[Hypnotoad]

i hate that, montreal isnt that special, just full of pretentious assholes full of themselves thinking that mcgill is the best school in the world.

Haha, some where out there someone wrote the same thing about Toronto, U of T and the whole universe.

 

[allabootmatt]

I don't understand the Central European example. Poland, for instance, borrowed from the West, and in many times couldn't repay the debt, which resulted in increased poverty. It's not like the Soviet Union was there, ready to bail the country out. There were no equalization payments made in 1980 when the debt surpassed twenty billion dollars and the food shortages started to occur. The abandonment of the strictly planned economic system which those countries had to accept after the war resulted in sustained economic prosperity after the Cold War era.

I was referring to the economic growth of the former East Bloc countries after the end of the cold war.

Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary made considerable gains in prosperity during the 90s, while East Germany continues to be an economic laggard despite getting cash infusions from the west to the tune of about a trillion Deutsch marks to prop up their infrastructure. My argument is that Atlantic Canada suffers from the same plight as East Germany, where it has relied on handouts from richer regions of the country and, in the process, has failed to form a strong local economy.

But there are counterexamples too, of course. Spain and Ireland were economic basketcases, until massive Structural and Cohesion Fund subsidies turned them into the most dynamic countries in Europe. I think the difference may be between well-targeted assistance (like for infrastructure, tied to institutional reforms) vs. the Canadian model of handing over whatever the poor provinces demand, lest we produce some tantrum, with *zero* institutional accountability.

 

[BuildTO]

You don't think there's an element of jealousy in the whole thing? Over real or perceived advantages afforded Toronto? It's a persistent (and pernicious) myth in the ROC that Toronto sucks up the resources of the rest of the country, so isn't resentment over that "special treatment" jealousy? And isn't the nasty antipathy that so many (mostly English, btw) Montrealers, for example, seem to have for the city largely a product of jealousy over Toronto's having the bigger/more important cultural and economic institutions, and getting an ever-increasing share of attention as a result?

The examples could go on. I think jealousy is a *huge* part of this issue.

I suppose there's an argument to be made in that many Canadians think Toronto gets a disproportionate amount of tax money; certainly that funding is something that everyone wants, no matter where you live in Canada.

The original phrase at the beginning of this thread was "jealous of our success". Whenever I've heard that phrase, it seems to me to that people are implying a desire to be like us or a desire to have what we have. As in the comparison with the US, I find it overwhelmingly false. Small-town Canadians want nothing to do with this city; they might visit to take in the sights, but many would rather die than consider moving here.

In the same vein, how many of us would consider moving to the US? Who wants everything they have? Who wants to be American? Yet the vast majority of Americans overwhelmingly believes that the rest of the world envies them, wants to be like them, wants to have what they have, and wants to move there. (This is not my assumption, but rather from a study a year or two ago.)

It's a persistent (and pernicious) myth in the ROC

I was racking my brain, trying to figure out what China had to do with this discussion. I just figured it out now.

 

[afransen]

All the provinces have market economies. If they were in direct competition with each other without equalization payments, there would still be winners and losers, but the losers be a lot worse off. The rich would be richer, and the poor would be poorer. I think there is a motivation/incentive to develop economies of their own, the motivation of wealth, and the equalization money has the potential to speed things up if spent properly. No, I don't believe in keeping remote, traditional money losing industries alive, the money shouldn't be spent on that.

In the short run, there would be losers. In the long run, if no trade barriers exist, the losers and winners tend to converge. For instance, without equalization, there'd likely be even higher rates of inflation in Ontario and Alberta, and even lower in places like Newfoundland. This makes Newfoundland increasingly attractive as a place to provide services such as call centres, back office functions, etc. or even high value manufacturing. As long as quality of life is reasonable, and costs are low, the 'losers' would become attractive places to locate.

As it is, the poor economy of Nfld has resulted in what it should: restructuring, and an exodus of people to where economic opportunities are greater. Eventually things will level out and Nfld will bounce back.

 

[afransen]

Does anyone know why trade and labour restrictions between provinces still exist? What I mean is I would support free trade and harmonizing of labour nationally on principle, even if Toronto stood to loose out. Who is impeding this process? Why does it matter where pipes are made or where you get licensed as an engineer or where you produce your cheese or what province you shingle a roof in?

