How Canada was populated, and depopulated

Americans were the first major population group to settle permanently in Canada in more than token numbers, and they dominated Canada’s population for six decades.  From the 1770s until the 1830s, the majority of English-speaking Canadians were U.S.-born…

Over the preceding decades, most ambitious and inventive immigrants to Canada had quickly departed for the United States.  The colonies were left with a self-selected group who didn’t want much from life: an agrarian, very religious, austere population of peasants and labourers who tended to see change and growth as a threat rather than an opportunity and a consumer economy as generally sinful excess.

That is from Doug Saunders, Maximum Canada: Toward a Country of 100 Million, in addition to its positive programme this is also a useful book for understanding Canadian history.

Comments

"an agrarian, very religious, austere population of peasants and labourers who tended to see change and growth as a threat rather than an opportunity and a consumer economy as generally sinful excess."

Hosers, eh?

It’s why they drive around with square tires.

Respond

Add Comment

Toronto the Good.

Respond

Add Comment

Canada's first gaggle of NIMBY.

https://www.investinontario.com/spotlights/toronto-adds-more-tech-jobs-seattle-bay-area-and-washington-dc-combined

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-24/toronto-beats-bay-area-in-new-tech-jobs-and-new-york-in-talent

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Canada-opens-doors-to-Asian-tech-talent-fleeing-Trump-s-US

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Canada developed some spectacularly enterprising businessmen such as James J. Hill, typically of Scottish origin.

Scots were seen as the world's best businessmen around 1900. For example, Mark Twain's long article on Jews that he wrote after spending 18 months in highly Jewish Vienna rated the Jews as the second best businessmen in the world, but behind the Scots."

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1898twain-jews.asp

"The Jews are harried and obstructed in Austria and Germany, and lately in France; but England and America give them an open field and yet survive. Scotland offers them an unembarrassed field too, but there are not many takers. There are a few Jews in Glasgow, and one in Aberdeen; but that is because they can't earn enough to get away. The Scotch pay themselves that compliment, but it is authentic."

But James J. Hill fits exactly into Saunders' thesis: the go-getters from Canada make their biggest fame and fortune in the US. Hill died and was buried in Minnesota.

Alex Trebek, Steve Nash, William Shatner: who (except for Canadians) would have even heard of those people if they'd stayed in Canada? Would Myron Scholes and Robert Mundell have won Nobel prizes if they'd stayed ? Artists and writers such as Margaret Atwood and Alice Munro can remain in Canada given the portable nature of a writing career, OTOH Saul Bellow's career would likely have been diminished if he'd stayed in Canada.

But I don't know if Saunders is correct to connect this phenomenon to national character. I see the same pattern with say Portland OR and Los Angeles. Portland produces some talented musicians, tech entrepreneurs, scientists, etc. but if they want to make achievements that will be recognized nationally, with just a few exceptions they have to move to place such as LA.

I suppose Canada is somewhat unique in that its talented people can move to the US to pursue their careers almost as easily as a Portlander can move to LA. Mexicans face language barriers.

Don't forget the biggest of them all. Raymond Burr.
Not to forget George St. Pierre.
Or Oscar Peterson.
Not to mention Lennox Lewis.
It's the cold weather that does it.

Not to forget KD Lang.
Or Leonard Cohen.

Let's face it. All of us Canadians deserve to be superstars.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The biggest of them all is Justin Bieber. Hands down!

I thought he was a bit scrawny.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

if we are going to list Canadian talent that came south, we have to mention the comedians from the SCTV era.

The Kids in the Hall? I used to enjoy that show, back in the day.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

So Steve, in your mind what has happened since? We don't hear nearly as much about Scottish business prowess these days as we do other groups.

The Melancholy caught up with us.

We are always happier with something to bitch about

Respond

Add Comment

Scrooge McDuck is a very successful Scotsman. Groundskeeper Willie not so much.

Ach away and shite

Willie is a Great Man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USaQyLyPO6E

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Scottish-Canadians were so entrepreneurial they apparently even invented buffets in Las Vegas: 'Canadian entrepreneur Herb McDonald is credited with launching the first 24-hour all-you-can-eat buffet, called the Buckaroo Buffet, in the 1940s in Las Vegas. A flyer advertising the restaurant boasts that for only one dollar, a patron can eat "every possible variety of hot and cold entrees to appease the howling coyote in your innards". McDonald's model was quickly replicated up and down Sunset Strip as every hotel and casino strove to offer a buffet to tourists.'

