patrick.net

I think things went downhill in 2000 (probably before, but I didn't want to go back too far).

One thing I would be happy about-- no participation in or liability for the Iraq War!

Is Canada worse off in tems of debt/GDP ratios?... I should check...

I wonder if California would be "milked" by the Canadian Central government the way is is my the US Federal government. Californians chip in a huge amount (see above) compared to what they get back.

American in Japan says

I wonder if California would be “milked” by the Canadian Central government the way is is my the US Federal government. Californians chip in a huge amount (see above) compared to what they get back.

The way I see it, as long as there is money someone high up will always try to rip themselves a piece of the pie. Lack of capability does not signify lack of desire.

Thanks for the information. It is interesting (sort of the opposite of the transfer of wealth from blue states to red states in the US).
I will research this more.

I don't buy into to the "(insert place) love it or leave it" crowd except in extreme cases. People should be vigilant of the good and bad points of their country or state even if the don't feel like they should go. On the international scene I do a good amount of defending of my country (but I can't defend everything unfortunately).

World Audit has USA lower on the corruption ranking list compared to Canada for what it is worth:
http://www.worldaudit.org/corruption.htm

Nationmaster has the USA a bit lower:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov_cor-government-corruption

I need to look at the methodology more…

It would be easier to visit Cuba ...

shrekgrinch says

Canada has a massive inter-provincial wealth transfer scheme in place right now. Have for decades. They mostly take money out of Ontario and Quebec (and recently Alberta given the oil wealth developed there in the last 20 years) to prop up the Maritime provinces and the territories. British Columbia kinda falls in the middle, I think…but will probably soon become the ‘California’ of Canada and so get milked in the net negative as well.

Its my understanding that its Alberta that pays more in... I could be wrong though. Quebec was revealed as a 'debtor province' in the referendum of the 90's, but has that changed in recent years?

The thing is though, for most Canadians it doesn't really matter and they don't really begrudge the fact that wealth is shared. Its only the rednecks and 'locality bigots' who get worked up over it... Canada has more a sense of itself as a single nation that supports itself internally, across the provinces, and so there's give & take. The money for the education system, for example, is spread across the districts from a centralized hub. The result is that the general level of education is much higher than in Cal, where its generally been divided and conquered by the private industries (who in return aren't stepping up to the plate with replacement solutions). Education in California is a nightmare and its purely the result of policy.

Many Americans like to talk a big game about how great the country is, with patriotic chants and cheers etc, but when it comes down to it the mentality is usually more that of isolated little pockets of 'screw you, I've got mine", as is regularly demonstrated by ShGrSyndrome. Would this change in California if it joined the Canadian system? Probably Canada wouldn't restructure much but we could hope. Education, healthcare, public services and mortgage regulations would all be much stronger and more serviceable under the Canadian system and regulations.

The change I WOULD like to see, and that I would completely expect to happen, is that the American 'debtor states' such as, well, almost all of the south, would suddenly have to stop talking such a big game about personal financial responsibility and liability when its revealed, in a completely unavoidable way, just how much they are supported by states such as California. My guess is Rand Paul would never have been elected.

Joining Canada wouldn't solve anything.

Our own politics are still screwed up.

Jerry Brown only got 54% of the vote, which goes to show how divided this state is.

The Boxer 2010 vote:

shows this graphically. Liberals are just a small part of the state, geographically.

shrekgrinch says

Maybe according to pseudo-reality on Planet Kentm, but on Earth…it does matter, quite a bit.

Excellent point. I am humbled.

the troll, it is learning

Phew!
O.K. now I get it, You Cali Libs aren't Americans at all, but instead.
You are Elitists opine to buy multi million dollar 1200 sq ft ranch houses, on a civil servants salary, but yet propose to know what's best for the rest of the country. Especially the poor and frugal that lives with in their means.

Now to top it all off, you secretly wish you were Canadian.
Why because the Conservatives are beating back the Liberal Socialism that has kept that country in financial infirmary, for the last 50 years?
Now that Canada's dollar is just pennies from catching up with the US Dollar and on the Conservative Right's watch.
You would love nothing more than to turn back the way back machine and go back to 2000 and fuck up Canada before the Conservative could fix it.

Well you won't be screwing it up per say, you would just love to impede Canada's progress they've made over the last decade.

I mean you can't have a Nation being prosperous, while pushing the Socialist doctrine.

Too bad, FWIW, I don't think Canada would have you at this point, they've never been better since they Broke up with the Libs.

Now that Canada’s dollar is just pennies from catching up with the US Dollar and on the Conservative Right’s watch.

