Let's debate about the future of Canada. (LONG READ)

[[GaGe]]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In two years I'm moving to Switzerland, the way this country is heading does not align with my lifestyle.

Great place for average people to continue being average. We no longer value hard work or reward it, damn socialists.

Speaking of Socialists - I find it interesting that they seem "average" due to lack of reward/incentive for hard work, but Socialist countries are among the leaders in R&D spend and innovation (except for Canada):

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-as-u-s-falls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...pment_spending

IMO, innovation and forward thinking is more important than hard work and efficiency nowadays when we're talking about machines being more efficient and accurate than humans.

As for AI, if we resist it to protect jobs instead of embracing it, we're going to lose the same admin/repetitive type jobs but to outside competition that's more willing to adopt the new tech.

So my take on the future of Canada is - our downfall will be companies/people/provinces all fighting against each other over dumb shit (ie. protesters attacking O&G producers and letting less responsible producers gain market share, provinces moving away from free trade, etc.) while other countries are partnering/collaborating to innovate haha.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

but Socialist countries are among the leaders in R&D spend and innovation (except for Canada)

So? That means f-all when they can't even remotely compete on GDP per capita. Basically, their governments are wasting money not coming up with any innovative solutions or being productive. Yes, yay them indeed.

If you are above average, the USA is the place to go. Or maybe somewhere in Asia. Canada needs to get its house in order and understand that economic wealth of the nation lifts all boats, including the poor.

[ZenOps]

Canada and even Edmonton does have a big advantage when it comes to AI. The winters are cold here.

Seriously.

You can have transistors firing at 5,000 watts per household - and the waste heat that is created is actually welcomed and useful. One of the worst places to have AI, is California. On the basic assumption that location is predominately based on electrical overcapacity, access to cheap generation, and waste heat usefulness or hinderance.

[[GaGe]]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So? That means f-all when they can't even remotely compete on GDP per capita. Basically, their governments are wasting money not coming up with any innovative solutions or being productive. Yes, yay them indeed.

If you are above average, the USA is the place to go. Or maybe somewhere in Asia. Canada needs to get its house in order and understand that economic wealth of the nation lifts all boats, including the poor.

Most of those Nordic countries rank above Canada in GDP per capita and have outgrown the US over the past 10 years. Norway ranks above the USA lol.

I wouldn’t say they’re not coming up with innovative solutions either.

[HiTempguy1]

Switzerland and Norway. Two countries, each with quite unique circumstances compared to the USA, each with massively smaller populations. One of them (Switzerland) getting a substantial boost from banking by offering ease of market access. Easy to pump up the gdp per capita with a small population and a disproportionate banking sector.

I never said anything about Canada's gdp per capita being better than anyone's, so good job arguing with yourself I guess? Canada's gdp per capita is abysmal.

[[GaGe]]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Switzerland and Norway. Two countries, each with quite unique circumstances compared to the USA, each with massively smaller populations. One of them (Switzerland) getting a substantial boost from banking by offering ease of market access. Easy to pump up the gdp per capita with a small population and a disproportionate banking sector.

I never said anything about Canada's gdp per capita being better than anyone's, so good job arguing with yourself I guess? Canada's gdp per capita is abysmal.

Guessing you didn't read my entire post before commenting then... my point/opinion was that the socialist countries in Europe are in a better spot to compete than Canada is, in response to someone being critical of Canada being too socialist.

I was comparing them to Canada and not the US - see the title of the thread.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Guessing you didn't read my entire post before commenting then... my point/opinion was that the socialist countries in Europe are in a better spot to compete than Canada is, in response to someone being critical of Canada being too socialist.

I was comparing them to Canada and not the US - see the title of the thread.

Norway is never a fair comparison whatsoever they have made a fortune on oil and gas. It’s easy to be “socialist” when you have a glut of cash.

Not saying the other points aren’t without merit, I just cringe every time someone brings up Norway and throws it in people’s face. They clearly haven’t researched Norway’s history. And please don’t be ridiculous and claim the main factor is management of the O&G industry there compared to here. In that case you don’t understand the North Sea compared to piddly onshore canada, and the whole access to market debacle

Edit: just a quick search (numbers may be off a bit) but ignoring gas last year Canada produced 4.2 million barrels/day, Norway produced 1.5.
Norway is 1/6th Canada population but produces over 1/3rd Canada’s production. Canada has a land mass of ~10 million sq Kms, Norway has a landmass of 0.4million sq Kms. They simply aren’t comparable. Their pockets are bursting at the seams and that’s not even considering their oil trades at roughly a 100% higher value than ours right now, realistically the value of their total product probably sits at 1/2 to 2/3s of canada’s And with 1/6 the population and with only 4% of Canada’s land mass it makes for an absolutely ridiculous comparison

[ZenOps]

Canada building a couple of 14nm silicon chip production plants might be of great use in the future. They might not even need be "upgradeable" by my estimation.

