Does Canada need to join the United States to survive

I've spent the last month in Canada, we fly back tomorrow. One thing that amuses me (which I already knew from reputation/previous meetings with Canadians) is their attitude to the United States. They do not like to be called Americans, are proud Canadians (or here even more proud Albertans) and like making fun of their neighbours. Seems quite a happy, healthy and sustainable relationship.

Yet looking back at politics back home any notion that Scotland should leave the UK or if the EU becomes a superstate that the UK should be outside of it is not countenanced.

Aren't the two countries way too different to make that even possible?

The difference between Scotland vs. England and Canada vs. US is that Canada has never been part of the US. Or arguably hasn't been within the same political union since the 1780s. Meanwhile, Scotland has been part of the UK since 1707.

I actually think the Canadian quasi-obsession of seeing themselves in relation the US is a bit weird. We don't talk about them nearly as much.

Then again, they've finally gotten out of their decades-long left-wing slump to create a solid tax, debt and financial system that many right-wing Americans can only dream for.:up: But it's just damn pretty up there, with mostly-friendly people (had a bad experience in Alberta, but that's a long story). It's only 4 people per square kilometer up there!

I wonder what it would have been like if those crazy Amerikans succeeded in conquering Eastern Canada in 1812.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Aren't the two countries way too different to make that even possible?

---

No, actually, the countries are extremely similar, especially outside of Quebec. It's why Canada has to try so hard to assert it's difference and independence. The differences between New England and the South are probably much greater than between Canada and the US as an average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

The difference between Scotland vs. England and Canada vs. US is that Canada has never been part of the US. Or arguably hasn't been within the same political union since the 1780s. Meanwhile, Scotland has been part of the UK since 1707.

---

Just because the union does exist doesn't mean it needs to. If Canada can be independent of their bigger southern neighbours, can't Scotland be the same?

Quote:

---

I actually think the Canadian quasi-obsession of seeing themselves in relation the US is a bit weird. We don't talk about them nearly as much.

---

I'm only seeing them in relation to as I'm foreign and find Canada more relatable than the US most of the time. Its not like people have been bringing it up regularly.

Quote:

---

Then again, they've finally gotten out of their decades-long left-wing slump to create a solid tax, debt and financial system that many right-wing Americans can only dream for.:up: But it's just damn pretty up there, with mostly-friendly people (had a bad experience in Alberta, but that's a long story). It's only 4 people per square kilometer up there!

I wonder what it would have been like if those crazy Amerikans succeeded in conquering Eastern Canada in 1812.

---

The tax system from what I've heard is a lot better here in Alberta than back home. :up: Much lower taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

No, actually, the countries are extremely similar, especially outside of Quebec. It's why Canada has to try so hard to assert it's difference and independence. The differences between New England and the South are probably much greater than between Canada and the US as an average.

---

I'd slot here somewhere between Texas and New England. ;)

I was making a statement divorced from my views on Scotland. Except when both modern-Canada and modern-US were part of the British Crown, Canada has never been politically associated with the US. Scotland has been politically associated with England/the UK for 300 years.

This makes the two situations very difficult to compare.

You probably find Canada more relatable because the money has the Queen on it and they use a Parliamentary system. :o

The better question is whether there would be positive synergies if the two were united. I'd argue that there would be.

There's no moral argument to be made about which territories should be independent and which should not be. But I really don't see a reason for secessionism except where a minority is being actively repressed. We should be trying to eliminate borders, not create new ones.

If there were a merger, how would we get around the fact that neither side would want to dismantle its political system to merge?

Not to take the US-centric approach, but I guess the path of least resistance would be admitting Canada as a state wholesale and send Senators/Congresspeople to Washington while preserving their parliament with responsibilities for things besides foreign affairs, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

There's no moral argument to be made about which territories should be independent and which should not be. But I really don't see a reason for secessionism except where a minority is being actively repressed. We should be trying to eliminate borders, not create new ones.

---

Why?

Would the POTUS be more or less likely to be someone suitable for the deep South by adding the votes of the Quebecois? Same in reverse. The larger the political unit the less choice you as an individual (or collective community) have.

