How does Canada work?

[myata]

Only the facts, numbers. In 1989 (roughly a generation back), population:

Sweden: 8.5 million; 2023: 10.6 million

Finland: 5 million; 2023: 5.6 million.

Ontario, 1989: 10.1 million; 2023: 15.6 million.

Can one grow the population of a European country by over a half, in a single generation while maintaining, and improving the standards of services and broad prosperity? Doesn't this explain, like everything we see around?

How is possible that in a G7 (supposedly) democracy, the obvious question: why are we doing this? is never answered and never even asked?

Astounding. Mind boggling. And bending: lhow is this possible?

Who asked for this massive social experiment? What was the purpose? How was it supposed to work and is it working as intended?

Nope. No answer. Some terrible secret, anyone?

Is Canada really an independent democratic country in this century? Or some social experiment run by the entrenched elites out of curiosity? laziness? eternal goodness? who wants to guess?

Edited October 30, 2023 by myata

[ExFlyer]

Are you trying to say things should not have changed in the past 35 years???

What is this "massive social experiment" you are referencing?

Once again, I suggest you get sober and then post again LOL

[Nationalist]

Canada does not work right now. We have a PM who's so busy virtue signalling that he doesn't even realize his impositions are hurting all Canucks. There are his "refugees" all over the place. This is why I call the twit "Pixie-Dust" and why he's a public joke in Canada.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Canada does not work right now.

But this happened over the decades. I'm interested in a real, meaningful answer: what is the rationale? Who thought about that? And who has decided and why?

Surely this continued under governments of all strides and stripes. Why though? What is the rationale and who/what is driving it?

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, myata said:

But this happened over the decades. I'm interested in a real, meaningful answer: what is the rationale? Who thought about that? And who has decided and why?

Surely this continued under governments of all strides and stripes. Why though? What is the rationale and who/what is driving it?

The rationale is economic.  All the leaders thought about it - 3 Conservative PMs and 3 Liberal PMs.  And they did it.

Could we have done better at capacity planning ?  Yes.  Did we ?  No, no way. 

They had lots of warning that these problems were coming but fixing problems that are 20 years away isn't well handled by this system of government.

[myata]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The rationale is economic.  All the leaders thought about it - 3 Conservative PMs and 3 Liberal PMs. 

Lets hear it then! Can we? Bringing a half of a country in a single generation is a bold and creative experiment - no one else is the (sane) world is doing that. Why it has to be this and no other ways? Who explained it, and proved? Where can we find that out? In what backroom records, etc?

Edited October 30, 2023 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, myata said:

Lets hear it then! Can we? Bringing a half of a country in a single generation is a bold and creative experiment - no one else is the (sane) world is doing that. Why it has to be this and there's no other ways? Where can we find that out? In what backroom records, etc?

Can we what ?  

If you ask if there are 'no other ways' then you're asking a much more difficult question than why can't we build some hospitals ?  I explained a brief guess as to why the hospitals, medical schools, etc. weren't prepared for this situation.

Coming up with a better way to grow the economy ?  I mean... we could focus on the 'new economy' but even then we have to bring in immigrants to build it. 

[myata]

50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

but even then we have to bring in immigrants to build it. 

Please note the OP: no one else is bringing them at such a breathtaking pace. So it's not a given, not some kind of self-obvious truth.

Why is that? What is special here and what are the reasons? Who explained?

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, myata said:

Please note the OP: no one else is bringing them at such a breathtaking pace. So it's not a given, not some kind of self-obvious truth.

Why is that? What is special here and what are the reasons? Who explained?

What is special here ?  I think we have an exceptional attitude towards immigration for one.  To get to the point where our systems are actually falling over due to the volume of immigration and not one political party is calling for the reduction or even talking about it is ... different, for good or bad.

Nobody explained, but people have generally accepted it for good or bad.  

Is it different from economic policy in general ?  I don't think so.  Kudos to Brian Mulroney and John Turner for bringing a discussion of international trade deals into Canadians' living rooms but I don't recall one since then.

[myata]

36 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

To get to the point where our systems are actually falling over due to the volume of immigration and not one political party is calling for the reduction or even talking about it is ... different, for good or bad.

No wait, even before that: when you are planning to do something, even a small thing, you think right? Why are you doing it; is there a reason to do it? what could happen? could it go wrong, etc. Why would we have those things right above the shoulders if we never need them, except maybe for haircuts and shouting at the game?

So why did we want to begin a massive, unique in the sane (and therefore developed) world immigration program? There had a reason, some reason one would think.. or not really eh?

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, myata said:

But this happened over the decades. I'm interested in a real, meaningful answer: what is the rationale? Who thought about that? And who has decided and why?

Surely this continued under governments of all strides and stripes. Why though? What is the rationale and who/what is driving it?

Now you are getting  it.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, myata said:

1. No wait, even before that: when you are planning to do something, even a small thing, you think right? Why are you doing it; is there a reason to do it?

2. what could happen? could it go wrong, etc. Why would we have those things right above the shoulders if we never need them, except maybe for haircuts and shouting at the game?

3. So why did we want to begin a massive, unique in the sane (and therefore developed) world immigration program? There had a reason, some reason one would think.. or not really eh?

1. I said that at the outset: "The rationale is economic."
2. The reasons to not do it, from a discussion I heard involving the German example, are political and centred around domestic attitudes to immigration.  I think it was Angela Merkel who compared Canada to Germany and determined Germany wouldn't be able to accept that many immigrants.  The things above the shoulders are attached to humans so their ideas aren't simply based on facts but emotions.
3. See #1.

