The federal government is expected to announce new rules Tuesday that would make it more difficult for first-time buyers to enter Canada's hot housing market.Sources have told The Canadian Press that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is ready to move on the issue because of concern Canadians may be taking on too much debt.
Economists have advised the minister the best way to protect Canadians is to institute a debt affordability test in order to qualify for a Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp. insured mortgage.
During the January 2010 World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the current chairman of the G-20, presented the upcoming agenda for the G-20 and G-8 meetings to be held in Ontario in June. Many were shocked to hear this Conservative leader declare, "We also know markets need governance. For the new global economy, the G-20 is what we have." Harper went on to speak as an avowed Keynesian committed to a one-world global economy, creating a world "we have been trying to build since 1945". He went on to warn the world that national self-interest and sovereignty must be opposed to stave off a greater crisis than the current recession. For the next several months leading up to and including the G-20 meetings, Stephen Harper will be attempting to convince the world to find global unity of purpose and adopt what he calls "Enlightened Sovereignty."
... the speech. (You be the judge)
The article is written Mcvety...he is a less that creadible shrill...double check anything he puts in quotation marks.
It's called 'borrowing for me but not for thee'.
Harper has proven beyond reasonable doubt that CPC does not need either membership or donations - they print their own money, so every time they send me a sustaining donor card, I write on it 'help yourself to the printer' and send it right back.
And they have been listening, surprise?
"they all do it"
do you get it yet SDA?
One world government is the statist utopia and the free marketer’s anathema.
As an avowed free marketer, I must concede the necessity of international laws and agreements.
Without agreements like extradition treaties, copyrights, the Geneva Convention, etc. international intercourse of any description would be impossible.
Rules for obtaining a mortgage insured by the CMHC have always been in existence; Harper and Flaherty are making them more stringent. We saw what happened in the US when the rules were effectively dropped and people signed up for mortgages based on 'hope' rather than reality.
As for a 'one-world economy' that has nothing to do with Keynesian theory but with reality. The world is now globally networked both economically and informationally. We cannot ignore the goods and services, from food to clothing to cars to electronics that have their origin in other parts of the world.
We have to work with this reality, retain sovereignty over our laws and political structure - as, for example, the new immigration rules - and yet, enable a global economy.
Canada, for example, sends 85% of its export goods to one and only one country, the US. Harper has been trying to reduce this dependency by agreements with other countries. This is, yes, govt intervention because such international agreements set up the infrastructure for individual companies to work within, in foreign trade.
Would someone explain to me what I'm missing?
> The world is now globally networked both economically and informationally
Makes it easier to carbon-trade?
Next it will be a global protein bank.
"I worship His Shadow!"
The world is now globally networked both economically and informationally. We cannot ignore the goods and services, from food to clothing to cars to electronics that have their origin in other parts of the world.
~ET
Yeah, well it isn't the goods and services we get from other parts of the world it's the GST we'll have to pay to the One World Government, the equalization transfer payments, and the remoteness coupled with deafness of the One World Government that's got me worried.
I've got enough problems with those measures right here in Canada without taking the horror show to a global level.
Can't we learn from what an abject failure the EU is clearly turning out to be?
Depends on what Greece does to the Euro.
ET,
Flaherty's announcement won't do much to dent the overheating Canadian real estate market I'm afraid.
The real cause of the boom is easy money (i.e. low interest rates and the inflating of the money supply). Of course we know that the government loves the inflation of the money supply so that will probably never change.
If Flaherty, however, really wanted to send that extra liquidity elsewhere, he could force the CMHC to do two things:
1. Stop insuring securitized mortgages. This is a classic case of moral hazard.
2. Stop insuring high LTV mortages (80% max for example) and high amortization periods (25 years max for example).
He won't because he doesn't want to hurt the mortgage market. Problem is the hurt is just going to be bigger down the road.
I love it how as time passes, each of the 'contributors' show their true face by posting another collectivist gaffe.