We should be looking to eliminate barriers at the borders, but why eliminate them themselves? Why have you New Yorkers still got your border not just with Canada but with New Jersey too?

Dread Canada could not be added as a single wholesale state to the US that would never be suitable. If they were to merge with you then (assuming they were joining the US) presumably the provinces like Alberta, Quebec etc would join as States not as one unified State.

Using that logic, why not give the South independence? And then the South can give Georgia independence for not being quite conservative enough. And then Atlanta can get independence from Georgia from being too left wing. And then some rich neighborhood in Atlanta can get independence for being too conservative within a left-wing area. Since when has the job of countries been enforcing homogeneity?

Why not give the South independence? I believe if the South wants it, they should get it.

Else why should the American colonies not still be part of our Empire?

The past is the past. That's hardly an excuse to repeat previous mistakes. So once again, why not keep on splitting countries until each country is composed of political clones? And what happens when the consensus breaks in those countries? Keep on splitting them?

The title is confusing. Scotland being independent of the UK is nothing like Canada and USA merging. :confused:

Canada is doing just fine, and doesn't need the US to help them 'survive'. They have universal healthcare, international broadband, a great educational system, first-rate infrastructure, and healthy banks. Their grand natural beauty (that attracts sports enthusiasts and tourists) is also chock full of natural energy resources.

Since they lean left-of-center politically, they're more likely to be environmentally friendly (than the US). They've stopped clear-cutting forests just to export lumber, added heavier regulations to paper mills, and industry in general.

They also have higher taxes to pay for these things. Unlike "Americans", Canadians generally agree that paying those higher taxes is worthwhile, because it pays for a higher quality of living and a top-notch society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Canada is doing just fine...They have...international broadband...

---

Holy shit, we don't have global broadband in the US! :weird:

Quote:

---

Since they lean left-of-center politically...They also have higher taxes to pay for these things. Unlike "Americans", Canadians generally agree that paying those higher taxes is worthwhile, because it pays for a higher quality of living and a top-notch society.

---

:haha: :haha: :haha:

Canada has a right-leaning government and most of their nominal tax rates are lower than in the US.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...orate-tax.html

Biggest problem is their capital gains tax rates up there are simultaneously too high and too low (they have a fairly complex system of dividend taxation).

Oh, also Rand wasn't being serious.

To be fair, Dread, Canada does take more revenue as percentage of GDP than the US. It's still far lower than most of the rest of the Western world, though.

Indeed, I was trying to figure out why that is. Maybe the payroll taxes for their pension plans and health care?

*shrugs* I'm not an expert on Canadian taxes. They certainly have VAT, they probably have a very different deduction/credit/exemption system than the US, I'm sure their payroll taxes are different, etc. They also get a decent chunk of change (compared to GDP) from oil/gas sales. Tax rates are hardly the only determinant of revenue, as I'm sure you know.

Ah, the VAT of course! I totally forgot that something so evil was also so close...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Holy shit, we don't have global broadband in the US! :weird:

---

No, we don't. Not like Canada, who's given government subsidies to the Yukon and outlying territories that could never have used "the market" to get affordable access. They made it a national priority to provide all their citizens equal access to the internet, even if they lived in tiny tundra towns.

Canada seems more like patriotic nationals than the US. FFS, we can't even get congress to allocate emergency funds to NJ or NY after Sandy's devastating damage. Our legislators are so politically divided, and regionally focused, it's like watching a lobster eat its own tail. :sour:

Glad you like bridges to nowhere. Or fiber to nowhere, I suppose. It's not "affordable" if it's subsidized.

Which USA towns/cities/backswoods do you know GGT that don't have any access at all to broadband?

And no Fibre is not only type of broadband.

at minimum 10% of the US is without broadband, the real number is likely very much higher when you real out shitty DSL and satalite (service that's < 1mb down).

Source? And is that without having broadband, or without it available?

You can sort the data a million different ways using this site: http://www.broadbandmap.gov/ but you can jump to the "Technology" part of this page if you want http://www.broadbandmap.gov/summarize/nationwide

Is that a percentage of people or land?