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53410931

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Do Acadians count as Canadians or as Americans?

"Where, one might ask, is ‘Acadie’ today? As a French colony it ceased to exist in 1713, but its spirit lives on and thrives in Nova Scotia’s Acadian French population.

Today’s Acadians are descended from the first European settlers in Nova Scotia. Second only to the Mi’kmaq they have the deepest roots of any founding culture in the province. French colonists first arrived in 1603, but early attempts at permanent settlement did not last. Beginning in 1632, however, and continuing for 75 years, a small but steady stream of immigrants arrived from France, coming mostly from the western provinces of Aunis, Saintonge and Poitou.
(snip)
This distinct identity was reinforced when mainland Acadia became British in 1713. The Acadians refused to pledge full allegiance to the King of England and chose instead to claim neutrality, both in peacetime and in any new war which might erupt.

This went unchallenged for the next thirty years, during which time the population prospered and grew, from approximately 2,700 in 1713 to an estimated 13,000 in 1744, when war broke out again. Over the next decade most Acadians remained neutral, but as war escalated, the British in Nova Scotia lost patience.

Heavily outnumbered by the Roman Catholic Acadians in their midst, they decided to round up and deport the entire French population. This event, known as the Expulsion of the Acadians began in 1755 and continued intermittently for several years.

More than 6,000 men, women and children were carried away in British vessels and dispersed among various American colonies — Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. Many eventually found their way south to the French colony of Louisiana, where their numerous descendants are known today as ‘Cajuns’.

Up to a quarter of the population escaped into French territory – Ile Saint-Jean (Prince Edward Island), Ile Royale (Cape Breton) or across the border into present-day New Brunswick and on to Quebec. A few fled deep into the Nova Scotia woods and survived there until the war ended. Approximately 3,000 were rounded up in Ile Royale and Ile Saint-Jean and deported to France after the British captured Louisbourg in 1758.

After war ended in 1763, a trickle of Acadian families slowly returned from the American colonies and France to Nova Scotia, where they joined families that had escaped deportation and remained in the colony. By the early 1770s they numbered about 1,600. Their homes had been burnt and their farmlands given to the New England Planters, so they were forced to start over in more isolated, less hospitable areas of the province." archives.novascotia.ca/genealogy/acadians

Respond

Add Comment

History of man. Push the unselected north to the ice line, natural selection and they return south smarter than before/.

Where the Acadians were forced south, not north.

yeah, south into the swamps of Louisiana.

Matt's thesis is better expressed as: push the economically and socially marginal into the physical margins (aka into the frontiers)

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I'm guessing the War of 1812 probably had more to do with this trend than the character traits of the immigrants that stayed and left.

From Wikipedia "After the war, pro-British leaders in Upper Canada demonstrated a strong hostility to American influences, including republicanism, which shaped its policies. Immigration from the U.S. was discouraged, and favour was shown to the Anglican Church as opposed to the more Americanized Methodist Church."

Respond

Add Comment

Having defeated the invaders, Canada was finally able to follow its own destiny without fear of American encroachment.

Apart from the silly claims of those in Oregon country, insisting that the U.S. stretched up to the 54 Parallel, a claim rejected in the 1846 Oregon Treaty. The U.S., busy taking over a chunk of Mexico between 1846-1848, was smart enough to not get involved in a two front war.

The War of 1812 was an American triumph. Canada managed to keep it's territory intact. The US mean while defeated the Spanish in Pensacola, Florida and the British backed American Indians around the Great Lakes.

At the end of the War there was no foreign power with the will to halt American expansion. Spain agreed to give up claims on the rest of Florida within a decade of the end of the war and the US started forming states in the Great Lakes region solidifying it's claims. The US started rapidly adding states. Indiana in 1816, Mississippi in 1817 (with Alabama being carved off as an independent territory), Illinois & Alabama in 1819, Maine in 1820, Missouri in 182.