[Michael Hardner]

Again - we had a national conversation on this in 1988 because Mulroney trusted what was then the public sphere to make a rational choice based on arguments.  Mulroney won the election and we got the FTA.  Then we got NAFTA, from the Liberals, without such a conversation.  By the time the Pacific Trade Agreement came in, I think that they had put in provisions that said the government wasn't allowed to tell us what was in it.

I understand why the government thinks it's necessary to lie sometimes about, say, whether masks are a good idea, what's in Area 51, and so on... but these things aren't simple decisions and getting caught with your d*ck in the cookie jar makes people not want to eat cookies anymore, ever.

[eyeball]

How does Canada work?

Still quite poorly if my now months long paper chase with CRA is anything to go by.

But I knew it worked poorly decades ago when fisheries coast to coast collapsed under Ottawa's mismanagement.

Oh but of course there were those billionaires who did quite well so that's something I suppose.

[myata]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

that said the government wasn't allowed to tell us what was in it.

That's exactly it, isn't it? They don't really need us anywhere near their decision making processes, only once in so many years for a formal stamp of legitimacy, half asleep. Can any good news come this way? It sure been a while, waiting.

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

those billionaires who did quite well so that's something I suppose

Did you know this is a joke I heard often in the third world semi-democracies. A funny coincidence..

[TreeBeard]

On 10/30/2023 at 11:21 AM, myata said:

So why did we want to begin a massive, unique in the sane (and therefore developed) world immigration program? There had a reason, some reason one would think.. or not really eh?

Ask Danielle Smith.  She wants Alberta’s population to grow even faster than all projections.  population growth is universally lauded, except the absolute fringe.  
 

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7013363

 

[August1991]

On 10/30/2023 at 2:49 PM, eyeball said:

How does Canada work?per capita 

Still quite poorly if my now months long paper chase with CRA is anything to go by.

....

I  checked the data. Real GDP per capita in 2020 is about twice 1970.

We Canadians, on average, are twice better off.

And in Canada, there is almost no risk. 

====

Imagine someone in Cambodia in 1970  Or China.

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

I  checked the data. Real GDP per capita in 2020 is about twice 1970.

We Canadians, on average, are twice better off.

And in Canada, there is almost no risk. 

====

Imagine someone in Cambodia in 1970  Or China.

Can I get a cite ?  I look for these stats also but the ones I find don't align with yours, or others I find.  

It's mind boggling that people aren't talking about this all the time.

[BeaverFever]

On 10/30/2023 at 8:20 AM, myata said:

Only the facts, numbers. In 1989 (roughly a generation back), population:

Sweden: 8.5 million; 2023: 10.6 million

Finland: 5 million; 2023: 5.6 million.

Ontario, 1989: 10.1 million; 2023: 15.6 million.

Can one grow the population of a European country by over a half, in a single generation while maintaining, and improving the standards of services and broad prosperity? Doesn't this explain, like everything we see around?

How is possible that in a G7 (supposedly) democracy, the obvious question: why are we doing this? is never answered and never even asked?

Astounding. Mind boggling. And bending: lhow is this possible?

Who asked for this massive social experiment? What was the purpose? How was it supposed to work and is it working as intended?

Nope. No answer. Some terrible secret, anyone?

Is Canada really an independent democratic country in this century? Or some social experiment run by the entrenched elites out of curiosity? laziness? eternal goodness? who wants to guess?

Yeah but how have the economies evolved?  Ontario’s nominal GDP in 1989 was around $247Bn now it’s more than tripled to nearly $760Bn at the end of 2022.   Whereas Sweden went from $218Bn to only $585B. It’s even worse for Finland who went from $188B to $280B, which is less than a growth of 1.5x  
 

One could argue that those Scandinavian countries are growing more efficiently on a per capita basis and that the numbers prove there are diminishing economic returns to population growth even if overall GDP growth increases. But then again Sweden and Finland are a generous welfare state where people who are financially disadvantaged or who encounter financially difficult times can access programs that ultimately allow them to contribute to the economy whereas in North America its much harder to escape those circumstances. 
 

Lastly:  in the next few decades decades we will begin to witness the great dying of the baby boomers which will result a massive economic and demographic shift and the shortage housing crisis will begin the grave plot shortage crisis. We need new people and workers to replace them. Granted that doesn’t solve a bigger problem of who will replace the immigrants when they age but it buys a little time I think. As I understand, Scandinavia didn’t experience as much of a baby boom as we did due to a different experience in WW2 so perhaps they’re less concerned about the demographic time bomb we are facing. 

Edited November 2, 2023 by BeaverFever

[myata]

On 10/31/2023 at 10:38 PM, TreeBeard said:

 population growth is universally lauded, except

Another non-answer. What is our problem? Have we forgot how to think?

On 11/1/2023 at 12:43 PM, BeaverFever said:

Ontario’s nominal GDP in 1989

Do you pay your rent from "nominal GDP"? Maybe buying your groceries, etc? Does it make you happy, the cute number? One cannot get to the airport by public transit at certain times, in a G7 capital. Not in 1989, now. OMF.

Edited November 3, 2023 by myata

[August1991]

On 11/1/2023 at 12:19 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Can I get a cite ?  I look for these stats also but the ones I find don't align with yours, or others I find.  

It's mind boggling that people aren't talking about this all the time.

Michael, we Canadians on average live better,

Why?  We live in a federal state.

[August1991]

We Canadians respect the minority.

Years ago, a Protestant voted for a Catholic 

And perhaps more important, in American-speak, a black guy voted white. 

Myata, there's your answer. 

====

I sincerely believe that Canada is a model to the world.

Well, the Austrian-Hungarian regime was also .

Edited November 4, 2023 by August1991