will see that 200 million in savings and income generation will make the island very profitable, this 200 million estimate if paired with reduction of overlapping services between the Canadian federal government and the would be TCI province could also direct funds solicitors in TCI to private sector employment or in working with groups like CIDA due to their knowledge of developmental aid programs.

The bottom line is much like helping newfoundland canda can help TCI and both canada and tci can benefit from the union.

The bottom line is they need to diversify their economy into sectors which Canada is specifically well aligned, such as advanced factory farming, but ecologically due to the reef ecosystem. A direct import of tropical produce without import regulations could be quite beneficial in terms of resource sustainance that otherwise is unavailable to Canada.

Even if 50% of the island was needed to be managed that is only 15,000 and I would geuss the number to be closer to 5000 people which would likely only amount to perhaps 50 million. If you consider say 5 million sent there anyway that is only a 45 million dollar increase, which could be offset by various benefits to canadians say 2000 resident canadians plus 30,000 canadian tourist each year. One might expect tourism initially to increase to the islands from Canada, in place of other caribian island which would likely keep money in the new Canada as opposed to other countries controls. Overall on the value of the territory itself the net gain would definately exist if properly managed.

I dunno I'd pay a dollar a year for a caribean island. This is a no brainer.

Edited February 15, 2013 by shortlived

[Michael Hardner]

Yes the government spends more than the GDP but its revenue is higher than its expenditures......

Government revenue is higher than GDP ? How does THAT work ?

[shortlived]

Government revenue is higher than GDP ? How does THAT work ?

how do you think? As said gdp is goods and service domestically produced. If money is not domestically produced then how is it produced? It starts with an "externally" Edited February 16, 2013 by shortlived

[Michael Hardner]

Money isn't goods and services.

[shortlived]

Money isn't goods and services.

GDP is a measure of the value of goods and services, its all good you have to start somewhere. Money is goods... it is paper currency which is either a banknote for fiat or free float or tied to a commodity standard, that is traded and regulated by governments as the common value of exchange with the government and other possible considerations. It is a good which is legally regulated and often a government monopoly in the modern era.

Edited February 16, 2013 by shortlived

[Michael Hardner]

Money isn't goods or services. GDP doesn't measure the money supply.

[Michael Hardner]

The government there spends MORE than the GDP ? What ?? Your post seems to be garbled after that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP

That table gives government spending as % of GDP.

[shortlived]

http://en.wikipedia....rcentage_of_GDP

That table gives government spending as % of GDP.

and I suppose you think that people must be taxed less than their income too... economics has + and - signs.

[shortlived]

Money isn't goods or services. GDP doesn't measure the money supply.

Money is goods, and GDP measures value of domestic production. the value of money however tends to depreciate equally as supply is increased, however there is a threshold and it is only relative to the currency in which you measure the GDP. As there are more than supply factors to the value of money. The lowest threshold however is the cost to produce vs. the value of the commodity represented, paper isomer, metal coin etc... it does factor in to a correct measure of gdp. Not all cash systems effect the economy the same way though. It is a relative factor... since GDP tends to be based on the US value of goods. A country that makes the trade currency however can make quite a bit of money on providing money as a good since it has monopoly on creation and the value of the currency in trade may be relative.. wealth can thus be generated from creation of money as money's value does not equal its production cost. if people use the money then money is generated as potential value. either by being utilized or by being expected to provide goods or services of value.

Edited February 16, 2013 by shortlived

[Bonam]

http://en.wikipedia....rcentage_of_GDP

That table gives government spending as % of GDP.

Wow, hadn't looked at that list in a while. Over 50% of GDP is government spending in France and Northern European countries. Interesting to note that supposedly communist China is down at 20% in comparison...

[Michael Hardner]

Shortlived : Ok - but presumably GDP and government expenditures are measured using the same measure.

So - please provide a link to back your claim up:

however it should be recognized the GDP is about perhas 250 million while government expenditures are about 450 million.

[shortlived]

Shortlived : Ok - but presumably GDP and government expenditures are measured using the same measure.

So - please provide a link to back your claim up:

[/size]

GDP is total country while gov expenditures is only the government. Note that there are different types of gdp measures. which claim do you want backed up?

[shortlived]

GDP is total country while gov expenditures is only the government. Note that there are different types of gdp measures. which claim do you want backed up?