Under wireline technology only 3.7% have 0 suppliers.
Under wireless only 0.4% have 0 suppliers.
Under technology then under wireless alone 98.7% are covered.
Under speed 99.6% have broadband speeds > 0.786 Mbps

I don't see any way to slice that 10% have no availability.

EDIT: Seems its people and speed confirms that 99.6% have broadband speeds available to them. 96.7% have high-speed (>3Mbps) available.

Ars breaks it down yearly. This report put it at 26 million in 2011. I think 2012 improve a bit but not by much.

and US wireless is hardly something you can compare to landbased broadband. The speed may peak at above current broadband ratings, but our datacaps are so low (2% of what our worst landline provider considers appropriate) you can start hitting overages within hours.

So there's zero issue with rolling out the technology required to provide broadband, just you dispute the costs and conditions of some of those on offer?

I was attempting to answer the original question of how many people in the US don't have access to broadband. I'd say 26 million is an issue. I know there are parts of my own county that only get 786 DSL, and its the only option for where Brandy's parents live as well.

The monopolistic behavior of broadband providers in the US, that reinforces the horrible quality of broadband in this nation, and will soon create more problems with their guilty first approach to file sharing, is an entirely different discussion.


You have no idea why and how much of this nation wanted Google to roll out in their city first, and now that they are up and running in Kansas, how badly cities are competing to be the next rollout location.

There is nothing on that site to suggest 26 million "is without broadband". You suggested your figure was based on including speeds below 1Mbps but your own source demonstrates that 96.7% have access to >3Mbps. That's pretty global access. Heck broadband is traditionally defined by the first metric which has 99.7% population coverage.

The access may be costly, but if you live in a tundran wasteland you're probably used to that. If you live 200 miles from your nearest town or 400miles from a city relatively more expensive broadband is probably par for the course and a lot cheaper than eg driving to shops relative to others in cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The access may be costly

---

Using this mindset, there is nothing, no where, that someone couldn't have access to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Using this mindset, there is nothing, no where, that someone couldn't have access to.

---

So you have access to a perpetual motion machine? Or you had broadband access in 1990?

That's total crap. GGT complained about the infrastructure to provide broadband existing in Canada. By your own source this infrastructure already exists to service 99.7% of the US population. You may be unhappy with the costs the companies servicing this infrastructure charge but that is a completely different kettle of fish to that infrastructure not being already in place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

So you have access to a perpetual motion machine?

---

you simply haven't thrown enough money at the problem yet :p

Quote:

---

Or you had broadband access in 1990?

---

broadband existed well before 1990, hell 45Mbps T3 existed before the 90s. The restriction was of course cost.

And that it hadn't been rolled out: it has now, to 99.7% of the population. Regardless of if its 10, 20, 50 or 100 dollars a month it's not millions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

And that it hadn't been rolled out:

---

It was, it was in several universities, one of the few places that could afford it. and in use at the current backbones at the time.

Quote:

---

100 dollars a month it's not millions.

---

Comcast would love you. $100+ a month (ignoring installs and rentals) for 4mb access. Thats the type of thinking that allows you to distort or outright ignore the links I've been providing you.

and that is the problem you're missing. currently in the US broadband providers don't provide to cities that aren't what they consider cost effective, and to start servicing those cities and towns you have to have a set number of people willing and able to grossly overpay for service, then they have to be able to afford the installation costs the provider would charge to start providing service in the first place. This allows the providers to claim that broadband is available, but not being requested, even when the infrastructure isn't there.

Still a confusing thread. What's the debate about broadband got to do with Canada joining the US to survive....or Scotland leaving the UK?

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Still a confusing thread. What's the debate about broadband got to do with Canada joining the US to survive....or Scotland leaving the UK? :confused:

---

My thoughts exactly.

However the Canucks and Americans get along fine because we don't envy them and they don't envy us, which is why our relationship is good. They make fun of us as being hicks (I happen to know more than a few Canucks and they can be as redneck as anyone, so the idea that they are somehow enlightened is largely just something that certain areas like to claim), and they are our little brother, America Junior.

If we had any kind of official relationship it would create issues, there is more animosity between Texas and New York than between US and Canada....