Furthermore, the Treaty of Ghent gave the US official access to Oregon and the 49 degree border effectively gave a small chunk of land (the top half of North Dakota) and secured the formerly disputed border.

If you call having you plans of taking over Canada squashed and your capital burnt a victory then sure.

You're right, it didn't turn out well for the US at all. Going to war with the strongest naval Super power of the day, the British Empire, as it defeated it's arch rival the French. And at the end of the day, Britain conceded it's claims on the Great Lakes region and effectively all land south of the 49th parallel, agreed to stop impressing US sailors, boarding US ships and to allow US merchants access to Continental ports. Pretty much agreeing to resolve all the issues on US terms. Yep, it was clearly a disaster for the US. /sarcasm

Your a fantasist and/or making things up.

Britain had no serious claims on the Great Lakes region. That had been settled in the revolution.

And both sides settled on the 49th parallel as both claimed land either side of it.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Who is to say this is "not much?"

"the colonies were left with a self-selected group who didn’t want much from life: an agrarian, very religious, austere population of peasants and labourers...."

Suppose religion is important to you, or relations with neighbors, a life of earnest useful work and so on. And one man's "austere" is another's rejection of silly materialism.

Who had the more fulfilling life?

Definitely not the ones who made it illegal to listen to too much foreign music on the radio.

Used to be against CanCon (Canadian Content Regulations) until I noticed how many great entertainment successes were were all of a sudden produced. Around Anne Murray's time, as I recall.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

i'd rather have the silly materialism than the silly collective delusions. stuff beats cults.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

On a fishing trip to North Hatley, Eastern Townships, I came across the unusual family name of a co-employee whose homestead was on the site of a NJ Revolutionary War locale. " Yes, he said, it was a Loyalist ancestor who moved to Canada."
North Hatley, Georgeville, Brompton and many other English towns in Quebec, French not spoken nor welcome for decades.

"Like the Puritan families in New England, the Loyalists set the tone of the Eastern Townships' development. Loyalists provided the one positive political idea among the early settlers. In a sense, the Eastern Townships may be recorded as the outstanding achievement of the Loyalists in the province, and the Loyalist tradition is still preserved in local historical societies, and in Township branches of the United Empire Loyalist Association."
http://uelac.org/education/WesternResource/304-QB.pdf Settlement in Quebec

“North Hatley, Georgeville, Brompton and many other English towns in Quebec, French not spoken nor welcome for decades.“

Oh please! Just spent the weekend there (Georgeville and North Hatley). There are still some English-only speakers, but they are a definitely a minority.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Who was responsible for losing Canada? Starting with the invasion of Canada by Patriot forces led by Benedict Arnold on December 31, 1775, right through to the invasion of Canada by U.S. forces led by Brigadier General William Hull on July 12, 1812, the United States' closest ally was the target for U.S. expansion, but all failing to subjugate the mighty Canadians. Didn't Trump threaten to annex Canada?

Why wouldn't the US annex Canada? They're not using it.

It's not even a separate country at this point.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"the United States' closest ally was the target for U.S. expansion,"

That would be the French, and the French sold Louisiana to the US in 1803. During the War, the US was fighting on 4 fronts, naval blockades to the East from the indomitable British navy, British regulars and militia to the north, the British armed American Indians to the West, and British raiders and the Spanish to the South.

The US never stood a chance against the British navy to the East and was repulsed by the British to the North. The US defeated the American Indians to the West, capturing and securing the Great Lakes region, defeated the British raiders to the south, repulsing them at New Orleans and defeated the Spanish at Pensacola, capturing the Florida panhandle region and making the long term Spanish claims on Florida untenable.

Seriously Spain only got involved at the very end. And during almost all the war the UK was fighting for its life in Europe against Napoleonic France, yet still defeated the US in most battles. The whole war was a cynical land by the USA that blew up in its face. But through luck, demographics, and good diplomacy the USA achieved its goals in the end anyway.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Trump did NOT want to annex Canada. He wanted Greenland.

That said, you'd think Canada would appeal more to Trump. Canadian strip club and escort service sectors are top notch - far superior** than their US counterparts. Given Trump's various life choices, Canada over Greenland is a no-brainer.

