Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Canada and Demography
http://www.drabuzzi.com.half_a%20billion_americans.htm
While screaming for relevance and attention from the US, a bunch of Bush-haters up north have decided to inject a lot of negativity into the recent Bush visit to Canada.
We are "arrogant" because (supposedly), we want our own foreign policy, we want to elect our own government officials without their "input", and we want to run our own affairs without foreign permission.
The majority of the people here re-elected George Bush, to the displeasure of a lot of liberal Canadians (and Americans). Now anybody's view of Bush is just not relevant any more. The reality is that he has been re-elected president in our voting procedure.
As putrid and digusting as I found Chretian to be at the time, I never would have voiced my opinion about him to any Canadian, as I find to do so to be out of line. I do not participate in Canadian elections, Canadians do not participate in ours.
These people remind me a lot of the old farmer protests we used to have in front of the Chicago Board of Trade on LaSalle Street. The farmers would drive their tractors up LaSalle Street, demanding that the CBOT stop fixing grain prices. The spectacle was utterly laughable and not a few investment banker types had a few laughs about it at the private clubs and local bars.
Let us put this into perspective: the USA is Canada's biggest trading partner. We are also its
biggest customer. We Americans buy over 1 billion dollars of goods from Canada each day. And the population of Canada is somewhere in the range of that of the state of California plus Nevada. Put another way, this small country (in population) seems to be just clammoring for relevance in all affairs, but it is about one tenth the size of our own.
It is my opinion that the more shrill the frosty complaints from up north become, the more likely
US public support for economic retribution against Canada ends up. Ponder, for example, the economic implications for Canada of requiring passports and fingerprinting of Canadian citizns at the US border. This would effectively eliminate, for instance, cross-border employment. Windsor is a beautiful place to live instead of Detroit, And strengthening our border may not be the worst idea, because it is unclear to me that Canada secures its own border very well. And a total trade embargo means a currency collapse for Canada, not so for the USA.
The CBC last night on its program "National" attampted to define the country of Canada and its supposedly "diverging paths" with the USA in a number of ways. Mentioned were increased secularism, tolerance of gay issues and drug legalization, and the like.
Interestingly, Canada's population is concentrated in only six metroplitan areas. And the population is largely an aging one. The CBC program attempted to portray these divergences with Canada speaking with a "unified voice!!!" ???? First, Canada speaking with "one voice" is about as likely as Jerusalem doing the same. Newfoundlanders are not the same as the Quebecqois who are not the same as residents of Alberta.
And for example, if Canada's population is really aging, would not Canada become less secular over time? Chicago, for instance has now posted the lowest murder rate since 1965. A dropping crime demographically tends to indicate a wealthier and older population, as is the case in the more urbanized Canada. So maybe Canada is going to over time be "more like" the conservative states to the south in that regard. This means a greater support for law enforcement, savings on investment taxes and maybe questioning issues like gay marriage.
The USA has a porous border to the south. Our immigrants tend to be, by and large, Latin American. Mexicans and Latinos tend to be very strongly Roman Catholic. For all of the sterotyping of the Bush administration and Americans done in the CBC program, one would think the USA has been taken over by fundamentalist Christians from Bugtussle, Tennessee. Yet, part of the strongly anti-crime, pro parochial school mentalities that are starting to pervade in American stratum, partially comes from mass-going Roman Catholics who are Latino. "Blue state" populations in "blue states" are shinking. Red state populations in blue states are growing, and fast down here.
And, it seems to be the case that immigration will not just make America younger, more religious and stronger, but also may burgeon its population to become larger than even all of Europe. The following Economist article forsees the USA having a population of over 500 million within 30 years or so. One can imagine that unless Canadian governments make a real effort to get along and coordinate with future US administrations, the more irrelevant Canadian policies ar interests become to us.
http://www.drabruzzi.com/half_a%20billion_americans.htm
Moreover, until Canada itself reduces it's "social overhead" and the millstone of a non-producing Quebec, the country will continue losing its best and brightest to south of the border.
You have seen our future, it is Bush, it is a far reaching foreign policy that is executed without a "League of nations mentality", it is free market economics, and it is a quasi-Hispanic parochial school going, mass attending society that becomes tends to become wealthy within the first generation of arrival. And for a lot of reasons, Canada may be seeing its own future, south of the border.