Scratch a Canadian conservative and you'll find a socialist.
The great hope for Canadian conservatives (not Conservatives) remains the thought that the CPC, in spite of all signs to the contrary, may have a hidden agenda.
But hope is dimming.
If this move helps prevent a housing market (ponzi scheme) bubble here in Canada then I am all for it. One simply has to look south of the border to see what damage is inflicted by the various ponzi schemes endorsed by big business and congress in the US. This isn't Amway somebody actually has to make something. This isn't Amway, someone actually has to sell something. This isn't Amway someone actually has to buy something. We have to break the Amway economic mentality of money for nothing!
Sounds like the Bilderberger group got to Stevie and told him that he would occupy a high place in ruling elite if he would sell out his conservative principles.
I cannot imagine why he would suddenly come across as a one worlder buffoon.
He has lost my vote.
Oh for Crist's sake..Bilderbergers..can we have a serious, adult conversion here?
..and BTW, it's PM Stephen Harper.
Have some respect for the institution, if not the man.
oz - who is talking about one-world government? I don't see any evidence for Harper's doing that. The only organizations and people promoting that are the UN.
Harper's insistence on Canadian Arctic sovereignty, on obtaining international agreements for trade, his new immigration policy etc are all examples of Canadian sovereignty.
Would someone please explain to me the evidence for the Conservatives and Harper promoting one world government?
Acknowledging the reality of a global economy doesn't mean one world government. Therefore, I'd appreciate an explanation. Thanks.
Right Kursk, if you promise to respect the office of the official opposition ... no more iggy, iffy, and dion disrespect.
ET, you're not missing anything. The piece is a testament to McVety hearing what he wants to even though the quotes he uses say the exact opposite. The centrepiece is this:
"So, when the G-20 resumes in Toronto, the discussion should be less about new agreements than accountability for existing ones. Less about lofty promises than real results. Less about narrow self-interest in sovereignty's name, than an expanded view of mutual-interest in which there is room for all to grow and prosper. Enlightened sovereignty, then, the natural extension of enlightened self-interest. … This is 'enlightened sovereignty.'"
Harper isn't calling for world government. In fact he's explicitly rejecting it. What part of "Less about lofty promises than real results," do readers here not understand? Certainly McVety is utterly clueless.
He isn't even calling for new binding international agreements. He's simply calling for countries to live up fully to existing ones. In the context of Davos, Harper is the contrarian here. He's telling the nations of the world that they don't need a grand new international order; they need to get their own houses in order. His statement about 'narrow self interest in sovereignty's name' is very obvious code for trade protectionism.
What do you think he means by advocating 'enlightened sovereignty?' Simply that if countries govern themselves and their financial affairs better then some monstrous new world order won't be necessary. He's making the equation enlightened self interest = enlightened sovereignty = greater prosperity for all. This is the antithesis of the world government that McVety claims he's heading for. If we're all behaving intelligently (enlightened self interest), the NWO is unnecessary. This is the last message that the EU wants to hear.
No, Abe, the Bilderberg group didn't get to Stevie. It's the other way round. Stevie is telling the group that Canada got it right and the rest of them are deluding themselves by imagining that trade protection and putting the screws down through massive new regulatory structures won't work. So, I'll say this very slowly for you; Harper is saying that the EU NWO types are complete idiots, and so to by extension are a truckload of US congressmen who want to lard up national economic recovery schemes with economic exclusions and cripple the very institutions that will be needed to fund an economic recovery.
What I find amusing in all this is that McVety has in the very centre of his article a big quote from Harper that blows McVety's allegations to pieces. The man really is a moron.
oz - who is talking about one-world government? I don't see any evidence for Harper's doing that. The only organizations and people promoting that are the UN.
Harper's insistence on Canadian Arctic sovereignty, on obtaining international agreements for trade, his new immigration policy etc are all examples of Canadian sovereignty.
Would someone please explain to me the evidence for the Conservatives and Harper promoting one world government?
