Nice American Article: US vs. Canada


Andem
Free Thinker
Avatar
#1
Canada vs. the U.S.


By Richard W. Rahn


Have the Canadians found a better balance between the public and private sectors? If you listen to many in the news media and many liberal Democrats, Canada is portrayed as a more ideal society than the U.S. It is viewed as peaceful, prosperous, honest and humane, and a country the U.S. should try to emulate.

These critics in the U.S. say they do not want a European-type socialist economy but would like a relatively bigger government that provides more services than the U.S. government (and lower drug prices and free medical care) — in short, Canada.

Is it true Canada works better than the U.S.? Let's look at the facts. Historically, Canada had been a bit poorer than the U.S. But in the 1950s, '60s and '70s Canada grew faster than the U.S. By 1976, the Canadian dollar was equal to the U.S. dollar, and real per capita incomes in the two countries and the relative size of the governments were about the same.

However, beginning in the early 1980s, Canada and the U.S. began following different economic models. Under President Reagan, the U.S. stopped the growth in the relative size of government and sharply reduced tax rates, and pursued a policy of price stability and regulatory restraint. The Canadians continued to increase their relative size of government in terms of taxing, spending, and regulation.

The result is the Canadians now have a government that spends about 40 percent of its GDP (at the federal, provincial, and local levels), while the U.S. spends about 30 percent of its GDP (at the combined federal, state, and local levels). Canada is also much more economically regulated than is the U.S. There are substantial variations in taxing and spending between the Canadian provinces as there are between the U.S. states; hence, the above numbers are rough national averages, which vary from province to province and state to state. Again, the Canadians have achieved a level of government many American Democrats say they would like.

Once the U.S. adopted Reaganomics, it began growing faster than Canada. Now, two decades later, according to the World Bank, the U. S. has a GDP per capita that is more than a third higher than Canadian per capita GDP ($34,280 for the U.S., $26,530 for Canada). These higher real incomes for U.S. citizens translate into better housing, more automobile ownership, and much higher levels of discretionary income and economic opportunity. The U. S. has also enjoyed a consistent lower level of unemployment than Canada since the mid-1980s.

Canada's leading economic think tank, the Fraser Institute, has just published two very provocative studies that detail the relative failure of the Canadian vs. U.S. model.

The first study is "Economic Freedom in North America" (jointly prepared with the U.S. think tank, the National Center for Policy Analysis). The statistical results of the study persuasively confirm "economic freedom is a powerful driver of growth and prosperity and those provinces and states that have low levels of economic freedom continue to leave their citizens poorer than they need or should be."

Unfortunately for Canada, all U.S. states, except for West Virginia, have higher levels of economic freedom than the Canadian provinces, with the exception of Alberta and Ontario. As a result, the richest Canadian provinces have incomes that approximate the poorest U.S. states.

"Government Failure in Canada, 1997-2004: A Survey of Reports from the Auditor General," again by the Fraser Institute, details extensive waste, misrepresentation, red tape, incompetence, program failure, self-service and self-dealing in the Canadian government. The report concludes that: "The main lesson from the facts as assembled by the Auditor General is that governments are not very effective vehicles for accomplishing outcomes. ... Public purposes ... can be accomplished as well, or better, by contracting, privatizing or ceding the activity to the private sector."

Those on the left who want a Canadian style health care system fail to acknowledge it has resulted in extensive waiting times, limitations on treatments, and massive shortages, all of which have forced tens of thousands of Canadians each year to go to the U.S. for needed medical treatment.

And finally, as crime rates have risen in Canada and fallen in the U.S., people are less likely to be victims of crime in New York than in many Canadian cities (despite Canada's oppressive gun control laws).

For those who say they want bigger government and more economic regulation, the results of the experiment are in. The evidence from Canada clearly shows if the U.S. had followed the liberal Democrat model it would have higher levels of unemployment, lower real incomes and less freedom.

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.
 
Andem
Free Thinker
Avatar
#2
I actually didn't post this article because I agree fully with it. But it was very very thought provoking.

There are some points in this article which shows some MAJOR differences between Canada and the United States which evolved from changing paths decades ago.

But anyways, what is your interpretation of it?
 
Reverend Blair
#3
First of all, anything coming out of the Fraser Institute is pretty suspect. They have a well-earned reputation for being far right and willing to give up sovereignty for money.

The part about medi-care is an excellent example. It seems balanced, but does not mention that our system worked fine until massive cuts to payments the provinces receive. The feds used to pay 50%, not they pay 16%.