**Full disclosure: I have second-hand and online knowledge of Canadian excellence in these two sectors. I'm not an expert.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I would not say that it is a positive programme, except insofar as it is advocating a concrete goal. The 100 million would be located in a narrow band close to the US border and have a preference for existing cities like Vancouver. I have not read the book, but talking about people without discussing sourcing is meaningless. Overall, it's a bad deal for existing Canadians, for the environment, for liberalism (the real kind) and anything else people care about. The Canucks are better off increasing birthrates and aiming for stabilization.

What your comment suggests is that the invasions of Canada by the U.S. didn't fail, they succeeded by other means.

Can you please elaborate?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Given rising global temperatures, Canada may well become a 100 million plus superpower as much more of the frozen north becomes habitable while the southwestern US becomes as comfortable to live in as inland Saudi Arabia.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/could-global-warming-turn-canada-into-a-superpower-1.556373

I was thinking the same. I wonder what will come of the natural character when folks from the United States start migrating there? A part of me hopes that they enforce some sort of radical assimilationist policies to force all us Yankees to adopt Canadian-nice. LOL.
Kidding. Mostly.

Respond

Add Comment

Our peaceful neighbors to the North have a forgotten slice of history - the Quebec sovereignty movement started in the 1960s, supported by Front de liberation du Quebec described as a "separatist, Marxist Leninist terrorist and paramilitary group in Quebec." Between 1963 and 1970 they were responsible for hundreds of bombings, post office boxes to the Montreal Stock Exchange, kidnappings of government officials, many deaths and injuries. The Wiki page is an interesting read not only for facts about forgotten history but also for descriptions of the devolution of terrorist groups and alleged KGB involvement including KGB disinformation plan to discredit the CIA (which WIKI says is still mistakenly accepted by some). Imagine a Russian satellite on our Northern border.

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_lib%C3%A9ration_du_Qu%C3%A9bec

I am an amused Quebecker noting that we have much more to fear with Russian sympathizers south of the border.

Fear not, Jean: Biden isn't going to win. You can rest easy.

Respond

Add Comment

Didn't BLM protests happen in Toronto and Ottawa (maybe more cities), too?

Sure. In all major cities as far as I am aware.

Other minority groups that attention as well, in Canada: the Natives, the brown skinned asians, and the 'failed' men to name a few.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I've been wondering why Canada seems fairly passive as the US has been sharpening it's elbows over the potential for a Northwest passage after all.

If this was bordering the US, we'd already have it bristling with carrier groups.

You realize the U.S. ice breaking fleet is at roughly the same level as the U.S. pandemic response.

This is a classic prior post, both irrelevant and wrong. There's no connection between the two issues. Furthermore, the US pandemic response is in the trillions per year, whereas the US Ice breaking fleet amounts to two ships. The Defense department did agree last year to spend another $750 million over the next 5 years on an additional 3 ships.

And the Canadian Paul Revere is a retiree. "Boats have been stopping at marinas, sometimes for days, says group of retirees who are tracking them through Marine Traffic website

A group of retired B.C. boaters have tracked what they believe are American pleasure craft into Canadian waters that are violating restrictions put in place because of the global COVID-19 pandemic.

The vessels — estimated to be as many as 100 in the past month — are stopping at marinas, sometimes for days, says George Creek, one of the retired boaters and a member of the Council of B.C. Yacht Clubs.

Much of the vessel traffic is coming from Washington state, particularly concerning because the state has a high rate of virus infection, said Creek." theprovince.com/news/local-news

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Didn't it hit over 100 degrees in Siberia last month? If the arctic bakes like a cake, there is no safe place to hide.

Global warming is mostly concentrated in northern regions. So expect a lot of warming in the polar regions and not nearly as much the further south you go. Furthermore, the largest changes will be in winter nights with a lesser effect to summer days.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

meanwhile
some of the smarter democrats start to ponder the political repercussions of prolonged rioting and a violent crime wave
in the months leading up to the election

the washington fraught-bots

Respond

Add Comment

The article "Frozen Englishmen in the Canadain Prairies!" is an entertainging read about London's attempts to homestead Alberta and Saskatchewan and rid themselves of the unlanded:

https://www.amazon.ca/Rise-Incomplete-Fall-Contemporary-Legend/dp/B06VYC25MN

Also, Wallace Stegner's "Genesis" from Wolf Willow.