So stop with the pontificating already, eh? Or should I say, see you at the beach in Orange County?
While screaming for relevance and attention from the US, a bunch of Bush-haters up north have decided to inject a lot of negativity into the recent Bush visit to Canada.
We are "arrogant" because (supposedly), we want our own foreign policy, we want to elect our own government officials without their "input", and we want to run our own affairs without foreign permission.
The majority of the people here re-elected George Bush, to the displeasure of a lot of liberal Canadians (and Americans). Now anybody's view of Bush is just not relevant any more. The reality is that he has been re-elected president in our voting procedure.
As putrid and digusting as I found Chretian to be at the time, I never would have voiced my opinion about him to any Canadian, as I find to do so to be out of line. I do not participate in Canadian elections, Canadians do not participate in ours.
These people remind me a lot of the old farmer protests we used to have in front of the Chicago Board of Trade on LaSalle Street. The farmers would drive their tractors up LaSalle Street, demanding that the CBOT stop fixing grain prices. The spectacle was utterly laughable and not a few investment banker types had a few laughs about it at the private clubs and local bars.
Let us put this into perspective: the USA is Canada's biggest trading partner. We are also its
biggest customer. We Americans buy over 1 billion dollars of goods from Canada each day. And the population of Canada is somewhere in the range of that of the state of California plus Nevada. Put another way, this small country (in population) seems to be just clammoring for relevance in all affairs, but it is about one tenth the size of our own.
It is my opinion that the more shrill the frosty complaints from up north become, the more likely
US public support for economic retribution against Canada ends up. Ponder, for example, the economic implications for Canada of requiring passports and fingerprinting of Canadian citizns at the US border. This would effectively eliminate, for instance, cross-border employment. Windsor is a beautiful place to live instead of Detroit, And strengthening our border may not be the worst idea, because it is unclear to me that Canada secures its own border very well. And a total trade embargo means a currency collapse for Canada, not so for the USA.
The CBC last night on its program "National" attampted to define the country of Canada and its supposedly "diverging paths" with the USA in a number of ways. Mentioned were increased secularism, tolerance of gay issues and drug legalization, and the like.
Interestingly, Canada's population is concentrated in only six metroplitan areas. And the population is largely an aging one. The CBC program attempted to portray these divergences with Canada speaking with a "unified voice!!!" ???? First, Canada speaking with "one voice" is about as likely as Jerusalem doing the same. Newfoundlanders are not the same as the Quebecqois who are not the same as residents of Alberta.
And for example, if Canada's population is really aging, would not Canada become less secular over time? Chicago, for instance has now posted the lowest murder rate since 1965. A dropping crime demographically tends to indicate a wealthier and older population, as is the case in the more urbanized Canada. So maybe Canada is going to over time be "more like" the conservative states to the south in that regard. This means a greater support for law enforcement, savings on investment taxes and maybe questioning issues like gay marriage.
The USA has a porous border to the south. Our immigrants tend to be, by and large, Latin American. Mexicans and Latinos tend to be very strongly Roman Catholic. For all of the sterotyping of the Bush administration and Americans done in the CBC program, one would think the USA has been taken over by fundamentalist Christians from Bugtussle, Tennessee. Yet, part of the strongly anti-crime, pro parochial school mentalities that are starting to pervade in American stratum, partially comes from mass-going Roman Catholics who are Latino. "Blue state" populations in "blue states" are shinking. Red state populations in blue states are growing, and fast down here.
And, it seems to be the case that immigration will not just make America younger, more religious and stronger, but also may burgeon its population to become larger than even all of Europe. The following Economist article forsees the USA having a population of over 500 million within 30 years or so. One can imagine that unless Canadian governments make a real effort to get along and coordinate with future US administrations, the more irrelevant Canadian policies ar interests become to us.
http://www.drabruzzi.com/half_a%20billion_americans.htm
Moreover, until Canada itself reduces it's "social overhead" and the millstone of a non-producing Quebec, the country will continue losing its best and brightest to south of the border.
You have seen our future, it is Bush, it is a far reaching foreign policy that is executed without a "League of nations mentality", it is free market economics, and it is a quasi-Hispanic parochial school going, mass attending society that becomes tends to become wealthy within the first generation of arrival. And for a lot of reasons, Canada may be seeing its own future, south of the border.
So stop with the pontificating already, eh? Or should I say, see you at the beach in Orange County?