The article also does not acknowledge that Reagan's voodoo economics actually lowered the standard of living for a great many Americans and that social problems have grown exponentially since those policies were instituted.

Then there's the US debt. That didn't make the article either. Funny how that is. Their debt is completely out of control. Economists outside of the US are starting to compare them to Argentina and Venezuela...failed economies. The apparent wealth of the US has been largely achieved by borrowing and not repaying the debt.
 
WulF-Krigan
Avatar
#4
Yeah, the article seems like bunk to me.

Basically...it's ALOT of correlation presented as causation.

Example:

"And finally, as crime rates have risen in Canada and fallen in the U.S., people are less likely to be victims of crime in New York than in many Canadian cities (despite Canada's oppressive gun control laws). "

We would need to look at the -types- of crime committed and reported for both nations. But since the author chose to bring in "oppressive gun control laws" I'd compare gun crimes. My bet is that the US has more gun crime than Canada. I also would guess that crime is more readily reported in Canada than in the US...and that those crimes are likely less severe than the one reported in the US. Petty theft vs. grand larsony.
 
Reverend Blair
#5
Exactly, Wulf. If I submitted an article that easy to shoot down, it would bounce like a superball. Rightfully so, too.

As the right has seized control of the press this sort of thing gets questioned less and less. Since concentration of the press has led to centrist and leftist outlets being closed or bought out, there is often no main-stream outlet left to question articles like this. It's why concentration of press ownership is such an important issue...at least it would be if the right-wing press would report on it.

It's also why US citizens often have such an uninformed view of Canada and the rest of the world. If it was just a US problem, it would be bad enough. It isn't just a US problem though, it's world-wide.

A really troubling trend lately is attempts by the far right to try to denigrate any source that does not push their agenda. Here they try to shut down the CBC. In the US they go after The Nation (the oldest new magazine in that country, BTW). They would like to denigrate the internet too, because it allows people an outlet to question governments. Project for a New American Century (the puppet masters behind Bush) has said that the internet should be censored.
 
Andem
Free Thinker
Avatar
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

Exactly, Wulf. If I submitted an article that easy to shoot down, it would bounce like a superball. Rightfully so, too.

I didn't post this article because I agree with it. It's just thought provoking in a weird way. It is ofcourse propaganda in it's purest form.

Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

It's also why US citizens often have such an uninformed view of Canada and the rest of the world. If it was just a US problem, it would be bad enough. It isn't just a US problem though, it's world-wide.

A really troubling trend lately is attempts by the far right to try to denigrate any source that does not push their agenda. Here they try to shut down the CBC. In the US they go after The Nation (the oldest new magazine in that country, BTW). They would like to denigrate the internet too, because it allows people an outlet to question governments. Project for a New American Century (the puppet masters behind Bush) has said that the internet should be censored.

It's too bad they would push to censor the Internet. Although I could see the day come. China censors the Internet very much so. What makes you think the USA wouldn't censor it?

Has anyone read about the 'convergence theory'? It basically describes how "socialist"(marx-style governments) and capitalist societies are growing very much alike to a point they will both be very much the same. IE. The USSR would become like the USA and the USA would become like the USSR.
 
Reverend Blair
#7
I've read enough of your other posts to know that you don't support these kind of things, Andem. It's important to discuss things like this though because we are inundated with it and it kind of wears people into believing it. Especially because so little else is available.

Convergence theory isn't really anything that new. Karl Marx saw unfettered capitalism as a step on the way to pure communism because capitalism would eventually lead to one or two companies controlling everything at which point the people would rise up and demand that the government take over.

I'm not a huge fan of the world Marx predicted and thought would be idyllic. I find it very odd that those who claim to oppose him most seem to be working over-time to make his predictions come true though.
 
Andem
Free Thinker
Avatar
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

I've read enough of your other posts to know that you don't support these kind of things, Andem. It's important to discuss things like this though because we are inundated with it and it kind of wears people into believing it. Especially because so little else is available.

Convergence theory isn't really anything that new. Karl Marx saw unfettered capitalism as a step on the way to pure communism because capitalism would eventually lead to one or two companies controlling everything at which point the people would rise up and demand that the government take over.

I'm not a huge fan of the world Marx predicted and thought would be idyllic. I find it very odd that those who claim to oppose him most seem to be working over-time to make his predictions come true though.

It's very true, unfortunately, that the road we're going down is very much as Marx predicted. What can we as Canadians do about it? We shouldn't let American capitalism get out of hand HERE, as it has done down there.