It might be time to go full ham on 14nm, as low wattage 7nm+ really is only for phones and watches (and not world changing, multi gigawatt AI) If 7nm is usable, only time will tell, if its possible then 7nm too.

Its technically physically impossible to go smaller than 1nm, as 1nm is two atoms of silicon wide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i9_microprocessors#"Skylake-X"_(14_nm) Yes, Intel is still using 14nm for its new 18 core processors.

A chip plant would require: An area with extremely low dust and emission particulates and earthquakes less than 3.0 in addition to standard requirements. IE: Japan is totally unsuitable place to build a chip plant because of earthquake activity.

https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1333637

[[GaGe]]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Norway is never a fair comparison whatsoever they have made a fortune on oil and gas. It’s easy to be “socialist” when you have a glut of cash.

Not saying the other points aren’t without merit, I just cringe every time someone brings up Norway and throws it in people’s face. They clearly haven’t researched Norway’s history. And please don’t be ridiculous and claim the main factor is management of the O&G industry there compared to here. In that case you don’t understand the North Sea compared to piddly onshore canada, and the whole access to market debacle

Edit: just a quick search (numbers may be off a bit) but ignoring gas last year Canada produced 4.2 million barrels/day, Norway produced 1.5.
Norway is 1/6th Canada population but produces over 1/3rd Canada’s production. Canada has a land mass of ~10 million sq Kms, Norway has a landmass of 0.4million sq Kms. They simply aren’t comparable. Their pockets are bursting at the seams and that’s not even considering their oil trades at roughly a 100% higher value than ours right now, realistically the value of their total product probably sits at 1/2 to 2/3s of canada’s And with 1/6 the population and with only 4% of Canada’s land mass it makes for an absolutely ridiculous comparison

I 100% agree with you here - hate it when people argue that Canada needs to be more Socialist and assume we would have the same success as Norway. Not a fair comparion and it wouldn’t work for us for those exact reasons.

My comparison was specific to cultural differences and our lack of R&D investment.

[Buster]

Countries that are (or were) socialist but wealthy because of oil and not the socialism:

1. Norway
2. Venezuela
3. Saudi Arabia

[ercchry]

It’s not even the government policies that make Canada unfriendly to those that have excelled in life... we have this culture that frowns on the people that have more than the masses (just look at the hate for Alberta across the country) where as Americans actually celebrate those that have been able to amass personal wealth, even if they don’t add a value to society (cough... The Kardashians)

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

To me this seems like a great thing, eventually only people that really want kids and know they can invest fully in them will have them.

Lol....

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In two years I'm moving to Switzerland, the way this country is heading does not align with my lifestyle.

Great place for average people to continue being average. We no longer value hard work or reward it, damn socialists.

You aren't the first person to mention this on Beyond, and I'm genuinely curious how you feel you are discriminated against as a hard worker. Can you elaborate?

[ZenOps]

No one works harder than a Zimbabwean that digs all day for a flake of gold to buy a loaf of bread. That's definitely not a good thing by my measurements. Nor is it good to employ 200 hardworking NASA rocket scientists for two years to do what it now takes the AI 15 minutes to calculate.

Yes, please elaborate.

[ZenOps]

6:21 for graph

Its important to note that Sub-Saharan Africa is pretty much the last place on earth where humans are actively having children. The rest of the world is pretty much shunning extra children.

[tonytiger55]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

By removing government from it. Private industry innovates, public sector stagnates. By its very nature, government actively does not want improvement.

I agree. Private industry innovates, they also can get lazy with a lack of competition. Profit is the bottom line at the end of the day. If educational institutions can't keep pace or are creating artificial barriers, then a company needs to look international to bring in knowledge, otherwise the bottom line is at risk.
Thats when government can assist in/ sets the foundation that allows private enterprise to do that. ie specific work permits, talks with university/colleges over connections with industry needs etc.

