Maybe my favorite geopolitical topic: redrawing the North American political map.

Guess who?


http://zeihan.com/i-think-they-get-it-no...pt-canada/

I went ahead and read all the parts of this series and while I find some of his conclusions to be a bit of a stretch, such as the Po Valley going Fascist, for the most part I can see where he drew the conclusions from.

Specifically for Canada and its potential disillusionment, there were some intriguing points made. Geography, climate, and geology have in essence created 3 "Canadas" that more closely align with the people directly across from them in the United States than with each other. Throw in the massive cultural divide that is Quebec and you have 4 or 5 different Canadian cultures and economies that are linked more to the particular region of the United States they touch than with each other.

Add to that that Ottawa simply doesn't have the political force to keep them together if they start to make a break for independence and things could get interesting in Ontario in the next few decades. The fact that it is Ontario, the heartland of Canada, that neither has the geographical or geological position to transition as well to dissolution, and things could get very interesting in the Great White North.

Canada is having some serious division issues, just like the US. Ontario and the Maritimes are probably closer to the Northeast US, and BC is probably closer to the US Pacific coast, than are either to the prairie provinces. Gerographically, the breakdown is very similar to the US breakdown between the highly urban and financially oriented coasts, versus the more rural and natural resource and agriculture oriented heartland. And of course Quebec is its own world, unfortunately not able to sustain itself economically.

I have wondered about a possible realignment of North America into three or four (depending on Quebec) more ideologically compatible regions, of which two might unite.

1) Ontario, the Maritimes, New England, the North Atlantic, and Great Lakes states (say Maryland, West Virginia, every state north and east of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, and every state touching the Great Lakes) with or without Quebec.
2) California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, possibly Nevada and BC (which might unite with group 1).
3) Everything else--the South, the Great Plains, the Intermountain West, the Canadian Prairie Provinces, and Alaska.

Not sure where Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut would shake out. Yukon and NWT probably go with Alaska and 3), Nunavut probably prefers 1).

Zeihan has opined in the past that Alberta might be the tipping point--resource rich and being hammered for cash to keep the Maritimes and the Quebec compromise afloat, and under Canadian law they have the right to secede. I could see a realignment being triggered, and quite frankly I think the two sides are both so divided, on both sides of the current border, that this might well be the best solution.

Canada is fascinating in large part because of the geography. Five territories or provinces are larger in area than Texas. Nine of the 13 are larger than California.

Only two have a larger population than Louisiana the state that is 25th in population. The most populous province Ontario would be 5th if it were a state. Quebec would be 13th among the current states, British Columbia would be 26th and Alberta would nudge out Oklahoma at 28th. Manitoba would be 43rd, with Saskatchewan fitting in behind them. Newfoundland and Labrador would be behind Wyoming as would be Prince Edward Island with a population just under 143k. None of the three territories has even 50,000 people, smaller than the Northern Mariana Islands, with a combined land mass of over 1.5 million square miles.

On paper, the Canadian provinces have less power than US states but as a practical matter they hold greater freedom. Issues about the Great Lakes? Only province borders the Great Lakes unlike the US where many states border and many more are impacted by the watershed. Oil and Gas? Alberta does almost all of it.

The national government collects all or most of the taxes allocated for health care but each province administers its own insurance program out of the taxes returned to the provinces. The compromise was that they would agree to the program only if it were locally administered.

I spent a week in the Yukon and got to know four people from Toronto and two from Vancouver. All have great confidence in their provincial government and high suspicion of the national government, largely because of the Quebec concessions. The two from Vancouver outright said they wished that California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia and "maybe" the Yukon and Alaska would form their own country.

Ok. Coffee break trying to fend off a migraine.

First, I've got the book Merger of Century flagged to download from the library when I get home.

My instinct is to think there would need to be a big shift in governance.

Reorganize into 3-8 regional federations joined in a confederation. The National government would be restricted to foreign affairs, military, and charged with defending and upholding the civil rights of the individual.

The regional federations would outside the arenas of international affairs and military would function more like the current national governments but be smaller.

Europe is facing separatism. It seems nationalism broke up empires and ethnicity is breaking up nations.

Spain, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Turkey, Czech Republic/Slovakia, Italy, Yugoslavia and of course, the USSR.

Only Quebec has the ethnicity, but in Italy it was really economics, just as it is with Alberta.

(06-28-2018 12:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The two from Vancouver outright said they wished that California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia and "maybe" the Yukon and Alaska would form their own country.

Well God bless their hearts! I think they're better off living with the weak government in Ottawa than with the single party centralized state they'd get from the insane asylum in Sacramento. Alaska wouldn't want anything to do with that hot mess.

(06-28-2018 09:53 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 12:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The two from Vancouver outright said they wished that California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia and "maybe" the Yukon and Alaska would form their own country.

Well God bless their hearts! I think they're better off living with the weak government in Ottawa than with the single party centralized state they'd get from the insane asylum in Sacramento. Alaska wouldn't want anything to do with that hot mess.

Well they already have provincial run health insurance for all, stricter gun control than California has ever tried, more open immigration. If anything the folks in California might find them too liberal.

Does Peter Zeihan have a timeline included with his predictions? Are we talking like 50-years? 100?

I don't really see Alberta leaving Canada anytime soon. My company has a ton of projects up in Northern Alberta and the people I speak with generally don't envision this happening (granted, it's a relatively small sample size of people I've talked to regarding this). Sure, they're fed up with the Liberal government, but not to the point where they'd legitimately consider leaving. I think it's mostly talked about as a speculative thought experiment akin to some of the conversations the folks on the Conference Realignment board have.