The first step in protecting Canadians is abolishing NAFTA, which would solve most of our problems of sellout in the future. We MUST protect our energy, our water, our people and our society. Maybe Canada is the perfect balance between socialism and capitalism. But we'll never know if the International corporations continue to buy us out.
 
Cyberm4n
Liberal
Avatar
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Andem

It's very true, unfortunately, that the road we're going down is very much as Marx predicted. What can we as Canadians do about it? We shouldn't let American capitalism get out of hand HERE, as it has done down there.

The first step in protecting Canadians is abolishing NAFTA, which would solve most of our problems of sellout in the future. We MUST protect our energy, our water, our people and our society. Maybe Canada is the perfect balance between socialism and capitalism. But we'll never know if the International corporations continue to buy us out.

thats a great point, andem. I believe Canadians should get our government to get rid of nafta maybe in favor of a different trade agreement which would allow canada to keep its own oil and not have to give it to the americans. we have to have something in place of nafta or else we would see a drop in our economy.
 
Reverend Blair
#10
If you read some of Mel Hurtig's stuff, it becomes apparent that the growth and economic boom usally attributed to NAFTA would have occured anyway. Stepping out of NAFTA does not negate the US need for our resources or our finished products.

It is far more than just NAFTA though. If you look at what is happening to our environment because of strip-mining, oil wells, clear cut logging and so on, it is apparent that we have become a country all to willing to destroy ourselves for a few quick bucks.

We need a government that realizes that there is far more to life than money.
 
MapleLeafMerc
Avatar
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

First of all, anything coming out of the Fraser Institute is pretty suspect. They have a well-earned reputation for being far right and willing to give up sovereignty for money.

Can you offer ANY logic to back this up, Rev? Or is it simply their insistence on using facts to present their arguments that has you all twisted around?

BTW— facts are NOT polemics written by no-name left wingers on no-name websites.
 
Reverend Blair
#12
Just look at what they promote, little buddy. Look at their suggested policies, look at their membership, look at their actions.

While we're talking about truth, maybe you could tell me who you are?
 
MapleLeafMerc
Avatar
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

Just look at what they promote, little buddy. Look at their suggested policies, look at their membership, look at their actions.

While we're talking about truth, maybe you could tell me who you are?

I'm quite certain I know more about the Fraser Institute and its policies than you do, Reverend. I've been a member for 15 years.

Truth? Beyond "Reverend Blair", which may or may not mean you're a minister, what have you told me about yourself?
 
Reverend Blair
#14
Just a guy from Winnipeg, Merc. One that's really fed up with being told that we have to sell our souls to men in over-priced suits to be successful. If you want to know more, check out --. You can see what I look like there, and discover my full name.

Is there a place where we can discover the same about you?

Can you explain to me why your "think" tank is trying to further degrade Canada's sovereignty? Also, can you explain why that same group hates public auto insurance so much? While we're at it, maybe you can explain why you promote the wants of rich corporations over the needs of average citizens in a democracy?
 
MapleLeafMerc
Avatar
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

Just a guy from Winnipeg, Merc. One that's really fed up with being told that we have to sell our souls to men in over-priced suits to be successful. If you want to know more, check out --. You can see what I look like there, and discover my full name.

Is there a place where we can discover the same about you?

Can you explain to me why your "think" tank is trying to further degrade Canada's sovereignty? Also, can you explain why that same group hates public auto insurance so much? While we're at it, maybe you can explain why you promote the wants of rich corporations over the needs of average citizens in a democracy?

The Fraser Institute is made up of very patriotic Canadians who want Canada to succeed so that all Canadians may see their standard of living rise. Tearing up NAFTA and putting up trade barriers will not make that happen. The big corporations that many here seem to dislike provide jobs for Canadians. If you chase them out, how do you explain to the now-jobless employees that it's for the good of the country?

I am a partner in a small family business that imports industrial tools and supplies (mostly US) and sells them to distributors across the country. The one group of big businesses I do have a problem with is the banks. They are protected from competition by government regulations, and they make it very difficult for many small businesses to operate. They do a fine job of extracting service fees from small customers and transferring these to shareholders.
 
Reverend Blair
#16
The Fraser Institute continually puts the wants and needs of corpoations anhead of the wants and needs of people. They give no consideration to Canadian institutions, constantly attack publicly-owned crown corporations, and don't care about Canadian sovereignty.

They also like to push the idea that NAFTA, a highly flawed trade agreement, is the only kind of trade agreement possible for Canada to have with the US, that we have no power in the relationship. That simply is not true. While we want access to the American market, the Americans require our raw materials and our finished goods.
 