Acknowledging the reality of a global economy doesn't mean one world government. Therefore, I'd appreciate an explanation. Thanks.
Yeah, markets need governance, that's for sure.
Can someone please regulate Canada post for me, they are killing my business with their ludicrous rates: it costs me 3x to ship something to China, than to get it from China.
The above paragraph echoes Unions... Unions... unions...
If one wants to get ones house in order, kill the unions and repatriate industry from the 3d world. Until then it's BS talk.
Harper is toast.
Food and shelter is first necessity for most people
Person can owe money but still pay to their food shelter
Therefore some one else own money can not influence for first time buyer
This system only help rich richer and poor poorer
If you are low income and want to buy first time buying home
With no recommendation as long as proof they are paying rent regularly can own the home proof of rent is enough what the person owe for rest is not matter
Rich and poor using same milk price and enter to same supermarket owner of supermarket can not say you are owe money do not eat or drink
Food and shelter is first thing people need it
No matter
For first time buyer who pay rent of $ 1700 per month mortgage they put 2% down and put $ 1200 to buy the small house and pay $ 500 to pay the bad debt and home use as his future investment to sell in future to pay his debt too
If some one in debt put their water more under water
Financial bank is stinking in Canada
new is now known as Sure.
Oh for Crist's sake...
Have some respect...
~Kursk
How about some respect for the sizable portion of conservatives who are Christians?
As for a 'one-world economy' that has nothing to do with Keynesian theory but with reality.
~ET
A 'one-world economy' would require a One World Government or a least an overseeing body that would function in many ways as a de facto One World Governemnt.
oz- the term 'one-world economy'means a global economy. This is a networked economy with hubs or sites of production and exchange all over the world.
A compex adaptive network, which is what a global economy is, most certainly doesn't operate within a one-world government.
cgh - thanks for your explanation. Exactly; Harper is right - and he's not talking about a one-world govt but a globally networked economic system. ..based on 'reasoned or enlightened self-interest' in the care of the sovereign home country and the global economic interactions.
FWIW, here's how I understand it: the Americans got into trouble because of a real-estate bubble caused by sub-prime, no-money down loans to people who couldn't afford the payments unless interest rates were kept artificially low. The bubble grew as more and more jumped into the market, pushing prices up. When prices stabilized, those who couldn't afford anything but "teaser" rates were not able to refinance. This caused a cascade of sell-offs, therefore a crash.
My first house was CMHC. It worked great, because I still had to make realistic payments, and the bank was insured. I also didn't buy as much of a house as the bank approved me for. I think these changes are to tighten up that portion. I support this. Too many are getting in over their head.
Put it this way: if you're co-signing a car loan for your (potentially) dead-beat brother, you're going to make damn sure he can pay it off.
Regarding "world economy" I think Harper is trying to prevent a tit-for-tat protectionist cycle like we had in the 1930s. That will really trigger a depression.
He has lost my vote.
Have fun paying for Iggy's universal child care then.
So many protest in Olympic asked for shelter first sport is second.
Bubble price cost of some home who sold expensive is good sometimes for young if there is future for that area growing but not for old above 60 to buy bubble cost house.
Small houses:
/architecture/Is-Your-House-an-Italian-.htm
Vs. big houses:
World's Tallest Buildings > 80 stories: home in bigger pictures:
If we could built the (Petronas Towers )in Malaysia ( Muslim country) did in 150 acre land then with 1000 building in faster time in each countries if this business can go in more faster designer can save too many people in Haiti in people in poor or population crisis or housing crisis cost can get lower the problem it now take more than 3 to 8 year to built big tower building if they can built faster can helpful too many people and business and government and refugee people. Then Malaysia put another 50 acre for mosque and design to represent their Muslim culture
Canada are not Muslim country but Canada need building to represent culture and open more business and opportunities this conservative change all old culture of Canadian with their own small minority culture. Every country can built one but need good architecture to build it and if building get old need to put them separated and find way to do not do any more demolition to building because so much trouble like New York faced with it. Using material like Steels and concert can help to built one.
