Secession Thread II - Canadian version: Canada, "the Argentina of the 21st century"

[el freako]

It takes a bloody long time to 'do an argentina' and leave the rich world to become a third world nation - in Argentina's case around half a century:

Argentina and (Canada's) GDP per head as % of Western Europe:

1904: 107% (110%)
1914: 101% (123%)
1924: 113% (111%)
1934: 97% (93%)
1944: 103% (167%)
1954: 90% (139%)
1964: 71% (120%)
1974: 71% (121%)
1984: 53% (120%)
1994: 50% (114%)
2004: 41% (117%)


That leaves plenty of time for corrective measures.

Countries that are dependent on major resources can enter and leave the 'rich' countries much more rapidly - however Alberta would itself be one of these economically volatile nations.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's an interesting post, elfreako. Two things to me stand out.

This period:

1974: 71% (121%)
1984: 53% (120%)

And this period:

1934: 97% (93%)
1944: 103% (167%)
1954: 90% (139%)


Canada's participation not only increased Canada's GDP during the war, but the effect lasted well after the war. In Argentina, they had hardly any change over the same period.

Argentina really doesn't start to fall behind Canada, until the 1970's, since they both experienced similar declines in the 1960's.

So my question would be what would cause the peculiar decline in Argentina between 1974 and 1984?

[Az]

A bloody rightwing military dictatorship?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not well versed in Argentinian history.

However, if that's the case, then that's hardly a gradual decline of economic prosperity in Argentina, now is it?

[Last Conformist]

Surely the figures for Europe in '44 and '54 are "artificially" depressed by the war and concomitant disruption?

Could you give the same with the US as the comparator?

[Ben Kenobi]

That's why I was saying, that you see the percentage figures for Canada and Argentina drop from 44-64, dropping Canada right about where they were before the war.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Surely the figures for Europe in '44 and '54 are "artificially" depressed by the war and concomitant disruption?

Could you give the same with the US as the comparator?

Certainly - but bear in mind that effects the 1934 (depth of depression) and 1944 figures (top of WW2 boom).

GDP per head of Argentina and (Canada) as % of USA:

1904: 56% (57%)
1914: 53% (65%)
1924: 51% (50%)
1934: 59% (57%)
1944: 30% (49%)
1954: 40% (62%)
1964: 40% (68%)
1974: 45% (77%)
1984: 34% (77%)
1994: 33% (75%)
2004: 28% (79%)

Perhaps I should also post the growth rate of Argentinian GDP per head as wel:

Growth in GDP per head, annual averages:

1904-14: 0.3%
1914-24: 2.1%
1924-34: -0.5%
1934-44: 1.8%
1944-54: 0.8%
1954-64: 1.8%
1964-74: 3.5%
1974-84: -1.1%
1984-94: 1.2%
1994-04: 0.0%

So you can see the main problem Argentina has is that it's average income is no higher than it was 30 years ago.

[notyoueither]

Oh my.

[notyoueither]

Craig is a wing-nut poly-sci prof who used to amuse students no end. The department treasured him as a token conservative.

Link Byfield (Ted's son) is an extreme right wing journalist. Sun Publishing makes a point of keeping one or two of them around to set off bombs under everyone.

Their feelings re Canada and Alberta's place in it, or better yet out of it, are the product of the NEP.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Starchild
Canadians are odd. After five years, I still don't fully understand how they can build such a nice country and then spend all their waking time trying to tear it apart.

Regional bickering is part of the national character.

Originally posted by Az
But why the heck is it the province's money, and not federal money? just because you live in the same province as a bunch of oil wells doesn't mean you should somehow feel that you are paying for everybody else.

For the same reason that hydro belongs to the people of Quebec and BC, and the minerals belong to the people of Ontario. Provincial ownership of natural resources is part of the constitutional order.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Oh my.

Isn't it great?!!

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Richelieu
Isn't it great?!!

Yes.

[notyoueither]

It's lively.

[St Leo]

CalgaryGrit's Rebuttal

Some choice quotes:

…until the price of oil drops. Or Canada decides not to let them into NAFTA. Or head-offices of Canadian companies leave Calgary. Or there's a mass exodus of human capital.

And there is no way a rich nation with 3 million people would have even remotely as much clout in the world as a slightly less rich nation of 30+ million people.
...
Translation: This is the only way to prevent man on man monogamy.
...
Is this guy serious? Canada has the best economy in the G8.

[Asher]

Why do you think the head-offices of so many "Canadian" companies are in Calgary?

With that in mind, why would you think they'd leave Alberta if Alberta were to leave Canada?

If you correctly answered the first question, the 2nd question is simply "they wouldn't".

And I don't think the point of separating would be to get "clout" in the world, it would to get "clout" in the terms of having more say over what happens in your area.