Canada has always exported more to us than buying from us, thanks to having lucked into owning a third of the continent but only having one sixteenth the population.

Canada sells us 2.8 million barrels of oil a day, a billion barrels a year.

At $100/barrel that is a $100B trade flow. $30B of that is industry cost, but even this "overhead" provides 300,000 oil jobs or more for them, and these jobs provide hundreds of thousands of more jobs as our oil money pings through their economy.

Roughly $70B is profit from oil, which if distributed equally would be a $2000 per person social dividend. Coincidentally, that's about what their per-capita health care cost is. Sucks to be them!

It would take real talent to fuck up the Canadian economy -- the population of California with half the riches of Russia.

Tenouncetrout says

Why because the Conservatives are beating back the Liberal Socialism that has kept that country in financial infirmary, for the last 50 years?

In TOT's world, this didn't happen:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=z5

that's federal debt held by the public / GDP, 1977 to now

Central Party Secretary Carter lowered the ratio from what he inherited from Nixon/Ford.

Capitalist Super Hero Saint Raygun took that 0.25 ratio and ran it up to 0.4. Such Fiscal Conservatism!

Comrade Clinton and the Communist Congress of 1990-1992 put in the rules that brought it back down from the high 40s to the low 30s.

Then Steely Eyed Rocket Man Bush and his Hard Guy Wealth Protectors took that insane level of fiscal risk they inherited and reverse it again, running the national debt up to a record 0.55 as they were leaving office:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=z6

Now, just looking at Federal debt is deceptive, to get a true picture of how the Liberals ruined this country with their fiscal insanity one must look at total debt (consumer, corporate, government) over GDP.

Luckily, I just happen to have that chart, where we can see how the liberals since Carter's cabal ruined this country:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=z7

Note how it remains flat during Carter's reign of error, rises dramatically under the Stern Stewardship of Reagan and his Financial Genius Free Marketeers, is flat and even falls a bit under Clinton (though begins to bounce back as the late 1990s economy begins to overheat due to high employment), and then view in wonder as the Conservative Fiscal Control Men take Clinton's 2.8 to 3.0 debt to GDP and, through their incredible powers of Fiscal Restraint and Moral Correctness, power it up towards 4.0 before, regrettably, having to yield control of the nation's Honored Fisc back to the Democrats in 2007-2010.

>Oh, and if you want to ‘join’ Canada…there’s not much stopping you from moving there. Good bye!

I may have misunderstood you as saying "love it or leave it" if a person has any criticisms of his/her own country. If so I responded to my misunderstanding of this comment.

>What are you talking about? You are advocating that an entire state (California) leaves the Union to join the Confederation

I am not advocating joining Canada at this point just looking at the "what if" scenario.

If you want my advocations, then I would advocate decreasing military spending, drawing down from Iraq and Afghanistran, cutting farm subsidies and possibly have some means testing for food stamps, but that is for another post. Anyway getting back to this one...

@Troy

Thanks for the comments and graphs. They are informative.

Troy says

the troll, it is learning

sadly, on this list I generally learn more about you guys than anything else. ...there's a troll comment for you.

Troy says

Luckily, I just happen to have that chart, where we can see how the liberals since Carter’s cabal ruined this country:

and I'm never sure whether to take your posts as serious or as ironic satire. I read that timeframe very differently, here's another set of charts:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

And I'll say it again, most Canadians don’t begrudge the fact that wealth is shared. I may be wrong about that on individual discussion levels or when you look at inter-provincial political bickering, but those payments mainly go to support the healthcare and education systems, two things that consistently poll as being very highly supported by Canadians.

and I'll also say that Canada at this point is a more unified and stable country than the states, and I think its caused by stronger regulation and the general higher standard of living, partially thanks to those transfer payments. Exactly the things that conservatives hate and try to drag down at any excuse, and look at where its getting us. Compare Prop 13 and the education system in California to that of any province in Canada.

Well, I didn't realize that it was possible to retroactively become canadian. I need to get a retroactive passport to retrovisit my family - and they need to get retro birth certificates.

Long ones, tho. That's what it's all aboot.

shrekgrinch says

Unfortunately for ignorant liberals who believe in just that BS you spouted, Nomo…the federal system we have does give quite a bit weight to those ‘empty’ regions in both the total composition of Congress and the Electoral College.

Uh, forgive me if I'm wrong, but congressional seats and electoral college votes are computed based on the state's population.