Reference to world’s tallest building in world, and how Muslim people built big tower building and mosque attached and help from all counties and all religion without fighting over land and space Similar China and India Pakistan and most middle east country who has less land and more population to have more tall building with big population Canada for attract tourist and business people and in future all people has home to live and place to business. Canada can open more competition among architectures in better building in Canada and represent better culture and open doors here to people like Canadian.
References: such as Petronas Towers Skybridge HQ( Man made marvels) – Discovery channel-civil
list of all talest building in world and their name of architectures and building firm related to Canada building structure
Small houses:
/video.about.com/architecture/Is-Your-House-an-Italian-.htm
Big towers:
such as Petronas Towers Skybridge HQ( Man made marvels) – Discovery channel-civil
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK4zP5Tup00
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC4a5UXoN0
/www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Petronas_Towers.html
/www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001338.html
/architecture.about.com/library/bltall.htm
/architecture.about.com/od/skyscrapers/ig/World-s-Tallest-Buildings/Burj-Dubai-.htm
/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_the_world
competition among architect:
/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Smith_(architect)
Busan Lotte World 2 – building also known as Lotte World 2 built by architect:
Such as
BAUM_Architects,_Engineers_&_Consultants_Co.,_Ltd.,_Seoul,_South_Korea and
, Parker Durrant,( durrant.com) Other firms: Magnusson Klemencic Associates ( mka.com)
/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9sar_Pelli
/www.pcparch.com/
/www.cdnarchitect.com/issues/ISArticle.asp?aid=1000152951&issue=09012003&PC=CA
/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Canada
Cuts to public service (and last evening layoffs to National Research Council were announced).
Get ready for a real conservative budget coming our way.
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100217/OTT_Public_Service_100217/20100217?hub=Ottawa
Good grief. Yes, his Davos speech sounds Keynsian, but definitely NOT the changes to mortgages. If anything, the changes he brought in require less govt regulation.
CMHC guarantees high LTV (Loan-To-Value) mortgages. The underlying security is the real estate, but the federal govt is the one guaranteeing the money. Reducing the LTV to 90% instead of 95% is a smart move and will definitely cool down the market. For instance on a $400,000 house (avg in Calgary), a buyer will have to come up with a $40,000 downpayment instead of a $20,000 downpayment. That increases the amount to save up by quite a bit, effectively putting off the purchase of a house for several years judging by Cdn saving habits. Even at 90% LTV that still leaves the borrower with a $360,000 mortgage which is close to $2,800 per month.
I thought there already were debt ratios in place? Back when I got my mortgage license we had to learn about the 32/40 GDI/TDI (Gross Debt to Income ratio and Total Debt to Income Ratio). Are those gone? Or is no one paying attention to them?
ET: "a globally networked economic system...", etc.
Precisely. The PM is coming down hard against the extremes of both global governance and national protectionism. And why can the PM, ever so politely, spank, ever so publicly, all the rest of the OECD national leaders? Because our purely national model of financial governance worked, and theirs all failed to varying degrees. In the case of say Iceland and Britain, catastrophically so.
Freely interpreted, the PM is saying, "Don't even think of burdening me with outrageous international restrictions when in so doing you are ignoring the root of the problem, namely your (the other nations) failure to properly regulate your own financial affairs. Instead, do what we Canadians do."
I found the PM's speech to be remarkably refreshing. Ever so gently and courteously, he indicated that most of them were talking pure drivel. Harper's speech was a cannon-shot aimed at, among other things, the more egregious parts of things like the America Recovery Act or the grandiose global governance visions of Brown or Sarkozy. All a global governance scheme would do is export their bad practices elsewhere. It's also one of the few times that a Canadian leader has got up on the world stage and had the gumption and the justification to say that we know better how to run certain kinds of things than you lot.
......'reasoned or enlightened self-interest' ........