WulF-Krigan
Avatar
#17
On NAFTA...

The US is politically similar to a child with a handgun. Take away what it wants and expect a tantrum. If Canada backs out of NAFTA then the US will be reluctant to engage in a new agreement...for a time. Then they will go back to the table. Wars are not just military efforts...all war is based on the economy of a body -first-, the military is second.
Can NAFTA be re-negotiated? Yes. Should it? Yes.
I'm an american, a NAFTA change would effect me and make my life a little harder...but my well being isn't why things should be done. It's called suffering for the greater good.

Frazier Institute...

My issue was with the way the "facts" were presented. If you look at the number of people who go to hospitals, and the number of people who die in hospitals...statistically speaking hospitals could be said to -kill- people. It isn't until you add intervening variables to the equation (in this case sickness) that you get the full picture. The article above left out the interviening variables and left a black and white correlation that proves -nothing-.

Media...

Evil. But serriously something needs to be done about this.

Standard of living...

No standard of living goes up without someone else's going down. The world is a bundle of limited resources. You can only give to one area at the expense of another. So for Canada to "sell out" to US corperations to get more money, they are also adding to the problem that is impoverishing so many other nations in the world. But that's the choice your nation needs to make...try to claw to the top and exploit others, or take a principled stance and risk exploitation.
 
Anonymous
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by WulF-Krigan

No standard of living goes up without someone else's going down. The world is a bundle of limited resources.

I can't agree, Wulf. If I invent a product that people buy and I become richer, how does that impoverish anyone?

World resources are limited only in the sense that there is only one earth. The fact is that projected reserves of most non-renewable resources, like oil, are greater now than 30 years ago. The tar sands are an excellent example of this. They were not a viable source of energy until the technology to extract oil from them was developed.
 
MapleLeafMerc
#19
That is my post above; I forgot I wasn't logged in. Sorry.
 
Andem
Free Thinker
Avatar
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Anonymous

Quote: Originally Posted by WulF-Krigan

No standard of living goes up without someone else's going down. The world is a bundle of limited resources.

I can't agree, Wulf. If I invent a product that people buy and I become richer, how does that impoverish anyone?

World resources are limited only in the sense that there is only one earth. The fact is that projected reserves of most non-renewable resources, like oil, are greater now than 30 years ago. The tar sands are an excellent example of this. They were not a viable source of energy until the technology to extract oil from them was developed.


I agree with you, MapleLeafMerc, on this one. I don't think if people get richer, others get poorer. The times when this happens is when the "rich" are profiting from the "poor". But if someone is profiting from pure success, then it's not necessary to say the poor and getting poorer just because someone is getting richer.
 
WulF-Krigan
#21
Andem,
Could you please explain to me what you mean by "pure success"?
 
Andem
Free Thinker
Avatar
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by WulF-Krigan

Andem,
Could you please explain to me what you mean by "pure success"?

Sorry for the confusion. By pure success, I mean successful by being successful. Not by having certain unfair advantages. Monopolies are not necessarily rich because they are successful, they are rich because they have an unfair advantage.
 
Reverend Blair
#23
Unfortunately, the system we have now does not work fairly. The rich are very much profitting from the poor. That's why we are suffering wage erosion and an ever-widening gap between rich and poor.

At the same time that is happening, it is becoming ever harder for the poor to rise in the class system. They cannot afford the education to do so. In a world that is demanding ever more education, that is a serious problem. The right has consistently insisted on a market-based post-secondary education system though.

At the same they've been doing that they have eroded the teaching of soft (not job-related) skills in secondary schools and heavily criticised universities and intellectuals for their insistence on deeper thinking.

In essence, the far right has been promoting the dumbing down of society, encouraging people not to think, and insisting that everything has a cash value. The far right, as represented by Stephen Harper, Mike Harris, and Ralph Klein and their ilk in Canada is basically telling us to shut up and make them money, even while our own wages are eroded and our quality of life shrinks.
 
grimy
#24
That you would post such unsupported drivel is not new. That you believe it is not new.

How about supporting it with something other than conjecture, wishful thinking, delusions and "I hope it's true I hope it's true"? Any chance of that?

Quote:

The Fraser Institute continually puts the wants and needs of corpoations anhead of the wants and needs of people. They give no consideration to Canadian institutions, constantly attack publicly-owned crown corporations, and don't care about Canadian sovereignty.

Pity they don't care about Canadian sovereignty isn't it. Part of the mandate is it? Or do they just have sufficient other concerns? What do you think? Take a look at this, you as an avowed socialist and NDP supporter should have more faith in your fellow man or whatever.