Respond

Add Comment

Shame that the idea of having Canada outright join the US is not a common one. Would've solved the problem of trying to cram more and more people into the narrow livable band along the US border.

The concept of D.C. statehood is controversial enough. I don't think the Canadians would be too keen on the idea but this would end the Republican Party as we know it. The Democrats would look more like a European social democratic party while the Republicans would resemble David Frum.

"end the Republican Party as we know it"

Only taking the western provinces would push the GOP to the left but not fatally.

Its Ontario and Quebec which are the real leftist parts of Canada. Don't take them.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

There is little or no benefit to either party for Canada to join the United States. What might benefit Anglophone Canada would be a velvet divorce from Quebec; a proper bill of rights as opposed to a trudeaupian pustule; stripping the judiciary of its capacity to impose public policies elite lawyers fancy but ordinary people do not; an amendment to provincial boundaries and function; an amendment to the modes of selection and to the function of the upper chambers of the legislatures and to the heads of state; and a restrictive immigration policy conjoined to a rejiggering of the tax code to promote fecundity.

"There is little or no benefit to either party for Canada to join the United States."

Not intact but encouraging Quebec independence and annexing the western provinces would be. Few people but much resources.

Let Ontario and the Maritime provinces constitute Canada.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I happen to know the law here in Cananananadada. And I happen to know that's it's not rape if it's dead!

Respond

Add Comment

Canada is a very interesting country. Gorbachev's supporter Yakovlev used to be a Soveit ambassador to Canada. Armenia used to be a Soviet republic before achieving at last its hard-won freedom. Armenia is now under attack by Azerbaijan's radical Islamic regime. Will we, Americans, stand aside while our Armenians allies fight for their lifes and freedom? I hope not!

Azerbaijan has a post-Soviet patrimonial regime. It's about as radical-islamist as the Somozas were.

I think it is clear they hate Armenian Chistians and want to destroy and/or ensalve them.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

A judge's family got shot only four days after she was assigned the Epstein case. This whole thing is nuts. I'm beginning to believe that there is a conspiracy here.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8539683/Federal-judges-son-shot-dead-husband-wounded-attack-man-dressed-FedEx-driver.html

Respond

Add Comment

And the black flies, the little black flies
Always the black fly, no matter where you go
I'll die with the black fly a-picking my bones
In North On-tar-i-o-i-o, in North On-tar-i-o

It's Bud the Spud
from the bright red mud,
going down the highway smiling.
The spuds are big
on the back of Bud's rig
They're from Prince Edward Island.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

100m people is not practical. Just looking at Toronto:1) our supply of housing is falling behind it's current population growth rate. 2) We have no plans to build more highways or railways, and 3) mass transit is near capacity and takes a long time to improve. In short, we barely have enough infrastructure and housing for our current trend.

Canada can hit 60 million but the cost will be Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver all resembling Mexico City.

Respond

Add Comment

Getting many more people, especially from countries good at infrastructure like China, would increase the pressure on the government to build. 100M people is the best way to ensure Canada will have the will to house and transport them.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

pikes peak straussian?
the newwoketimes is standing behind the russia hoax that is based on deliberate misinformation from the fbi.
its a culty cult.
the washington wreckoneers

Respond

Add Comment

Wow. You'd almost think that there were not entire Nations of Peoples here before the violent enactment of the colonial settler nation-states - on both sides of the arbitrary "border."

Terra nullius is a myth, but here we are in 2020 still applauding the genius of Europeans in bringing these great lands to "civilization."

And look where we are. wow.

"entire Nations of Peoples"

North America is by far the richest continent. A couple million scattered subsistence farmers and hunter gathers who had advanced little in 5000 years were wasting its potential.

"And look where we are. wow."

The Nations of Peoples would probably still be subsistence farmers and hunter gathers, dying at 50. They hadn't advanced for millennia, 500 years is nothing.

The "subsistence farmers" (actually the world's greatest agronomists) you denigrate developed most of the food you eat today. Some of them lived in cities bigger than any in Europe.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Over the preceding decades, most ambitious and inventive immigrants to Canada had quickly departed for the United States. The colonies were left with a self-selected group who didn’t want much from life: an agrarian, very religious, austere population of peasants and labourers who tended to see change and growth as a threat rather than an opportunity and a consumer economy as generally sinful excess.