Am I the only one who gets uncomfortable with phrases like these ?
Just watched Harper's speech and thought it was brilliant. He is pushing for concrete results from the G20 and away from political posturing. His focus on the world economy and the responsibilies of its leaders to have common regulations and enforce them in good times and bad would give resilience and sustainability. I have no idea where some of you posters get the idea Harper is talking about world government.
For once on a world stage it is great to have an excellent Prime Minister who can speak about how Canada is the example for our world economic growth. Stephen has done us proud.
It sickens me to read the back biting and whining about Harper's steady strong government programs that allowed us to quickly aid Haiti with our heavy lift aircraft and response teams. Could any of you imagine Dion or Iggy speaking as Harper has done?
If we had proper national media rather than the CBC Canadians would hear speeches like this and appreciate Harper leading us on the world stage.
Not sure Harper can be accused of being a Keynesian, or a one-world guy based on this speech or his past record. The speech between about 17:30 and 21:30 clearly outlines a logic and rationale for Canada's fiscal policy over the past 18 months, and a commitment to return to balance budget and debt reduction policies asap - given the fools across the floor in the House, and those in the other "G" countries Harper seems to have charted an effective economic course.
With the exception of a patronizing mention of Climate Change, the speech was very good - thank god it wasn't Iggy up there.
oz- the term 'one-world economy'means a global economy.
~ET
Well, et, you should have said what you meant instead of using a term which means something else to everyone but you.
You should have used "world economy" or "global economy" but to use the term "one-world" specifically means One World as in One World Government.
If you don't know the difference then consider yourself schooled.
oz- the term 'one world economy' was in the article. It's not my term; the writer said 'one world global economy'. And I rejected it as unworkable.
You can't have a one world economy because the ecological realities of the planet aren't uniform, so, each area produces its own type of goods. You can't grow wheat in the arctic. Or in the rain forests. And so on...
It sickens me to read the back biting and whining about Harper's steady strong government programs that allowed us to quickly aid Haiti with our heavy lift aircraft and response teams. Could any of you imagine Dion or Iggy speaking as Harper has done?
~Dave
Yes, I could, and I'm not a Liberal.
The reality is that there are a lot of Haitians living in Quebec and that is why Canada had made a pledge of $555 Million to Haiti before the quake.
It's about vote buying and I think tax money spent on Haiti is tax money badly spent as far as Canada's interests are concerned.
Haiti, which is a cesspool of corruption and not just at the government level, is now going to be a bigger source of immigrants and welfare long into the foreseeable future.
So oz - "who is talking about one-world government? (et)" was what kind of question at 3:28 PM that was asked because you already knew who was talking about a one-world government?
Yeah, sure.
As for a 'one-world economy' that has nothing to do with Keynesian theory but with reality.
~et 2010 2:15 PM
You think that there is a 'one-world economy' already?
I say there isn't.
I say a one-world economy requires a World government body that has overtaken individual sovereign government's control of their national GNP and GDP first.
I say that not only is it not a reality, but that it isn't inevitable.
Also, I say it wouldn't be a good thing.
Seems the reading comprehension and cognitive acuity of these Headline Surfers / Commentors .... are as profound as those of the people who produce the headlines.
The CP article is nothing but a load of opinion from unattributed sources and speculation from it's author.
They didn't even attribute the author of the thing!!Typical Canadian Press effort to manufacture controversy.
The McVety piece just another of his idiotic hyperbole laced rants against whatever his fevered imagination has latched onto for the moment.
In short both aticles are pure BULL CR@P.
Word of advice ... if you can't be bothered to actually read the background material ... resist the temptation to opine on it.
After watching the PM's Davos speech, and reading the transcript of it, I feel like McVety saw an entirely different speech. The bottom line is that McVety is clearly predisposed to seeing the threat of global governance everywhere, with the effect being that he takes each utterance of the word "global" and runs out of bounds with it.