CIA factbook I know I know, not exactly a reliable source but its the most readily available. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ Edited February 16, 2013 by shortlived

[Bonam]

That does indeed seem to list GDP as 216 million, expenses as 409 million, and revenues as 417 million.

I guess I can see how expenditures could exceed GDP, since a government could spend money elsewhere, in another jurisdiction.

But I'm having hard time imagining how revenues could exceed GDP. Any funds the government collects, whether as taxes, fees, royalties, etc, are a percentage (at most 100%) of some good/service that is sold/operated under its jurisdiction. Would be interesting to see an explanation of that...

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, I'm at a loss here.

[shortlived]

ok guys I'll spoil your dumbfoundedness.FOREIGN AID!!! particularly a huge chunk from Britain in the sum of 160million sterling or the sort. They did of course take over the place again so the fact they got stuck with a bill isn't exactly unbecoming.

Edited February 16, 2013 by shortlived

[Bonam]

ok guys I'll spoil your dumbfoundedness.FOREIGN AID!!!

Except that foreign aid would be used to do things in the recipient country... run government services, purchase goods, build infrastructure, whatever. And such things are counted in the GDP.

[August1991]

After a brief glance through this thread, I have one question:

Why should the "Canadian Federal State" annex the Caicos when individual Canadians can now freely trade with people in the Caicos?

[cybercoma]

Wow, hadn't looked at that list in a while. Over 50% of GDP is government spending in France and Northern European countries. Interesting to note that supposedly communist China is down at 20% in comparison...

And surprise, surprise, the Scandinavian countries have some of the best living standards in the entire world.

[Moonbox]

So do Canada and the United States. Norway is the only Scandinavian state that has better standard of living marks than Canada or the USA, but unfortunately for your "point", its rate of government spending is nearly identical to the US and Canada's.

http://en.wikipedia....velopment_Index

In fact, 5 of the top 6 countries in the world in terms of standard of living have government spending pegged at ~40%.

http://www.economics...ding-as-of-gdp/

I love how people keep bringing up Scandinavia trying to tell us it's a socialist paradise or something, when the actual numbers show that's not the case at all! It really sucks when the numbers get involved, does it?!?

Edited February 16, 2013 by Moonbox

[waldo]

So do Canada and the United States. Norway is the only Scandinavian state that has better standard of living marks than Canada or the USA, but unfortunately for your "point", its rate of government spending is nearly identical to the US and Canada's.

http://en.wikipedia....velopment_Index

I love how people keep bringing up Scandinavia trying to tell us it's a socialist paradise or something, when the actual numbers show that's not the case at all! It really sucks when the numbers get involved, does it?!?

when you don't know what the numbers you claim to leverage actually mean... yes, it really sucks - for you! Try these wiki numbers instead: List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI

The Inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI), is a measure of the level of human development of people in a society that accounts for inequality. Under perfect equality the IHDI is equal to the HDI, but falls below the HDI when inequality rises. In this sense, the IHDI is the actual level of human development (taking into account inequality), while the HDI can be viewed as an index of the potential human development that could be achieved if there is no inequality. The IHDI accounts for inequality in HDI dimensions by "discounting" each dimension's average value according to its level of inequality

well look at that... all 5 (main) Scandinavian countries within the top 11. What were you saying about, uhhh... 'socialist paradise'?

[shortlived]

After a brief glance through this thread, I have one question:

Why should the "Canadian Federal State" annex the Caicos when individual Canadians can now freely trade with people in the Caicos?

Because the costs of trading with a foreign country are always higher. Trade is not the reason federation exists.

Also this whole higher living standards is bollocks. I would pick a third world tropical country over a super industrialized and pulluted country to live in any day of the week. Northern Countries are cold for half the year if not longer. That is 6 months of bad quality of life. that is lethal enviornment. Not sure who the hell is making those charts, and if lethal climate for half the year is factored in. guess why they are socialist? CAUSE they DIE if they don't get along in winter. Much like why religion is prevalent in countries where heat stroke is easy to suffer by.

Edited February 17, 2013 by shortlived

[Bonam]

I would pick a third world tropical country over a super industrialized and pulluted country to live in any day of the week. Northern Countries are cold for half the year if not longer. That is 6 months of bad quality of life.

[shortlived]

Except that foreign aid would be used to do things in the recipient country... run government services, purchase goods, build infrastructure, whatever. And such things are counted in the GDP.

First Bin Laden, now economic reports on the TCI what is up with the CIA.