There are 13 people at the table on all these issues of provincial/territorial jurisdiction, and no real incentive to cooperate. There are plenty of special interest groups that like to erect these barriers, as well. There was an agreement in the late 80s, early 90s to reduce interprovincial trade barriers, but little has actually come of it. Now we see trading blocs arise such as the BC/Alta bloc, and a potential Quebec/Ontario bloc. Some sacred cows, such as dairy (pun intended), will remain in individual provincial control due to the power of the lobby.

 

[junctionist]

I was referring to the economic growth of the former East Bloc countries after the end of the cold war.

Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary made considerable gains in prosperity during the 90s, while East Germany continues to be an economic laggard despite getting cash infusions from the west to the tune of about a trillion Deutsch marks to prop up their infrastructure. My argument is that Atlantic Canada suffers from the same plight as East Germany, where it has relied on handouts from richer regions of the country and, in the process, has failed to form a strong local economy.

I better understand your example now, but I'm still not sure that there aren't other factors that hold these economies back that might be more significant rather than just the existence of large equalization payments. Receiving equalization payments may discourage economic development, but perhaps its just a matter of changing where the money is spent. You develop a plan for growth and use the money to implement it. What's problematic about that? It worked in Spain and Ireland as allabootmatt mentioned. The European Union is now investing heavily in Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary. There has to be some economic potential in this.

 

[allabootmatt]

Having a dedicated multi-billion-euro annual infrastructure fund just for high speed rail certainly helps.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I better understand your example now, but I'm still not sure that there aren't other factors that hold these economies back that might be more significant rather than just the existence of large equalization payments. Receiving equalization payments may discourage economic development, but perhaps its just a matter of changing where the money is spent. You develop a plan for growth and use the money to implement it. What's problematic about that? It worked in Spain and Ireland as allabootmatt mentioned. The European Union is now investing heavily in Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary. There has to be some economic potential in this.

EDIT: Sorry junctionist, my reply isn't directed necessarily to your post, but to the idea that poorer regions necessarily benefit from being joined to economic powerhouses.

One of the drawbacks of investing in the Maritimes and East Germany is that you have to pay western wages. Despite investing billions of dollars improving infrastructure, the Germans learned that those incentives are still dwarfed by the costs of labour. Why pay an auto worker EUR35,000 in Rostock, for example, when his counterpart in Szceczin across the river can do the same job for under 10,000? What ensued is that some non-labour intensive businesses in West Germany were lured by tax incentives and easy autobahn/high-speed rail access, such as the highly automated Bayer plant in Saxony. This created income for Bayer's main offices in the west, but hired relatively few East Germans and didn't support the local economy. Meanwhile investment in labour-intensive industries, which are the ones that provide people with jobs and sustain economies, went to places like the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. A lot of the parts that go into Mercedes and BMW cars, for example, are sourced from Polish and Czech OEM plants. Ironically, a lot of the prosperity that these countries enjoyed in the 1990s was due to foreign direct investment from [West] Germany, while the eastern parts of Germany itself continued to stodder along with 20% unemployment rates.

Similarly, I think that Atlantic provinces are at a huge disadvantage because all their central banking is determined in Ottawa and the labour costs must reflect a standard of living in line with the rest of country. As afransen has noted, not just the cost of living but inflation is tied to economic projects that don't have any real bearing on improving the wealth of Maritimers. The high price of the Canadian dollar, for example, is influenced by Alberta's oil production, yet it hurts an exporter in the Maritimes (or even Ontario) who not only must pay his/her workers $15/hour, but also compete against a soaring dollar.

Of course, the Maritimers have supplemented their income by shipping their best and brightest out west. While some income has trickled back, it doesn't have the same wealth generating capabilities as a job within the local economy. For example, a skilled millwright from Newfoundland might make $100,000 in Fort McMurray, but much of his/her disposable income will be spent in Alberta; the spin-off jobs - everything from teachers to hair dressers to car dealerships that our hypothetical millwright will support through his income - won't materialize back home. Finally, being a pool of migrant labour basically deprives the Atlantic provinces of skilled workers that could help incubate local economies. A tool and die maker in Corner Brook might have a tough time hiring people simply because he/she must compete with the mass exodus of workers to Alberta, where they earn money that a Newfoundlander could not dream of paying his/her workers. That packing your bags and moving to parts of the country with better economic prospects has been a fact of life for Maritimers for a hundred years shows that the Canadian system is clearly not working.