My interpretation of the speech is that, between the lines, the PM was knocking excessive government intervention, and not-so-subtly opposing large-scale Obama-esque government bailouts:
"If, after a period of renewed stability, institutions are able to return to the irresponsible practices that caused the crisis, what would they have learned? A very bad lesson: that is, that reckless behaviour can be engaged in because national governments will ultimately backstop the consequences. And that, ladies and gentlemen, would be a very dangerous precedent. Obviously, then, financial sector regulation must be tackled and it must be adequate. But, second, Canada also believes that financial sector regulation must have the right purposes and must not be excessive.... Our approach to financial sector regulation...has been to not micromanage the affairs of a complex industry.'"
McVety's statements that "This now apparently homogenous group of leaders...is described as 'true Keynesians' by the prime minister,'" and, especially, that "Harper spoke well of communism" shows nothing more than McVety's tone-deafness. The passage in question came after Harper spoke of government stimulus as a short-term measure only, and stressed the importance of aggressively paying off debt in growth years:
"I must observe that this recommendation of John Maynard Keynes is seldom acted upon as vigorously as his permission to borrow. In this regard, Keynesianism is a bit like Communism: according to those who advocate it, neither has been properly attempted..."
That's a *shot* at the Communists AND Keynesians. In the very next sentence he disavowed, with light sarcasm, that his policies are Keynesian:
"...Thus, governments borrow when times are difficult, because they must. Then they borrow more when times are easy, because they can. But instead, true Keynesians that we are accused of being, our government paid $38 billion off Canada’s national debt between 2006 and 2009.."
He wasn't stumping for a one-world government, to put it mildly. Merely noting that we are part of a "global economy" and that markets and banking systems are "intertwined" is strictly boilerplate stuff.
As for the (apparently upcoming) changes to the requirements for HMHC-insured mortages, that policy won't entail dumping government money onto the market - quite the opposite, if you think about it - so it's not Keynsian. And it's good policy. Interest rates are at an historic - and unquestionably temporary - low, which makes in all but inevitable that a lot of people will think that's a good opportunity to buy expensive houses that they can only afford because interest rates are so low. When rates go up again - and they will - those people won't be able to afford to pay their mortgages, which means there'll be a flood of houses suddenly on the market, which will destabilize and devalue the housing market and negatively affect the equity of millions of homeowners. The proposed changes are sensible and responsible policy.
Btw, It's heartening that so many SDA commenters on this thread immediately saw through McVety's de-contextualizing of the PM's actual speech.
That's a *shot* at the Communists AND Keynesians.
Exactly. I have no idea how McVety could have misread the meaning of that statement. Then again, half his article was off-topic ad hominem rage at Keynes, so who knows what his point was supposed to be.
oz.."I say that not only is it not a reality, but that it isn't inevitable.
Also, I say it wouldn't be a good thing."
Words of hope, bolstered by the machinations of the EU over the "Greece" crisis.
Watching EU members head for the exits while their "Parliament/Central Bank" wrestles with one currency and a dozen fiscal policies, each with it's own priorities - that at the end of the day aren't aligned with the lofty goals of the EU - is the petrie dish of "one-world" - an experiment going horribly wrong.
The pending collapse of the IPCC is another nail in the coffin of "one-world" - doesn't mean we can drop our guard - but nothing blows up a concept like a dose of reality.
"The world is now globally networked both economically and informationally. We cannot ignore the goods and services, from food to clothing to cars to electronics that have their origin in other parts of the world." ET
Canada could, in theory, manufacture and grow nearly everything it needs for the country to prosper.
The notion that massive global trade is required in order to give citizens a good standard of living comes from growth-based economics, which is unsustainable in the long term.
In other words global trade just allows the Ponzi scheme to go on a bit longer.
If owning an iPod and getting a new car every two years is what we consider success, then sure, the Ponzi scheme is what every country should sign up for.
But we *will* lose our sovereignty in the process, and the Ponzi scheme will run out of steam eventually.
It's Georges' fault.
...-
"Obama's new logo--Blame Bush (this is not a joke)
Twitter ^ | 2-17-10
This is Barack Obama's new logo on his Twitter page. It is truly incredible that they would use the "blame Bush" logo but not surprising"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2453727/posts
http://twitter.com/BarackObama
Oz, if you can see Dion or Iggy making the speech Harper made you have greater vision than I can imagine. Remember no do-overs.
Harper made the monetary committment to Haiti over several years and vote buying, come on get real. He has changed our foreign aid to only a few select countries that are moving towards democracy. I share your concerns over Haiti but believe Harper when he stated he will tightly control aid money to be sure Canada gets value for our aid or it ceases.
If this move helps prevent a housing market (ponzi scheme) bubble here in Canada then I am all for it. One simply has to look south of the "
but Joe, in the ultra right, it's all about gov't BUTT OUT. no need for regulation; the market corrects itself yada yada ya.
read up on Milton Friedman et al.
heck, just page back in SDA enough it's all here.
p.s. steve-o harpoon is ALL about staying in power; screw consistency, screw ethics, screw historical support, screw them all.
TJ - you say that Canada could, in theory, manufacture and grow nearly everything it needs for the country to prosper'.
I differ from this opinion. First, growth based economics is not unsustainable in the long term. And it's not a ponzi economy but a real and materially based economy.
What is unsustainable is no-growth societies, for they must maintain a no-growth population and also, reject technological change. A steady state society, such as hunting and gathering, which is no growth, can't deal with increasing population and biological changes.
Canada's population in post WWII was 11 million; it's now 33 million, and most of it is nestled along the American border.
By biological changes I mean, for example, bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, new forms of disease, new biological properties and diseases in plants and animals, etc. We have to change and develop new tactics to deal with these situations.
Plus, Canada cannot grow and manufacture everything it needs for its population. Our climate doesn't have a year round growing season, and in case you have not noticed, oranges don't grow well in Canada.
What's wrong with trade? What's wrong with exporting oil and minerals and purchasing that cotton, wool and those oranges? And Belgian chocolate?
The reality of the world's differing ecologies means that no single nation can be completely self-sufficient. The richest biome (ecological envt) on the planet is that of Western Europe which is why it came to politically and technologically dominate the world. But other areas have limits on plant, animal, water, soil type, climate, resources - and thus, trade becomes a necessity.
As our technological and communicative abilities have advanced, such that space has effectively disappeared, the world's economy becomes networked as 'one globe'. Different parts produce different things - and network and trade. No 'part' can be self-sufficient and, with electronic communication, no part can isolate itself.
ET, let's focus on food. I could *easily* go the entire year eating food only from Canada:
- raspberries, blueberries and apricots from the Okanagan Valley in the summer, which I could also can to last through the winter
- Alberta beef and lamb
- all kinds of different wheat from the prairies
- fish from both coasts
- milk from Canadian dairy cows in the Fraser Valley
- cheese from Canadian milk (goats and cows), including a goat cheese operation just a few miles from us
- goat meat from a farm just 30 miles away
- chicken from any number of places
- tomatoes and peppers from Fraser Valley greenhouses all year round
- eggs from my own chickens
- potatoes and onions from my own garden
- etc. etc. I've barely scratched the surface
I could easily survive. Now I do like Belgian chocolates and oranges, and I would be happy to trade with *some* countries for those goods.
But I believe modest trade with some countries is far better than wide open trade with everyone.
However, there's no halfway point with those who believe in global trade - it's all or nothing.
On growth based economics, how can it continue indefinitely? It cannot. There are simply not enough natural resources on the earth to give 6 billion people a BMW, an iPod, and a 4000 sq. foot house.
ET, I should add wine from the Okanagan, and home brew beer with all-Canadian ingredients! :)
I could easily survive.
Subsistence is for cave men.
Except even they had the good sense to strive for more wealth and a better standard of living.