A prime example is the 3.00 minute mark in the video listed by ZenOps. The part about India.
In 1990 the prime minister of India Rajeev Ghandi was assassinated. The deputy minister did not know what the fuck he was doing and the economy was going to shit. So turned to his economic minister at the time, Manmohan Singh. He advised the relaxation of of the economic barriers and allow foreign companies to come in.

This allowed international companies to set up in India and with that you get some knowledge transfer. The boom in the mid 90's to the 2000's in India are prime examples of this.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

the relaxation of of the economic barriers and allow foreign companies to come in.

Government repealing its own ideas is not somehow a positive of government interference It's the market system reverting back to its original state. At best, they get an "attaboy" for undoing their fuckup, but that doesn't somehow mean government interference is GOOD. The country would be in a better place to begin with had the government not interfered.

[tonytiger55]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Government repealing its own ideas is not somehow a positive of government interference It's the market system reverting back to its original state. At best, they get an "attaboy" for undoing their fuckup, but that doesn't somehow mean government interference is GOOD. The country would be in a better place to begin with had the government not interfered.

I don't think the government has interference. Thats not been my argument. Thats been yours, but I see your point.
My argument has been the government sets the platform. Private enterprise builds upon that.

As to your point that the country would be in a better position had not the government interfered. That part I would totally disagree on. It misses out a important variable, the history and rules.

Would post partition India be a better place considering the country had been run by private enterprise prior to this..? The same enterprise that butchered Indians..?
Then what would have been the point to kicking out the British..? You kick out private enterprise so you can have private enterprise right after?

India kicks out the British, so they can come right back in again..? That would not have worked. It would have been a disaster. India had no idea who it was, nationalism did not really exist. No real functioning civil service, no real structure for private enterprise to build on. Hundreds of languages, religions and kingdoms. It was a mess.

Thats why it closed off to the international markets. Indian needed to figure itself out. Remember India is not a country. Its like 30 countries in one.
India needed its piss poor government to set out the platform for enterprise to work (to work as a country and as a whole). It did not do a great job, pretty shitty actually. But it allowed the focus to turn inwards till it figured itself out and then got very lazy about it. India in the 1970s and 80's is the best prime example of you statement that that government not wanting improvement. There were some improvements, it got the kingdoms/states talking to each other.

But the term government is not static and neither is the population.
The late 80s had a different generation of people. So prior to Ranjeev Ghandi being assassinated and after. It was the same government in name. But the line of thinking was totally different.
Oddly enough, that economic minister ended up being elected Prime Minister.

So to my point, the country would not have been in a better place post partition 1947. India would not be a better place without its government attempting to establish some sort of system and rules in a new country. There was nothing for the market system to sit on right after 1947.

The system prior to that is a example of a free market system without any rules or framework. It just pisses off its workforce so they revolt hence the free market system collapses.
Hence you need a government framework to fine tune and adjust that. But the problem is, its like a pendulum. Sometimes it moves too much in one direction and stays.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think the government has interference. Thats not been my argument. Thats been yours, but I see your point.

Clearly you don't. Arguing that I don't see your point, then completely missing mine.

I never said we need no government. We need an absolute bare minimum. When the British had control of India, clearly that falls into a system of essentially "no government".

But that goes even further. India arguably should not have been amalgamated out of 30 countries. It is a really, really poor case study for your argument all things considered, because it is an incredibly unique situation.

In fact, why you'd base your argument on a "country" that is so young and unstable makes no sense. It's awful data in the first place.

My point still stands, as minimal government as possible. No western society currently practices that, in fact, every single example has steadily been increasing government control overall over the past 50 years.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Clearly you don't. Arguing that I don't see your point, then completely missing mine.

I never said we need no government. We need an absolute bare minimum. When the British had control of India, clearly that falls into a system of essentially "no government".

But that goes even further. India arguably should not have been amalgamated out of 30 countries. It is a really, really poor case study for your argument all things considered, because it is an incredibly unique situation.

In fact, why you'd base your argument on a "country" that is so young and unstable makes no sense. It's awful data in the first place.

My point still stands, as minimal government as possible. No western society currently practices that, in fact, every single example has steadily been increasing government control overall over the past 50 years.

Sweden is going the other way, in general. The country prospered due to relatively free markets until the mid-century, then got suckered into a Big Government situation for the latter part of last century. Their relative wealth plummeted and they have spent the last 20 years deconstructing the nanny state. Canadians are just so far behind the times they still think the big government liberal policies actually work.