« Questions you dare not ask | Main | The sources of fuel efficiency: a counterintuitive result »
$500 a barrel for oil?
With energy five times as expensive ... we would take a substantial hit to incomes. Our living standard would decline by about 11 percent. But we would still be fantastically rich compared to the pre-industrial world. ... Our income would still be above the current living standards in Canada, Sweden or England. Oh, the suffering humanity! At current rates of economic growth we would gain back the income losses from having to convert to solar power in less than six years....
That is Greg Clark, link here.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on December 23, 2007 at 10:11 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
I think it's very quaint that Americans still feel they have a higher standard of living than those in Canada or Sweden.
Posted by: Stephen Downes at Dec 23, 2007 10:35:42 AM
The environmentalists and anti-environmentalists who assume that addressing global climate change will hurt the economy don't understand economics. It's shallow to only look at monetary costs and benefits.
As Nobel Laureate Ken Arrow points out, mitigating negative externalities, like pollution, makes us better off if properly done. It does not "reduce our living standards" nor do we take a "substantial hit to incomes" as long as real incomes are correctly measured.
Thus, climate change is not environment vs. economics as it's often portrayed. Instead, it's simply a matter of doing the right thing in the most cost-effective way.
Here's Arrow's analysis: ( http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/12/kenneth-arrow-t.html ).
It shows that addressing climate change is likely to be a positive NPV activity, as long as our discount rates are less than 8.5%. The case for acting now is only made stronger if there is greater uncertainty about the outcomes.
That said, $500 a barrel oil is almost surely too high a price in the short term, but the broader point is to change the framing of the debate and think about the question in economic terms. Mitigating externalities is economics 101.
Posted by: A student of economics at Dec 23, 2007 10:51:01 AM
Standard of living in the traditional economic sense would be 11% lower. But think of this. What if oil was that expensive to us because we imposed a $410 to $490 tax per barrel? My guess is that the world price would drop (go, monopsony power!) a lot. Who would be hurt? The Saudis, Iraqis, Iranians, Russians, Venezuelans, Nigerians, Texans.... With all our enemies having significantly reduced resources, we could make up half the drop in our standard of living by reducing military spending. Ask the troops what they think of a $400 tax on oil.
Posted by: Bill at Dec 23, 2007 11:29:52 AM
That's a bold statement, because it is hard to transcribe it for reality. First, there is the issue of transition from fossil fuels (30% of world power) to solar power. If you do it ad hoc, there will be a shock and I think the time frame to adapt will be a lot more than 6 years.
Then we have multiple technical and political issues. Where do we built the solar panels (probably where there is much sunlight) and what do we do during nights. How can we transfer power from the day side of earth to the night side? Can we have battery towers that can store enough power for the winter month?
Would the ecological destruction resulting of converting huge areas into solar-panel-farms really be worth the effort?
The comparison of Energy per square meter built power plant is much higher for coal and nuclear power!
Also, how would major global players like Russia/USA/Europe react to the altered power structure, where they are suddenly dependent of sun-rich countries? Will this set-off a new age of colonialism and imperialism to claim and secure energy-spots?
Posted by: Max at Dec 23, 2007 11:37:14 AM
Why not nuclear power? Look at the hard numbers guys! Wind and solar power just dont cut it: Capital investment, seasonality, low power densities and a million other factors.
Man is a very irrational risk assessor and unfortunately Greenpeace, Sierra-Club and other misguided, ill-informed lobby-groups keep the doomsday propaganda hyped up.
Posted by: anon at Dec 23, 2007 1:49:05 PM
"I think it's very quaint that Americans still feel they have a higher standard of living than those in Canada or Sweden."
Please explain.
Posted by: J. at Dec 23, 2007 2:32:00 PM
Well you can always count on EV to argue that forcing us to do the "right thing" can be good for us.
Furthermore, wouldn't the supply of energy be increased mightily by a sustained increase to even $100?
Posted by: Rich Berger at Dec 23, 2007 2:37:18 PM
Stephen Downes, is there net migration from America to Canada and Sweden or the other way around?
Posted by: TGGP at Dec 23, 2007 2:54:34 PM
Our living standard would decline by about 11 percent.
How exactly was this figure arrived at? At best it's just an (optimistic?) estimate. He also sounds just a little too gleeful at the demise of the suburbs -- is this a dispassionate analysis or a sociopolitical wet dream?
He's also not including the enormous one-time costs and disruption of the transition. New infrastructure won't build itself.
Anyway, let's hope he's right.
Posted by: at Dec 23, 2007 4:22:08 PM
Fallacious logic. It's not as easy to emigrate to Sweden as it is from Sweden to the US.
And yes, the (socialist) Swedish enjoy a higher standard of living that we in the US. I wouldn't argue that Canadians do, but Scandinavian countries do.
Posted by: meter at Dec 23, 2007 4:25:48 PM
Even if we're facing peak oil, we're centuries away from peak coal. As Daniel Gros argues (via Naked Capitalism), switching to coal will worsen global warming.
Posted by: at Dec 23, 2007 4:27:59 PM
So life after peak oil should hold no terror for us – unless, of course, you have invested in a lot of suburban real estate.
His ending clues us in to what this really is ----- a Lefty anti-suburban social engineering rant.
Posted by: Varangy at Dec 23, 2007 4:53:05 PM
@Stephen Downes
Looking at GDP (PPP), the USA bests both Sweden and Canada. To reiterate another poster's point, people vote with their feet, what do the net migration patterns tell us?
Posted by: Varangy at Dec 23, 2007 4:59:34 PM
Not to mention that there are less than 10 MM Swedes and about 35 MM Canadians.
Posted by: Rich Berger at Dec 23, 2007 5:08:49 PM
Offhand I was not able to find any stats on migration
between the US and Sweden and Canada. Quite aside from
adjusing for relative populations and differences in rules,
it is far from obvious that the claim made by several here
about the net direction of such migration is all that obvious.
I know people who have moved from the US to both Sweden and
Canada, more to the latter than the former, which as has been
noted is not so easy to do.
Regarding living standards, these are indeed hard to measure.
The US is ahead of both countries on measured real per capita
income. But then both of them beat the US on life expectancy,
infant mortality, and measured happiness levels, and Sweden
beats the US on the UN's Human Development Index, which takes
education into account along with health and real per capita
income. Not so obvious here.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 23, 2007 6:18:09 PM
I guess some people think that it's possible to *objectively* state whether the standard of living is higher in the US, Canada, and/or Sweden, is that right? That strikes me as such a weird thing even to want to do.
I guess you can objectively state that in many ways, and by many standards, Canada, the US, and Sweden are all near the top. But once that's been objectively established, doesn't the answer to the question "which is the best?" depend an awful lot on individual preference? Maybe even completely on individual preference? Perhaps you like living among fair-haired people who drive Volvos, maybe I prefer to spend my life among in the American Southwest. Deal with it.
There's such a thing as asking economics to answer questions that economics isn't really suited to answer, no?
Posted by: MIchael Blowhard at Dec 23, 2007 7:04:37 PM
America is so much larger (in population) than Sweden and Canada, I don't see how you can compare them. There are certainly small countries with higher standards of living than the USA, just as there are small states with higher standards of living than the rest of the USA. So what?
Although I do get the impression than America has very bad government compared to other industrialized nations. Libertarians don't argue that all forms of socialism are equally bad, of course. If we must have Big Government, there are certainly large differences between the best (Sweden maybe?) and the worst (North Korea?).
Posted by: G at Dec 23, 2007 8:06:15 PM
re: "I think it's very quaint that Americans still feel they have a higher standard of living than those in Canada or Sweden."
Awwww look, the cute little Canuck is trying to be snarky!
Posted by: Michael at Dec 23, 2007 8:49:36 PM
There's such a thing as asking economics to answer questions that economics isn't really suited to answer, no?
Heresy.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Dec 23, 2007 9:18:07 PM
The higher lifespan and infant mortality of swedes has everything to do with them being ... swedes.
That's a common red herring. America has a large black and hispanic population which lowers our stats in those areas. While raising other stats like fertility rate.
Comparing a state like Minnesota or Wisconsin directly would be much more enlightening.
And, of course draconian enviro policies will lower our standard of living.
Anytime you run policy according to religious dictates (ie Environmentalism) the people suffer. In the case of environmentalism, that's actually the point.
Most of the people I know are enviros. I often feel like the lone scientist at a revival meeting. I think human nature is inherently attracted to crazed apocalyptic fantasies. Luckily we have Pope Gore to save us. :-)
Posted by: jim at Dec 23, 2007 9:21:45 PM
ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON with the immigration question...Canada to USA is over twice as high as the reverse, even in raw numbers (so it's much greater in percentage terms). Sweden to USA is about the same as the reverse in raw numbers which means it too is much higher in percentage terms.
The USA must be really great to attract all those Canucks and Swedes despite such a lower standard of living, eh?
Source: http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/countrydata/country.cfm
Posted by: Michael at Dec 23, 2007 9:38:15 PM
"The higher lifespan and infant mortality of swedes has everything to do with them being ... swedes.
That's a common red herring. America has a large black and hispanic population which lowers our stats in those areas. While raising other stats like fertility rate."
I fail to see why this is a red herring. Why should the black and hispanic population not be counted as part of the American? Are blacks not Americans?
Posted by: tom s. at Dec 23, 2007 10:40:21 PM
Michael, you need to think a bit harder about your conclusions: "Sweden to USA is about the same as the reverse in raw numbers which means it too is much higher in percentage terms." Given your data, revealed preference does not indicate that either nation is preferred overall by the citizens of the other.
After all, Americans are a much bigger share of immigrants in Sweden than Swedes are of immigrants in the USA. It's higher in percentage terms in the reverse way when you look at it in the other direction.
But either way, the net flow is zero, and that's the bottom line. Another way to see this is to substitute "Peoria" (or any other town) and "the rest of the U.S." for "Sweden" and "the U.S." If people are indifferent, then random movements will lead to zero net flows regardless of the units being compared.
That said, there may of course be other factors like weather that affect immigration, yet have nothing to do with the aspects of living standards that policies can affect.
Jim, it's true that "of course draconian enviro policies will lower our standard of living." It's also true that lack of reasonable environmental policies will lower our standard of living. The quasi-religious free marketers want to believe this isn't true, regardless of the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. I hope you aren't one of them.
Posted by: A student of economics at Dec 23, 2007 11:24:04 PM
michael,
I just tried to go the url you provided. I got "object not found."
I suggest that you should cool it on the ethnic and national smears,
especially when your data is not there and your logic is full of holes,
as student of economics just accurately pointed out.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 23, 2007 11:28:51 PM
I managed to find the data source in question.
While indeed flow from Canada to the US is about
twice that going the other way, the numbers going
from the US to Sweden exceed the numbers going the
other way, although not by a whole lot.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 23, 2007 11:41:19 PM
Tom S.: You could argue that the children of slavery are not Americans. What is the one thing that all Americans (except them) have in common? We chose to come here; their ancestors didn't. I suggest that it's theoretically possible that the children of slavery are genetically and culturally different from the rest of America.
Of course, that says nothing about hispanics, nor does it say anything about the whites who ended up as slaves in America (yes, and some of them were owned by black people -- we were a very egalitarian country before slavery became associated with race).
Thus, I argue against myself. Am I right or wrong? Either way I get to be both at the same time.
Posted by: Russell Nelson at Dec 24, 2007 3:04:56 AM
"The quasi-religious free marketers want to believe..."
Here's a tip: Whenever someone writes something like that, their credibility approaches zero.
"Student of Economics," what college do you go to? And what sort of "economics" do you study?
Posted by: 2 at Dec 24, 2007 4:00:12 AM
Places like Sweden and Canada require much higher per-GDP energy to get nearly equivalent per-capita GDP (not true of Japan). Fortunately, much of that energy comes from AGW-friendly -- but not necessarily environmentally friendly -- hydro. Unfortunately, dams have a limited lifetime. So yes, $500/bbl oil will have an effect on the living standards in Sweden and Canada, too. Fortunately for oil-producing Canada, they will also see some benefits of $500 oil.
Posted by: Eric H at Dec 24, 2007 9:02:38 AM
2 at 4am: My reference to "The quasi-religious free marketers" was a sarcastic response to the phrase "religious dictates (ie Environmentalism) " by Jim at 9:21 which I was discussing. Of course it undercuts a person's credibility to use such phrases. That was the point. I thought Jim might understand that better if he saw it in a slightly tweaked mirror.
Sorry the reflectional humor was lost on you, but thanks for the tip. It's odd that you didn't share your sage advice with Jim, but maybe you think he's beyond educating?
As for me, among other things, I study "economics" on the Internet and elsewhere, learning what I can from Alex, Tyler, Paul, Greg, Brad and most of all fellow commenters like you and Jim.
Posted by: A student of economics at Dec 24, 2007 9:45:53 AM
Student of economics: So, you aren't a graduate student in economics anywhere?
Posted by: J. at Dec 24, 2007 10:42:45 AM
Given the earlier debates on the Laffer Curve, conservatives would be wise to accept the static model and make a deal with environmentalists. Repeal the income tax amendment, eliminatiing all income, capital gains, and payroll taxes. A $100 tax on a barrel of oil would generate about $750 billion, so $400 oil would fund the entire government.
Posted by: 8 at Dec 24, 2007 10:48:03 AM
jim,
Actually saying, "America has a large black and hispanic population which lowers our stats in those areas," is a common red herring to brush off lower life expectancy in the US.
The Swedes and Canadians still outlive American whites by about 2 years (slightly more for Swedes and slightly less for Canadians). Swedish males live 78.7 years and females live 82.9 years, on average. American whites live 75.7 years for males and 80.8 years for females. In Canada, it's 77.8 years for men and 82.6 for women.
Posted by: Mo at Dec 24, 2007 12:19:55 PM
I fail to see why what or where "A student of economics" studies should have anything to do with the validity of his or her arguments. A few over-the-top statements need not discredit the rest of his or her reasoning.
He or she is perfectly right, by the way, that correcting externalities is part of Econ 101 (though of course, as Econ 101 also should point out, not all externalities require government intervention). I believe Ken Arrow's cost-benefit analysis of reducing carbon emissions was also linked to earlier.
Posted by: johnleemk at Dec 24, 2007 2:11:59 PM
There is a pretty big leap in logic to say that 500$/bbl oil means the U.S. would have to shift dramatically to solar, wind, etc. Considering:
1)the the portion of electricity from oil is small, and that the largest share comes from coal http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html
2)We have lots of coal http://www.economist.com/debate/freeexchange/
3)The U.S. has access to large reserves of natural gas http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/info_glance/natural_gas.html (looking at production, imports etc)
This is not to say there is no place for solar, just that it seems like Mr. Clark is is revealing his preference on what the US energy future should look like.
Posted by: Rolo Tomasi at Dec 24, 2007 3:50:47 PM
Eric h.,
Canada is clearly using a lot of nonsustainable energy sources that are not clean,
but besides hydro, Sweden is one of the largest users of nuclear for its electricity
production, ony surpassed by France, I think, in percentage terms, although maybe also
Belgium.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 24, 2007 4:52:33 PM
That's a common red herring. America has a large black and hispanic population which lowers our stats in those areas. While raising other stats like fertility rate.
Life expectancy for Hispanics is higher than life expectancy for whites.
I wonder why you got that wrong? Hmm...
Posted by: LN at Dec 25, 2007 12:22:47 AM
Despite common belief to the contrary, a shift to solar power is completely feasible with current technology, and relatively limited infrastructural change.
The main obstacles to reliance on solar power have always been the lack of sunlight, and therefore power, during the night, and the method of transportation from the solar plants (presumably in the southwest) and the consumer.
The answer to the first is storing power generated during the day, not in battery banks, but rather in potential energy, ie compressing air, or pumping water uphill. Then, at night, this potential energy is converted into actual electricity via turbine.
As for transporting this energy, what has been proposed are long distance DC lines, which lose far less energy over long distances than AC lines, and are also cheaper and easier to put up, that run along the interstate highway system, and then feed into existing regional powergrids.
Anyhow, that's my contribution to this little discussion. As my knowledge of the subject is limited, I would point those who are interested in more detailed/additional information towards the following Scientific American article:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
Posted by: Elliot at Dec 25, 2007 2:36:47 AM
Elliot,
"Completely feasible," but at about ten times the cost of current sources.
Ain't gonna happen, at least not anytime soon.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 26, 2007 12:59:28 PM
What a load of crap! I'm stunned by all the ignorant posts here.
Sweden is not a socialist state (my guess is that only an american would ever believe that). Sweden is on the contrary right now ruled by the moderate (right) coalition, and has by any reasonable definition never been ruled by a socialst government.
About 30% of the electricity in sweden is nuclear in origin, hardly the highest number in Europe.
And from first hand experience I can say that mean "living standards" are way higher in Sweden compared to USA.
Posted by: swede at Dec 26, 2007 2:09:39 PM
swede,
As the person who mentioned nuclear power, which I consider to be a postive
for Sweden as it helps combat global warming, I just checked the official
figures from the IAEA. I am right: Sweden is third behind France and Belgium
in the percentage of electricity supplied by nuclear. The numbers are 78%,
57%, and 52%, respectively, and not 30% for Sweden. BTW, I did not label
Sweden "socialist," although others did here.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 26, 2007 5:32:29 PM
"Student of Economics" -- first of all, don't worry about whether you have a degree or not. Your ideas stand or fall on their own, regardless of whether they've been helped (or hurt) by formal education. and that's coming from an Ivy League MBA.
Second, on one hand I can see your point about the net flow. After all, if an (approximately) equal number of people are making opposite decisions, isn't that evidence of an impasse. But if you look at it in a larger sense, I think you'll see that the evidence points to my conclusion. After all, we have 250 million people who each year are given the chance (let's ignore financial and logistical barriers for now) to "trade" US citizenship for Swedish citizenship, and the data show that the chances of any one of them doing so are infinitesimally low. During that same year, 9 million Swedes are given the chance to "trade" Swedish citizenship for US citizenship, and the chances of any one of them doing so is much, much higher. So while the number of people "voting" (with their feet) for the opposite country is the same, both the number and the percentage of people "voting" for their own country is much, much higher in the US.
Of course, immigration patterns aren't a perfect gauge of standard of living by any means, but one would assume comparative standards of living (by some definition) play at least some part in the decision to move.
Thoughts?
And btw, "Barkley Rosser," the reason I didn't address any questions to you is that, based on your response to my post I am assuming you are an idiot. If you'd like to post something with actual analysis (and preferably without referring to American, Canuck, and/or Swedish as "ethnicities"), by all means feel free.
Posted by: Michael at Dec 26, 2007 11:44:35 PM
"Michael,"
You have not answered Student's argument at all. Does the fact that there is an equal inflow and outflow
population between Peoria nd the rest of the US mean that life in Peoria sucks compared to that of the
rest of the US? No.
You do not need to use quotation marks around my name. It is my real name, and I am easily found. If you
google either my first or my last name, my website with most of my recent papers will come up in the top ten
hits, I am that big of an "idiot." Who are you and where are you to be found? And, "Canuck" is an insulting
term like "kike" or "nigger," just in case you are too ignorant to know. But I suspect you do, and are just
wallowing in your loudmouthed and obnoxious chauvinism.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 27, 2007 12:50:39 AM
Yep, you're definitely confirming my initial prognosis. First of all, as stated my earlier post, one's arguments rise and fall on their own merit; there are just as many idiots in the academy as anywhere else (probably more). Your degrees and/or employment are irrelevant to this discussion. Logic, please.
Regarding my response to Student, I actually did provide some analysis, which you have not yet done (nor critiqued my analysis), so please do so and I'll be happy to respond.
Regarding "Canuck," I was basing my assessment of the word on the facts that most of the Canadians I have known (dozens) have used the word themselves, and NONE of them have ever expressed any offense at its use. Would you like to offer your own reasoning as to why you think it's offensive? If you don't want me to refer to you as a Canuck, I'm happy not to. But you can't tell me that the word is offensive on its face, because all my experience tells me that's ridiculous.
P.S. Wikipedia:
Canadians use "Canuck" as an affectionate description of nationality and the word carries no particular patriotic overtones. A few Americans misinterpret "Canuck" as an offensive noun but would be hard pressed to find a Canadian, French or English, insulted by the word.
Usage of the term includes:
* The Vancouver Canucks hockey team
* Canuck Place Children's Hospice, providing specialized pediatric palliative care in Vancouver BC
* The Canucks Rugby Club, playing in Calgary since 1968.
* The Crazy Canucks, Canadian alpine ski racers who competed successfully on the World Cup circuit in the '70s.
* Johnny Canuck, a personification of Canada who appeared in early political cartoons of the 1860s resisting Uncle Sam's bullying. Johnny Canuck was revived in 1942 by Leo Bachle to defend Canada against the Nazis.
* In 1975 in comics by Richard Comely, Captain Canuck is a super-agent for Canadians' security, with Redcoat and Kebec being his sidekicks. (Kebec is claimed to be unrelated to Capitaine Kébec of a French-Canadian comic published two years earlier.) Captain Canuck had enhanced strength and endurance thanks to being bathed in alien rays during a camping trip. The captain was reintroduced in the mid-1990s, and again in 2004.
* Operation Canuck was the designated name of a British SAS raid led by a Canadian captain, Buck McDonald in January 1945.
* "The Dark Canuck" is a song on The Tragically Hip's album In Violet Light.
* In 1995, Canada Post released 45-cent postage stamps depicting Johnny Canuck and Captain Canuck.
* "Canuck" is a nickname for the Curtiss JN4 and Avro CF-100 aircraft. The CF-100 was the only Canadian designed and built jet fighter to enter operational service. From 1950-1958, 692 Canucks were built. They remained in service until 1981
* One of the first uses of "Canuck" — in the form of "Kanuk" — specifically referred to Dutch Canadians as well as the French.
* "Canuck" also has the derived meanings of a Canadian pony (rare) and a French-Canadian patois[2] (very rare).
* Team Canuck is a small-sized team at RoboCup.
* North Plainfield High School Canucks, is the mascot of this High School in New Jersey.
* "Canuck Rubber", a reference to Canadian Tire stores.[citation needed]
* The Curtiss JN-4(Can) biplane was known as the Canuck.
Posted by: Michael at Dec 27, 2007 11:04:27 AM
"Michael,"
OK, fair enough on the "Canuck" issue. However, when you used it earlier
to address someone who self-identified as Canadian, you used it in connection
with a lot of other derogatory language. The hard fact is that you do not
come across as someone most people would like to spend much time with,
unless in fact they were racist jerks.
Regarding the "perccentage of population" issue, let us look at that closely.
So, consider all the communities in the US whose population growth rates
correspond to that of the country as a whole and which have approximate
balances of inflow and outflow of population, to match the country, a small
net inflow, just as Sweden has a small net inflow when compared with the US.
So, in comparing all of these communities' populations to that of the US as
a whole, we will discover that the percent of the population leaving is
enormous when compared with the percentage of the population of the rest of
the US that is moving in. By your logic, all these communities should be
terrible places to live compared with the rest of the US. But in fact, they
are average.
So, your logic is incorrect.
BTW, are you willing to let people know who you are, or are you just going
to sit there handing out fallacious insults behind your mask of one of the
most widely used male first names?
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 27, 2007 11:14:54 AM
"Michael,"
Well, I just did a bit more googling on "Canuck." Yes, Wikipedia
declares that it is not viewed as derogatory by Canadians, although
it is frequently used in a consciously derogatory manner by Americans.
However, Wikipedia is not always the most reliable of sources. I have
caught it being wrong. The OED says it is certainly derogatory when
used by Americans and says that it is a matter of debate whether it is
viewed as derogatory among Canadians.
My suspicion here is that this like many other ethnic identifiers of
borderline character. It is OK for a group member to use it, but not
nearly so OK for a non-group member to use it. So, black rappers can
say "nigger," but non-blacks cannot; women can call each other "bitches,"
but men better keep their traps shut; politically active gays can call
each other "queer," but non-gays should stay away from that one.
So, the bottom line is that it is probably not all that OK for you to
be using it. And, in any case, as already noted, you clearly used it in
a very insulting and derogatory way when you addressed someone from Canada.
So, "Michael," whoever you are, clean up your act.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 27, 2007 1:48:57 PM
Actually, I was using it as an area identifier, in the same way I'd use "Badger" for someone from Wisconsin, or "Yankee" for someone from the Northeast. It's curious to me that you seem to think I have some hidden reservoir of hatred for Canadians. Is that a common occurrence in your world?
As far as people not wanting to spend time with me, not only is that an ad hominem attack that is moreover completely unsupported by any evidence or reasoning, if you and I met you'd see the ridiculousness of the accusation immediately.
And why would racists want to hang out with me? I haven't made a single statement about a single racial or ethnic group. In fact, I'm active in several racial reconciliation groups. So you are really speaking out of ignorance, and producing predictably inaccurate conclusions.
As far as my identity, believe it or not I am actually employed by an organization that forbids me from public political discourse under my own name (we're a journalistic organization that is known for a strictly non-ideological approach).
As far as "Canuck" itself, I will grant you that your conclusions are reasonable based on the information you've gathered. But surely you'd grant me that my conclusions are reasonable based on the information I've gathered (through the personal experience I cited)?
As far as your analysis of the immigration data, I see your point, but I'm unconvinced. I'll leave it to the readers to decide which approach is more reasonable.
And, returning to your original point, what was the "lot of other (sic) derogatory language" I used? Calling a snarky post "snarky"?
Posted by: Michael at Dec 27, 2007 7:19:25 PM
Michael,
"Awwwww, look, the cute little Canuck is trying to be snarky."
Perhaps this was meant in jest, but if I were Canadian I doubt that I would take it so.
I would say the problem is not the "snarky," but the "cute little." It has long been
the refuge of somebody making an ethnic slur to say "I meant it as a joke. Don't you
have a sense of humor?"
As someone who lived in Wisconsin for a long time, I am not aware of anybody ever viewing
being called a "Badger" as insulting. However, quite a few sources report that Americans
calling Canadians "Canucks" is viewed as such, or may be so.
Of course, some in the US South do not use "Yankee" in a polite way...
Michael. Look, I do not know you, so maybe I was mistaken. If so, I apologize. Perhaps
you are really a nice and completely well-intentioned and unprejudiced person, or whatever.