I was just kind of complementary to you on another thread, Shrek. But then you pull comments out of thin air like this, just to be contrary. I'm just curious as to what happened in your past to make you so unhappy, that you have to attack anonymous people on the interwebs.

Lie back and tell auntie ellie all about it.

elliemae says

but congressional seats and electoral college votes are computed based on the state’s population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule

also, each state gets 2 bonus EVs independent of their population. This helps the low-population states.

shrekgrinch says

I backed up my contention fine and re-did so despite your constant bullshit spin devoid of actual reality to the contrary.

No, you didn't. You double-spoke your way through, but the fact is still that the wide open spaces have less influence because they have less people. More people means more representation, regardless of land mass. This is what you said:

shrekgrinch says

Unfortunately for ignorant liberals who believe in just that BS you spouted, Nomo…the federal system we have does give quite a bit weight to those ‘empty’ regions in both the total composition of Congress and the Electoral College.

shrekgrinch says

That is why the presidential candidates have to register and run even in the Montanas. It would be political suicide otherwise...then how is it that all the Montanas gang up in the Senate to stop the New Yorks from pushing their urban/big population agendas ALL THE TIME?

I realize that you're just trying to be contrary - and I'm not sure why they give you so much play. You make absolutely no sense, yet you push your senseless assertions as if they're meaningful. You've stated that you enjoy creating havoc and making wierd statements. Do you live in Northeastern Pennsylvannia, by any chance?

The wide open spaces have zero influence. The bonus electoral votes apply whether the state is the size of Montana or the size of Rhode Island. It has exactly nothing to do with land area.

Shrek is confused because he heard somewhere that Wyomingans, etc have outsized influence in Congress and in the Electoral College.

He's right. When measured as a percent of total votes in C&EC ...divided by the population of the state.

This goes back to the founding of the country. Each state sends two Senators to DC, and a number of Reps to the House based on the state's relative and occasionally rebalanced population. This was to give the less-populous states a chance to have their concerns heard in Congress.

Wyoming sends 1 Rep and 2 Senators, for a total of 3 Congressional votes (and Electoral College votes). Wyoming population is 544,270. California sends 53 + 2, so 55 votes. Population 36,961,664. CA 68x more populous than WY, but has only 18x more votes.

Each Wyoming voter therefore has about 3.7x more influence than each California voter -- assuming voter eligibility/participation rates and census irregularities are similar for the two states, at least.

Sorry, late again and semi-off topic now, and my response here to SG's comments is little more than a big yawn so I'm really not contributing much - as usual I suppose - but I'm just kind of flabbergasted by SG's posts...

shrekgrinch says

California’s education problems are rooted more in its failed curriculum and the teacher’s unions than in its spending levels.

I really only can say "wow" to those comments. What aspects of the curriculum exactly? ...How precisely have teacher's unions hurt the quality of education in CA when they sure don't seem to be doing so in Canada? ...Man, its like 20 years of public debate about prop13 and endless threads on this very forum never even happened. You're not even pretending to reference facts now, you're just pulling things out of your pooper. ...or rather the latest talking points of the right.

shrekgrinch says

Wanna bet that the ‘non-most’ are the ones who pay the bucks for the transfer? See what I mean?

I'm referencing polls... national public consensus on specific topics. You can pretend that individuals within this think however you want them to, but the poll topics and results are what they are.

shrekgrinch says

You don’t see the same thing in the US, do you?

No, you're right there's perfect unity in the states, across this great united nation.


http://www.google.com/search?q=liebrals&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=94G&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivnsfd&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=BLbaTbHMGM_PiAKWwsiCCA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CBEQ_AUoAQ&biw=1561&bih=922

Thanks for the comments. I am not saying California should join Canada, but most Americans have little inkling about Canada (let alone any other countries).

American in Japan says

but most Americans have little inkling about Canada (let alone any other countries).

Its a good point, worth repeating. I see that represented over and over on these boards by a few key people - either from lack of knowledge, misunderstanding or simple dishonesty - where policies that function perfectly well in other countries are described as if they were failures, or problematic, or "nightmare scenarios", etc. See SG's comments directly above as a good example.

Remembering that there's a 'rest of the world' out there is a good thing for 'US Americans'.

Thanks for posting interesting questions.

And interesting article on Canada:

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/canada-has-best-reputation-in-world-study

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/27/3942379/canada-is-the-country-with-the.html

How should the US raise their reputation back to where it was before the Iraq War and Bush...?

If California had seceded to Canada.....

The USA would have lost it's prime weed source, and would be sending more of it's precious cash to buy Mexican ditchweed and fuel their drug war.