Is Canada a Developing Country?

[Napkiraly]

Mulcair suggested penalizing primary resource exports, which suggests that at least the NDP is aware that canada could be more industrially developed.

This would have meant it became far cheaper to turn the primary resources into secondary or tertiary goods in canada rather than exporting them to be used elsewhere, and would have industrially developed canada.

That's a fairly classic economic move to develop a country. That it was suggested by one of the major party leaders should be telling.

Yes, exports of oil play quite a role in Canada's economy. And yes, out manufacturing sector has decreased overtime, as it has in every single developed country but it still remains quite strong. The sell of oil was making our dollar stronger which makes manufacturing less attractive, especially when we're right beside the USA and Mexico not being too far away relatively speaking. AKA He was talking about Dutch disease.

Being a net exporter of energy =/= being a developing country or else Norway is as well.

[Valystria]

no

We agree on something.

And I assume you too have the same lack of evidence as the poster you're agreeing with. Otherwise you probably would have presented something by now.

[Infected Mushroom]

But it does have something to do with utilisation of existing resources. If the existing resources are nowhere near maxed out, then you are still Developing, not Developed.

There's no reason why Canada's lands couldn't support many times more people than France or the UK if it were governed properly.

I don't see what proper governing has to do with it. Even if the government were to increase immigration levels, it would be difficult to fill that much land.

It shouldn't be difficult to fill it so that you have more people than a tiny island country more than 1000 times smaller. The UK is a tiny dot compared to Canada and it can house over 65 million people.

The fact that Canada can only support 35 million is evidence of criminally bad national planning and management and gross under-utilisation of land and resources.

[Napkiraly]

Mulcair suggested penalizing primary resource exports, which suggests that at least the NDP is aware that canada could be more industrially developed.

This would have meant it became far cheaper to turn the primary resources into secondary or tertiary goods in canada rather than exporting them to be used elsewhere, and would have industrially developed canada.

That's a fairly classic economic move to develop a country. That it was suggested by one of the major party leaders should be telling.

There is no reason a developed county cannot have a large primary sector if it has massive amounts of resources like Canada does.

It's not even that large. The vast majority of our economy is in services and then industry. Primary makes up something like 7-8% of GDP iirc.

[Ostroeuropa]

Mulcair suggested penalizing primary resource exports, which suggests that at least the NDP is aware that canada could be more industrially developed.

This would have meant it became far cheaper to turn the primary resources into secondary or tertiary goods in canada rather than exporting them to be used elsewhere, and would have industrially developed canada.

That's a fairly classic economic move to develop a country. That it was suggested by one of the major party leaders should be telling.

There is no reason a developed county cannot have a large primary sector if it has massive amounts of resources like Canada does.

It's certainly atypical.

[Kelinfort]

This isn't necessarily true. You also need to take relative prices into account. Canada's GDP per capita is higher than the UK's even after adjusting for purchasing power parity. It also has more wealth equality, which is why its GDP per capita is more heavily weighted in the HDI scale. Child poverty is also inflated by the Aboriginal population, which is growing quickly and is generally extremely poor. That's not to excuse the child poverty rate, but Canada has unique circumstances in that respect. Also this ranking from the World Economic Forum puts Canada at 13th place in terms of quality of infrastructure, well above the UK and the US. It is 14th in this ranking, below the UK and the US (I guess infrastructure quality isn't easy to measure, surprise, surprise), but still strong internationally.

Those are additional reasons for why the HDI is severely flawed and shouldn't be part of categorizing a country's development status. The poor being better off ought to take more weight than wealth equality. Unequal prosperity everyone benefits from is surely more desirable than equal poverty.

While the UK and US may be ranked lower for infrastructure, they indisputably have economies that conform to what would be expected of a developed country, while for Canada infrastructure is a larger categorization factor due to lacking a developed economy.

You mean GINI, not HDI

[Napkiraly]

There is no reason a developed county cannot have a large primary sector if it has massive amounts of resources like Canada does.

It's certainly atypical.

Norway is an even more profound example. It's still a developed country, however.

[Dakini]

It also doesn't need to be filled.

There are some communities in Canada that exist in environmentally sensitive areas and actually don't allow more people to move there (e.g. Banff), never mind all the land that's actually used for things like growing food or the land that isn't particularly habitable or useful for growing food (e.g. the Canadian shield with its thin topsoil and short growing seasons).

I wasn't suggesting it did, just that it would be incredibly hard to do if you wanted to, for some reason.

Because you hate nature and hope it will all die?

(That's the only reason I can think anyone would want to do this)

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Developed status has nothing to do with population size.

But it does have something to do with utilisation of existing resources.

Actually, it doesn't. Look at China, for example. Resource exploitation to the max. You can hardly find anything that doesn't have "Made in China" stamped to it. However, its GDP per capita, humans rights record, and standard of living are abysmal.

[Charellia]

I don't see what proper governing has to do with it. Even if the government were to increase immigration levels, it would be difficult to fill that much land.

It shouldn't be difficult to fill it so that you have more people than a tiny island country more than 1000 times smaller. The UK is a tiny dot compared to Canada and it can house over 65 million people.

The fact that Canada can only support 35 million is evidence of criminally bad national planning and management and gross under-utilisation of land and resources.