I do recognize that some people need to use monikers for professional reasons, while many
others do not and just use them to be cool, or whatever. I guess I have a problem when
somebody starts making personally critical remarks about others, or appears to, while
operating semi-anonymously. I am not Canadian, and perhaps I was being overly sensitive
on the part of the Canadian who was on the receiving end of your remark (who, I believe
has not commented any further on this thread). This concern may also reflect a spilling
over of concern from some other threads here where there have been worse outbreaks of
people using monikers making more seriously nasty personal attacks on other people.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 27, 2007 11:44:10 PM
Fair enough. I had forgotten about the "cute little" part. I suppose that was meant to goad the original poster, whom I thought (still think) made a snarky, condescending post that presented no analysis at all. But I honestly didn't mean it to be offensive to any groups, national, ethnic, racial or otherwise. And I can understand that if those comments have gotten out of hand on this site before, that would cause an increased level of vigilance.
So hey, guess what? You're not an idiot after all, and I'm not a friendless bigot after all. Maybe internet dialogue does work sometimes! Have a great New Year.
Posted by: Michael at Dec 28, 2007 8:16:56 AM
The USA: come for the sun, stay for the cheap buffet!
The pertinent question regarding health care is "why are so many Americans (disproportionately Hispanic and African Americans but many whites as well) getting Third World health care when Americans are paying Canadian prices plus 50%?
As for immigration, it's a common "trope" of "patriots" (and chauvinists) of all nations to think there are more immigrants than there really are, and that the World is beating a path to their door. Canadian immigration to the USA and vice versa is more of a trickle, really surprising given the near-complete integration of the continental economy. Swedish immigrants? Why bother counting unless you are Greece? 19% of the population of Canada are immigrants. That's a larger percentage than any of the other immigrant magnets (Canada, the US, Australia, the UK, etc.) So people must like Canada, eh? Probably for the same reason they buy Canadian TV shows--less sex and violence, more clean, mild, family-oriented entertainment.
In any case, I think Canada can very nearly match the US brown skin for brown skin thanks to large native populations and immigrants. Instead of race, you might want to compare Canada to the US minus the South. That's the really big difference right there.
Mind you, Americans don't take their medicine even after paying an arm and a leg for it, according to a recent study, so maybe Americans are just a tetch dumber in their use of healthcare resources than Canadians. They certainly have more of them, both private and public--both countries have mixed public-private healthcare with long lists of people (USA) and services (Canada) not covered by public healthcare.
But back to oil: It sure screws up a country. Thank God it is mostly in Alberta and not here. Even so, it's killing our manufacturing sector while wasting enough natural gas and water to supply half of the country. And that's just the tarsands.
Better off without the stuff, like the richest countries in Europe.
As for standard of living, the top 20% of Americans are probably better off than the top 20% of Canadians, but after government transfers and other considerations, the bottom 80% of Canadians are better off than the bottom 80% of Americans. I've seen studies that support that estimate as well and I've seen nothing to contract it in my experience or reading. The top 20% of Canadians are far more likely to be happy with this situation than you'd think.
Posted by: Brant Boucher at Jan 14, 2008 5:34:37 PM
hi,I University majoring in the legal profession.After graduation,I 徵信 the work of the strong interest.Has worked in several徵信社.Has a wealth of experience. Now I immigrants France,Hope to continue to engage in the work of徵信 credit.
now, is to wake up every day to drink 咖啡, shopping. I hope that early awareness of Boles.
thanks,thank very much.
Posted by: Tonny at Mar 18, 2008 2:39:17 AM
Posted by: Alii at Apr 3, 2008 10:28:13 PM
What crap! An academic discussion about high oil prices that involves no reality. Let's all talk about oil going up to 200, 500, 1000, 5000 a barrel, and try to look at it dispassionately. How enduring that situation in real life--stuffed shirt, unemotional, spineless academics--look in your books and theories for how to live, because you certainly are not in touch with everyday life.
Posted by: Jonny at Jun 10, 2008 10:02:15 AM