Blah blah blah.

See the latest iteration of the Maddison Project. Canada's per capita product has since 1840 varied between 62% and 97% of that of the United States. The median ratio is 78%. It has had a somewhat different product mix (more dependent on agricultural and mineral exports), but it hasn't been qualitatively different in regard to it's general level of affluence. (Britain's per capita product in that time has varied between 57% and 106% of ours, with a median ratio of 77%). The degree to which the two populations were inclined and able to produce goods and services may be the least salient difference between them.

Of course, both are currently suffering under the boot of an elite of officious ninnies intent on a population replacement project.

Respond

Add Comment

Underpopulated wth.

Canada's main attributes are it's wild open spaces and more laid back vibe. Why they would want to spoil it by importing 100 million people and becoming a frozen version of the USA is beyond me.

There is something distinct about the population mix, says I, rural English Thatcher shopkeepers, French Canadian doers, Arcadians by some name, established PEI island folk, Montreal very high IQ elite, Jewish and non, a few special custom from France, I don't know the Western farmers from Eastern Europe nor the Selected Asians in Vancouver. I sense a live and let live independence.

Respond

Add Comment

Because more people means more serfs on the tax farm to pay pensions.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The current birth rate for Canada in 2020 is 10.30 births per 1000 people, for the USA 11.99.

Human Development Index value and rank
Canada: 0.992, 13
USA: 0.92, 15

Life expectancy at birth
Canada: 82.3
USA: 78.9

Best Countries Rankings
Canada: 2
USA: 7

Rule of Law Index Rankings
Canada: 9
USA: 20

Corruption Perceptions Index Rankings
Canada: 12
USA: 23

Median per Capita Income
Canada: $15,181
USA: $15,480

PISA Rankings Math, Science, Reading
Canada: 12, 9, 6
USA: 38, 19, 14

So, unsurprisingly, “an agrarian, very religious, austere population of peasants and labourers who tended to see change and growth as a threat rather than an opportunity and a consumer economy as generally sinful excess” outperforms the USA in everything except median income, and even that is more or less equivalent.

Peasants over elites for the win.

Canada is less affluent than the United States. Persistently so.

Not really. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?locations=CA-US

And the slim margin held by the USA can be accounted for by much higher national debt per capita. Canada ($46,035) occupied the sixth position in global rankings for debt per capita. The United States with the highest global national debt of $23.2 trillion, at that time, had a $70,180 debt per person

"And the slim margin held by the USA "

That's not a slim margin. It's a 29% difference in income per year. For reference Slovenia is 29% poorer than Canada.

GDP per PPP
US = $63K
Canada $49K
Slovenia $38K

The difference in debt is less than 2 years difference in income.

At the World Bank link above, for 2019, the constant dollar GDP per capita is $51,589 for Canada and $55,809 for the USA, is less than 8 percent difference.

And I think most people would take an 8% pay cut to live in a safer less crowded society

Out of curiosity I looked up Canada's homicide rate. It's about 1.7 per 100,000 while in the US it's about 5.3. But Australia has dropped down to 0.8 per 100,000. It's like we're not even trying to kill each other anymore. We're getting embarrassingly close to Japan's 0.3. If we don't turn this around soon we're going to get accused of being civilized.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I must say that the comments section seems unusually civil in this thread...
Heard the author interviewed on Ideas/CBC a while back.
I couldn’t get past the “why”.
Not a big growther, so I wasn’t sympathetic, but even so it sounded like a science project he had to do for school, not a real heartfelt proposal to blow the doors open for business.
I felt unconvinced and chose not to buy the book.

Respond

Add Comment

"token" is doing a lot of work here. What of the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of indigenous people? See Thornton, Russell (2000). "Population history of Native North Americans". In Michael R. Haines;

Respond

Add Comment

I'm surprised to see Canada's population growth rate is lower than Australia's at the moment. Our "populate or perish" politicians have decided to focus on the "perish" part, so I thought the country that wears the United States as a pair of trousers would be ahead.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment