World's largest economies by GDP

[Wigs]

I've always found it interesting that Canada (38M) has a higher GDP than Russia (146M)

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by JManc

Does Canada really need a lot more people? Despite its size, the vast majority of the population hugs the US border with everything due north desolate and pretty rough in the cooler months. If I though Upstate NY was terrible in the winter, i could only imagine how it is 300km north in Bumblefuck Quebec.

Actually with climate change the winters of Southern Ontario or Upstate/Western NY have not been too bad, in stark contrast to the winters you remember growing up. 2014/2015 winter excluded

[JManc]

^ Don't Lakes Ontario/ Erie temper S. Ontario in the winter? I always recall us getting dumped on with blizzards compared to the Canada side.

Originally Posted by Razor

I find that climate to be a bit of a red Herring,and people get really dogmatic about how deplorable it is. Sure winter can suck, but so do non stop rainy seasons, extreme humidity, and droughts. There are some beautiful sunny ski worthy winter days as well, and you get acclimatized to winter over time.

But there is a reason why northern climates are so sparsely populated; Canada, Alaska, Siberia and Scandinavia. Ditto for Patagonia on other than end. Meanwhile hot and humid climates are bursting at the seems.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by JManc

Does Canada really need a lot more people? Despite its size, the vast majority of the population hugs the US border with everything due north desolate and pretty rough in the cooler months. If I though Upstate NY was terrible in the winter, i could only imagine how it is 300km north in Bumblefuck Quebec.

Canada can easily double its population by forcing people to settle in the Prairies. But it won't force that, so it won't double its population.

Toronto and Vancouver are already starting to see rapidly rising congestion costs, namely housing and traffic. You can't fit another 38 million into Southern Ontario and Metro Vancouver.

Weather is a first-world luxury. Americans may grimace at the thought of weather colder than North Carolina, but most third-world immigrants will happily substitute noxious fumes and sewage for frigid winters.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by Wigs

I've always found it interesting that Canada (38M) has a higher GDP than Russia (146M)

Russia's GDP is nothing special. New York, with 20 million people, has a bigger economy.

[JManc]

^ Russia also really doesn't produce anything. Mostly natural resources but can anyone think of something actually produced there? Besides Tetris and Yakov Smirrnoff.

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Canada can easily double its population by forcing people to settle in the Prairies. But it won't force that, so it won't double its population.

Toronto and Vancouver are already starting to see rapidly rising congestion costs, namely housing and traffic. You can't fit another 38 million into Southern Ontario and Metro Vancouver.

Weather is a first-world luxury. Americans may grimace at the thought of weather colder than North Carolina, but most third-world immigrants will happily substitute noxious fumes and sewage for frigid winters.

Millions of Americans could pile into Montana and the Dakotas but they're not. Same reason people aren't lining up for Saskatchewan. Or Norwegians in Troms. Humans are naturally adverse to cold climates which again, are why northern climates are sparse.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by JManc

^ Russia also really doesn't produce anything. Mostly natural resources but can anyone think of something actually produced there? Besides Tetris and Yakov Smirrnoff.



Millions of Americans could pile into Montana and the Dakotas but they're not. Same reason people aren't lining up for Saskatchewan. Or Norwegians in Troms. Humans are naturally adverse to cold climates which again, are why northern climates are sparse.

Yep, I don't disagree.

There's two arguments being made here:

• Canada can support another 40 million people.
• Canada will support another 40 million people.

On the first, Canada can absolutely support that many people. It has the arable land, physical size, climate change dividends, natural resources, etc. to get there.

On the second, Canada won't support that many people, because those people don't want to live in Alberta/Manitoba/Saskatchewan. The end result is that Canada will keep shoving 400,000 migrants who flood into Toronto/Vancouver until both cities buckle. When you need a $200,000 salary to live in a city, you already know you've left macroeconomic sanity.

IF Canada were smart, they'd force them to live in the Prairies for 10 years before they can move to another province. A Canadian Hukou system. If you give people the choice between cold/boring versus sewage/polluted, they'll whine, but will ultimately choose the former.

This isn't some radical concept. How do we think the U.S. got 57 metros over 1,000,000? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Yep, I don't disagree.

There's two arguments being made here:

• Canada can support another 40 million people.
• Canada will support another 40 million people.

On the first, Canada can absolutely support that many people. It has the arable land, physical size, climate change dividends, natural resources, etc. to get there.

On the second, Canada won't support that many people, because those people don't want to live in Alberta/Manitoba/Saskatchewan. The end result is that Canada will keep shoving 400,000 migrants who flood into Toronto/Vancouver until both cities buckle. When you need a $200,000 salary to live in a city, you already know you've left macroeconomic sanity.

IF Canada were smart, they'd force them to live in the Prairies for 10 years before they can move to another province. A Canadian Hukou system. If you give people the choice between cold/boring versus sewage/polluted, they'll whine, but will ultimately choose the former.

This isn't some radical concept. How do we think the U.S. got 57 metros over 1,000,000? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts

There are plenty of places even in Southern Ontario that can gain plenty of population. London, Chatham, Sarnia and Windsor could probably could each double without too much ill effect. Places like Goderich and Stratford could become bigger centers.

British Columbia indeed does not have too much more easily developable land though.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Yep, I don't disagree.

There's two arguments being made here:

• Canada can support another 40 million people.
• Canada will support another 40 million people.

On the first, Canada can absolutely support that many people. It has the arable land, physical size, climate change dividends, natural resources, etc. to get there.

On the second, Canada won't support that many people, because those people don't want to live in Alberta/Manitoba/Saskatchewan. The end result is that Canada will keep shoving 400,000 migrants who flood into Toronto/Vancouver until both cities buckle. When you need a $200,000 salary to live in a city, you already know you've left macroeconomic sanity.

IF Canada were smart, they'd force them to live in the Prairies for 10 years before they can move to another province. A Canadian Hukou system. If you give people the choice between cold/boring versus sewage/polluted, they'll whine, but will ultimately choose the former.

This isn't some radical concept. How do we think the U.S. got 57 metros over 1,000,000? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts

I thought Alberta was growing especially with Calgary and Edmonton. Or has that slowed significantly?

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

What do you mean by "support a larger population"?

Whatever it takes to support a larger population. I don't know what that is.

[llamaorama]

Maybe Canada just doesn't have to grow so fast? Immigration needs to be slowed so that the building industry can keep up and wages aren't depressed by an excess supply of cheap labor. But still at a level which over the long term realizes some kind of gain.

Also maybe the urban planning paradigm is overrated? Planners create a lot of friction trying to save some exurban hobby farms, golf courses, and some muddy creeks in the "irreplaceable greenbelt" from suburban encroachment, and then all too often the finished product of this "smart growth" is still low density suburbia with a veneer of new urbanist touches like hiding garages off alleys.

I don't really see what's so progressive about Greater Toronto or Vancouver's outward development versus say, Phoenix. The overnight suburban skylines like Missassauga and Coquitlam that dwarf 90% of American downtowns are very visually impressive. But then in reality they are vertical cul-de-sacs interspersed among Jiffy Lubes and Burger Kings along 6-lane stroads. The majority of the land seems to still be zoned for low density single family homes only with a stingy amount of townhomes facing some busy road. A certain forumer will no doubt chime in how high the bus ridership here is. Sounds so fun, having to stand out in -10 weather in brown slush next to the giant road, like a Novosibirsk resident waiting for their tram to the tractor factory.

[iheartthed]

If England can fit 60M people in a space the size of Ohio, Canada can get to 100M pretty easily.

[chris08876]

Looking at China's, the percent from manufacturing, makes me wonder what the U.S. GDP could of looked like if we didn't loose the manufacturing edge or if say we increased it in the present going forward. In some respects, while we have a ton of folks taking advantage of benefits and not working, automation could fill that GDP niche nicely in the U.S.. Bump up the GDP via automation when it comes to manufacturing. Also less reliance on others. Would be nice if more of the U.S. GDP was sourced from manufacturing.

If we are looking at a strong rebound once this Covid rubbish is gone, could aid the GDP nicely. But the U.S. really needs to focus on its housing. Paying 700k for a former crack den with a dead hooker hidden behind the dry wall in some cities is asinine. We also have a ton of minority communities that if we hope to achieve a stable middle class and not further increase the wealth divide, we need housing supply! Meaning reducing asinine regulations, increasing zoning and allowing developers to have the ability to both build and help their bottom line. Developers would love to build more units if its in their interest so we should provide the room to do so. Capital investment in our cities is key.

[chris08876]

High Tech manufacturing is key. The chip fabs in the pipeline will be a nice addition but I think we have to look at the items that we really need and focus on those. Just so when the poop hits the fan, we are self-sustained. Not worrying about how long the boat will take to cross the Pacific. As Covid has taught us, we are at dire risk of running out of papier toilette!

[jmecklenborg]

Canada's greatest economic asset isn't its natural resources, it's that it shares a gigantic border with the #1 economy in the world. So does Mexico, but the big difference is that the US and Canada share the English language + a largely English legal and governmental system.

The USMCA replaced NAFTA last year and illustrates the strength of the U.S. more so than the strength of Mexico, Canada, or their agreement. The shipping codes and other nonsense involved in USMCA certs, as trivial as they are, show just how dynamic the U.S. is by itself since there is absolutely no friction in business activity between U.S. states in most industries. Stuff like alcohol distributing, insurance, etc., are exceptions, but I think we as Americans so often aren't able to recognize why the U.S. is so wildly successful.

[SFBruin]

Sorry about the callousness of the my earlier comment.

Canada seems to me to have the natural resources to support a larger population.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Sorry about the callousness of the my earlier comment.

Canada seems to have the natural resources to support a larger population.

I myself saw nothing wrong with your earlier comment(s)..Sure Canada has abundant natural resources, but again, it's not only the climate, but Canada's terrain includes a lot of rocky shield, tundra, and swamp land..Great for resource extraction, but not so much for agriculture unless of course global warming opens up more of the Prairies for longer growing seasons. Having said that, yes Canada can certainly support more population even in the already populated areas like someone else had mentioned. We need those Catholic families to have 10+ kids again, and the church would be happy also!

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Maybe Canada just doesn't have to grow so fast? Immigration needs to be slowed so that the building industry can keep up and wages aren't depressed by an excess supply of cheap labor. But still at a level which over the long term realizes some kind of gain.

Also maybe the urban planning paradigm is overrated? Planners create a lot of friction trying to save some exurban hobby farms, golf courses, and some muddy creeks in the "irreplaceable greenbelt" from suburban encroachment, and then all too often the finished product of this "smart growth" is still low density suburbia with a veneer of new urbanist touches like hiding garages off alleys.

I don't really see what's so progressive about Greater Toronto or Vancouver's outward development versus say, Phoenix. The overnight suburban skylines like Missassauga and Coquitlam that dwarf 90% of American downtowns are very visually impressive. But then in reality they are vertical cul-de-sacs interspersed among Jiffy Lubes and Burger Kings along 6-lane stroads. The majority of the land seems to still be zoned for low density single family homes only with a stingy amount of townhomes facing some busy road. A certain forumer will no doubt chime in how high the bus ridership here is. Sounds so fun, having to stand out in -10 weather in brown slush next to the giant road, like a Novosibirsk resident waiting for their tram to the tractor factory.

Canada isn't growing that fast. With its growth rate of around 1% per annum, most estimates don't even place it in the top 100 fastest growing countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...on_growth_rate

And regardless of how "fun" someone may or may not find using transit, higher density and higher rates of transit usage helps to lower energy consumption and reduces the cost of providing civic services. 1 2 So even if improvements could be made to the suburban built form, higher density has specific empirical advantages in its own right.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by Razor

We need those Catholic families to have 10+ kids again, and the church would be happy also!

There's almost a campaign slogan in there somewhere!

[Crawford]

U.S. birth rates aren't going to rise markedly, under any circumstances. The U.S. will grow via immigration, going forward. Of course there are niche exceptions, like Hasidic Jews, Amish and Mormons.

And the only reason the U.S. Catholic church isn't collapsing like all the mainstream Protectant denominations is because it has a high proportion of immigrants sustaining membership. In a generation the Catholic church will be collapsing too, given the rapid pace of secularization in Latin America and basically everywhere outside of Africa. And thank God for that.