But Canada only has 35 million people and a low birth rate. Where are the other 30 million going to come from?

[Nickel Empire]

No, Canada is a developed nation. We would be more developed if we had 100 million people.

[Tamsien]

It shouldn't be difficult to fill it so that you have more people than a tiny island country more than 1000 times smaller. The UK is a tiny dot compared to Canada and it can house over 65 million people.

The fact that Canada can only support 35 million is evidence of criminally bad national planning and management and gross under-utilisation of land and resources.

But Canada only has 35 million people and a low birth rate. Where are the other 30 million going to come from?

refugees clearly *nods*

No, Canada is a developed nation. We would be more developed if we had 100 million people.

Other factors than big population contribute to development.

Look at Indonesia, India, and China. Are they developed countries? Are they now?

[Valaran]

It shouldn't be difficult to fill it so that you have more people than a tiny island country more than 1000 times smaller. The UK is a tiny dot compared to Canada and it can house over 65 million people.

The fact that Canada can only support 35 million is evidence of criminally bad national planning and management and gross under-utilisation of land and resources.

But Canada only has 35 million people and a low birth rate. Where are the other 30 million going to come from?

UK's next wave of colonisation

[Benxboro]

I wasn't suggesting it did, just that it would be incredibly hard to do if you wanted to, for some reason.

Because you hate nature and hope it will all die?

(That's the only reason I can think anyone would want to do this)

Or they don't care and they see dollar signs, or they have their own vision and to them the preexisting environment is an obstacle to be swept away or cordoned off where it can't interfere with that vision, I dunno.

There is no reason a developed county cannot have a large primary sector if it has massive amounts of resources like Canada does.

It's certainly atypical.

That is true.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's certainly atypical.

Norway is an even more profound example. It's still a developed country, however.

I think that this conversation shows a need for a category to emphasize the differences between these types of economies. I'm prepared to concede it is a developed economy, but I would say it's sufficiently dissimilar to warrant subcategorization.

[Dakini]

Because you hate nature and hope it will all die?

(That's the only reason I can think anyone would want to do this)

Or they don't care and they see dollar signs, or they have their own vision and to them the preexisting environment is an obstacle to be swept away or cordoned off where it can't interfere with that vision, I dunno.

Except that you lose money from tourism since a lot of people go out to admire nature.

[Olivaero]

There is no reason a developed county cannot have a large primary sector if it has massive amounts of resources like Canada does.

It's certainly atypical.

But there are several factors that determine development otherwise developed would just be a synonym for industrialised.

[Napkiraly]

It's certainly atypical.

But there are several factors that determine development otherwise developed would just be a synonym for industrialised.

Well Canada is still quite industrialised.

[Benxboro]

Or they don't care and they see dollar signs, or they have their own vision and to them the preexisting environment is an obstacle to be swept away or cordoned off where it can't interfere with that vision, I dunno.

Except that you lose money from tourism since a lot of people go out to admire nature.

They'll make the mines a tourist attraction once they close down. "Go and see the great pits of York Factory, Manitoba" or something, I dunno. Maybe have sledding or motorbiking?

[Tamsien]

Norway is an even more profound example. It's still a developed country, however.

I think that this conversation shows a need for a category to emphasize the differences between these types of economies. I'm prepared to concede it is a developed economy, but I would say it's sufficiently dissimilar to warrant subcategorization.

Countries like New Zealand, Norway, Iceland, and Canada would fall under this atypical developed nation category.

Except that you lose money from tourism since a lot of people go out to admire nature.

They'll make the mines a tourist attraction once they close down. "Go and see the great pits of York Factory, Manitoba" or something, I dunno. Maybe have sledding or motorbiking?

they want to see

T R E E S

[Ostroeuropa]

I think that this conversation shows a need for a category to emphasize the differences between these types of economies. I'm prepared to concede it is a developed economy, but I would say it's sufficiently dissimilar to warrant subcategorization.

Countries like New Zealand, Norway, Iceland, and Canada would fall under this atypical developed nation category.

They'll make the mines a tourist attraction once they close down. "Go and see the great pits of York Factory, Manitoba" or something, I dunno. Maybe have sledding or motorbiking?

they want to see

T R E E S

Yeh, pretty much.

[SUNTHREIT]

Couldn't it be argued that a country can be developed and not post-industrial at the same time?

[Tamsien]

Couldn't it be argued that a country can be developed and not post-industrial at the same time?

-looks at Iceland-

I mean, I don't see why not.

[Olivaero]

But there are several factors that determine development otherwise developed would just be a synonym for industrialised.

Will Canada is still quite industrialised.

Fair enough

[The United Colonies of Earth]

I think that this conversation shows a need for a category to emphasize the differences between these types of economies. I'm prepared to concede it is a developed economy, but I would say it's sufficiently dissimilar to warrant subcategorization.

Countries like New Zealand, Norway, Iceland, and Canada would fall under this atypical developed nation category.

They'll make the mines a tourist attraction once they close down. "Go and see the great pits of York Factory, Manitoba" or something, I dunno. Maybe have sledding or motorbiking?

they want to see

T R E E S

Well, there's a lost opportunity.
best get started on the reforestation once the mines are no longer profitable. Though I still maintain that enormous holes in the ground, along with long shafts, could provide some tourist attention, I won't press the matter much further.