The leaders? on the BoD of this august centre for policy alternatives:

Judy Rebick, strident hard left feminist and unionist forever and a voice only the deaf can appreciate.

James Stafford, chief economist with the CAW whose mission in life is to prove that free trade is a bad thing except when it comes to the auto industry.

Hugh MacKenzie, once an enforcer for Steelworkers and later Minister of Labour Bob Rae's expensive experience at governing. He single handidly drove thousands of businesses out of Ontario with draconian laws.

So you see, it's not all doom and gloom as you would have us believe. Is it?[/quote]
 
Reverend Blair
#25
Nice attack there, Grimy. Went for the personal, then tried to back it up by accusing me of what you were doing. Go play in the traffic.
 
WulF-Krigan
Avatar
#26
Leaders upon becoming leaders have an amazing ability to gain self interest once thier position of power is secured. Look at the US's democratic party. A bunch of "liberals" who are more moderates than anything else...hell, some are conservatives (ala Mr. Liberman).

Back to the issue of economics...

Pure Success...I guess I would argue this doesn't often exist. And if your company makes millions I can almost garauntee it doesn't exist. Hell, I make the mid-fives for income and -I- exploit people. Not because I need to, but because most people don't realise I am exploiting them.

A landlord does not reveal his mortgage to his tenants. He sets thier rent to profit off them. How do you judge what a "fair" profit is? And when does it go from a fair profit to exploitation?

The middle class is shrinking in America. It sucks. Education is getting hammered. That sucks too. A dumb passive population sucks...unless you are rich.

I guess my outlook is I'll adapt. If I have to get rich to avoid being exploited...and that means exploiting others...so be it. At worst, it's the American way.
 
Andem
Free Thinker
Avatar
#27
I think I'll stand by my word. There is fair success and there's unfair success. Monopolies have it unfairly while non-monopolies have it fair.

Sure a landlord will make a profit from his tenants. It's the only thing that makes sense. Why would you have people in a house that you own if they will in all likelyhood cost you some money?

Rich get richer, poor get poorer. It's been that way since the US's conception. It is, however, like that in much of the world. Especially the places which have adopted "american-style" "democracy". LOL.

I guess I'll use another example, the first of which comes to my mind. Since I'm looking at the Google Toolbar on my desktop, i'll use them.

Google has become successful because they developed an extremely helpful tool everyone uses. Because their tool was so helpful, they became partnered with Yahoo!

MSN wants to take some marketshare from Google with the new search engine they are allegedly developing. But how fair would it be if MSN (which is microsoft) plastered new windows versions with their own search toolbar and basically forced the average user (who doesnt know much about computers) to use MSN's system?

They would be using their unfair advantage to gain additional unfair advantages not only in it's niche, but in other markets as well.


If you don't buy the google example, let's look at Time Warner (AKA AOL Time Warner, Warner Bros, Time, Time Warner, etc.). They cover so many markets it's not funny. They have been allowed to merge with other equally-as-large corporations to increase their reach across markets and the globe.


Who was it that said we're following Karl Marx` predictions?

These corporations will just get larger and larger until it's impossible to compete. Every year it gets harder for startups.
 
WulF-Krigan
Avatar
#28
Google and Time Warner are luxories...in a luxory based ecology I see what you mean.

But a luxory based economy (1st world) is founded by taking advantage of survival economies (3rd world). In the proverbial trade of beads for land and all that. But I guess someone's always suffering.
 
Andem
Free Thinker
Avatar
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by WulF-Krigan

Google and Time Warner are luxories...in a luxory based ecology I see what you mean.

But a luxory based economy (1st world) is founded by taking advantage of survival economies (3rd world). In the proverbial trade of beads for land and all that. But I guess someone's always suffering.

Very true Wulf. Very true.

What we're seeing here is not only exploitation of third world countries, but exploitation of the people in the most obvious of ways.
 
MapleLeafMerc
Avatar
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Andem

Quote: Originally Posted by WulF-Krigan

Google and Time Warner are luxories...in a luxory based ecology I see what you mean.

But a luxory based economy (1st world) is founded by taking advantage of survival economies (3rd world). In the proverbial trade of beads for land and all that. But I guess someone's always suffering.

Very true Wulf. Very true.

What we're seeing here is not only exploitation of third world countries, but exploitation of the people in the most obvious of ways.

 

Similar Threads

309
American Ignorance About Canada
by peapod | Jun 26th, 2011
36
Canada, going down American Drains
by darkbeaver | Apr 26th, 2007
no new posts