Forget Quebec; I can't think of any part of the country that would benefit from the dissolution of the Canadian federation as much as Atlantic Canada.

 

[Brandon716]

I suppose there's an argument to be made in that many Canadians think Toronto gets a disproportionate amount of tax money; certainly that funding is something that everyone wants, no matter where you live in Canada.

The original phrase at the beginning of this thread was "jealous of our success". Whenever I've heard that phrase, it seems to me to that people are implying a desire to be like us or a desire to have what we have. As in the comparison with the US, I find it overwhelmingly false. Small-town Canadians want nothing to do with this city; they might visit to take in the sights, but many would rather die than consider moving here.

In the same vein, how many of us would consider moving to the US? Who wants everything they have? Who wants to be American? Yet the vast majority of Americans overwhelmingly believes that the rest of the world envies them, wants to be like them, wants to have what they have, and wants to move there. (This is not my assumption, but rather from a study a year or two ago.)



I was racking my brain, trying to figure out what China had to do with this discussion. I just figured it out now.

You're assessment of the US is very accurate. Americans are raised, largely, with an heir of superiority in every aspect of life. We're simply the best and biggest at everything, or so we're told.

Good for national solidarity, bad for foreign policy.

And lately its safe to say the US has had a few foreign blunders, to put it mildly.

 

[allabootmatt]

I'm just curious: have you ever lived in the USA?

Not that I (necessarily) disagree with your assessment, but I think it probably needs to be qualified somewhat.

 

[Edward Skira]

^ He's an American trying to move to Canada.

 

[allabootmatt]

Ahh OK. Then forget I said anything!

Edit: what I wanted to get at was that I found during my (lengthy) time in the States many of my American friends were keenly aware that their country is not the best of/at everything, and genuinely lamented it. But then again, they were almost all pointy-headed coastal liberals, so not necessarily representative.

 

[Cancerous]

To the author of this thread, I think you have answered your question in the same post in which you’ve asked it!
Judging from your comments thus far, you seem to exemplify the Torontonian attitude to the rest of this country fairly accurately… obnoxious, repugnant, and self-absorbed with an overly inflated ego - It's either your way or the highway... and then you wonder why Canada harbours such a negative impression and attitude towards its biggest city!

montreal isnt that special, just full of pretentious assholes full of themselves

Actually, you should be grateful to Montreal because your city would have been nothing without it.
Toronto wouldn't even dream of becoming what it is today if it weren't for the economic demise of Montreal following the Quebec sovereignty movement in the 1960s, which resulted in a massive influx of 200,000 Anglophone Montrealers bringing with them the economic and financial engine of Canada, along with two major bank headquarters (CIBC and Scotia), dozens of big corporations, and a mass concentration of wealth.

Know your city’s history and heritage beforehand to avoid the risk of sounding like a retard.
And here is a little fun historical fact for you… Toronto got its first outdoor café as recently as 1968, since they were considered illegal due to health and safety reasons… or because no one wanted to eat outdoors, which is even sadder!

 

[Conrad Black]

Actually, you should be grateful to Montreal because your city would have been nothing without it.
Toronto wouldn't even dream of becoming what it is today if it weren't for the economic demise of Montreal following the Quebec sovereignty movement in the 1960s, which resulted in a massive influx of 200,000 Anglophone Montrealers bringing with them the economic and financial engine of Canada, along with two major bank headquarters (CIBC and Scotia), dozens of big corporations, and a mass concentration of wealth.

Know your city’s history and heritage beforehand to avoid the risk of sounding like a retard.

You might want to do the same otherwise you just might risk sounding like a retard. Scotia, as in Nova Scotia, is nominally still based in Halifax. Bank of Montreal (imagine that) was one of the major financial institutions that made its way down the 401 in the 1970's.

 

[Cancerous]

I apologize for the horrible mistake that I've just made, which I would have corrected anyways had I taken another look at my post.

Pardon me, it's BMO and RBC - not CIBC and Scotia.
The essential point remains unchanged, 2 major banks have made Toronto their home, instead of Montreal.