Canada is currently in the process of purchasing the Trans-Mountain pipeline from Kinder Morgan and the plan is for the government to fund the remainder of its construction to Port Burnaby, BC. The folks in BC are pissed, but I think the additional link to the sea is worth it overall. That way, Alberta can get their oil to international markets without having to sell it to the US at a discount. This should bring a lot of added wealth to Alberta and BC.

(06-29-2018 10:47 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  Does Peter Zeihan have a timeline included with his predictions? Are we talking like 50-years? 100?

He doesn't say that specifically, but in the first of this series of posts he says this:

Peter Zeihan Wrote:I’ve been speaking and writing about this approaching “end” for the better part of the past decade. One of the fun things – and incidentally, one of the things that helps keep me sane – is that it is all very abstract. I can blithely note that wars will happen, that supply chains will break down, that the lights will go out, that famine is an inevitability, but so long as the timeframes are fuzzy and the locations are over the horizon it is easy to speak and write with a degree of detachment. This doesn’t affect me, and certainly not right now.

I think/fear that I’m about to lose that insulation. The end is pretty god-damn nigh. Exactly how this plays out is still very much up in the air. The blow by blow will matter immensely in the short and even medium term. So I’m going to lay out the most recent big events that seem to be giving shape to the Disorder over the course of several newsletters.

He's not necessarily saying they're going to split just because folks are fed up. The predictions relate to financial collapse as a result of massive changes in world trade and alliances, and the corresponding actions/reactions.

Hard to imagine he's talking about 100 years and probably less than 50. BUT - I also think that if Trump is a one-termer and the next president tries to backtrack I think all of his predictions get pushed out.

** post deleted by author due to unnecessary meanness **

The end of Canada could mean I get to see my only pie in the sky conspiracy flat earth grassy knoll idea take shape.

*The USA would take control of the Canadian Pacific coast from Prince Rupert to and including Vancouver and Vancouver Island.
*This new American land is made into the District of Abraham along the same lines of Washington DC.
*Immigration is open to all Jewish people living in Israel.
*Any empty land is made immediately available for settlement for those Jews.

Jews leave the middle east, relocating to the USA and leaving the Middle East behind forever.

Canada has its regional disparities, but its far more resilient than you might think. Even the Quebec Libre movement has largely abated. Alberta isn't as conservative as you think (heck, they even have a NDP government right now - an odd and probably temporary election result - but still).

And Canadians actually are proud of their country and like being Canadian. They might not like their health care system, but they are terrified of the impact of being part of the US one. They operate more on consensus than Americans do and they like that.

They are also, proud globalists. And they have more immigration than we do. And they don't particularly have that big of a problem with it.

From a political perspective, the end of Canada would be a disaster for the conservative movement in the USA, especially if Canada just joined the US. Newfoundland, British Columbia, Ontario (in a 50% system - rather than a first past the post with one moderately conservative party and a liberal party and a leftist party - Ontario would be very liberal), New Brunswick, PEI, Nova Scotia, and PEI would be strong Democratic bastions. Quebec is a strange bird. Economically, they're quite far to the left, but they tend to be more xenophobic than other Canadians, but I suspect they'd be liberal - fearing the English only people on the right wing in the USA. Manitoba looks more like Minnesota politically than North Dakota. Alberta and Saskatchewan....okay they'd be open to a Republican government, but that's about it and they can't stand on their own. The Arctic - liberal.

(11-14-2018 12:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Canada has its regional disparities, but its far more resilient than you might think. Even the Quebec Libre movement has largely abated. Alberta isn't as conservative as you think (heck, they even have a NDP government right now - an odd and probably temporary election result - but still).

And Canadians actually are proud of their country and like being Canadian. They might not like their health care system, but they are terrified of the impact of being part of the US one. They operate more on consensus than Americans do and they like that.

They are also, proud globalists. And they have more immigration than we do. And they don't particularly have that big of a problem with it.

From a political perspective, the end of Canada would be a disaster for the conservative movement in the USA, especially if Canada just joined the US. Newfoundland, British Columbia, Ontario (in a 50% system - rather than a first past the post with one moderately conservative party and a liberal party and a leftist party - Ontario would be very liberal), New Brunswick, PEI, Nova Scotia, and PEI would be strong Democratic bastions. Quebec is a strange bird. Economically, they're quite far to the left, but they tend to be more xenophobic than other Canadians, but I suspect they'd be liberal - fearing the English only people on the right wing in the USA. Manitoba looks more like Minnesota politically than North Dakota. Alberta and Saskatchewan....okay they'd be open to a Republican government, but that's about it and they can't stand on their own. The Arctic - liberal.

From the top:
- Quebec Libre is quiet right now because the citizens of Ontario (and increasingly the citizens of Alberta) are paying for them to stay in. You'd shut up too if you were literally being bribed every month with millions of Canadian rubles.

- Alberta has NDP majority because in provinces there are no regular elections. They are simply called for whenever the party in charge wants one. So they called for their last one while the Wild Rose party was holding its own internal leadership election. The NDP still lost seats heavily. The next election they call for will be their last as a majority ... so they'll not call for one as long as possible. How "Democratic" of our Canadian neighbors ... the government can simply tell you that you're not allowed to have an election if they don't like the outcome.

- At least you admit that they don't like their single payer system ... that puts you ahead of most of your political compatriots who think that Canada has a love affair with their rationed care and long waiting lines for low quality service. But hey, America is cashing in on that one. Canadians all over purchase private insurance that is recognized in America so if they actually become seriously ill they'll become medical tourists in the US to receive immediate high quality care. What a concept -- responsible behavior and financial planning to look after yourself medically. Pretty much the exact opposite of the Democrat Party platform.

- They have more immigration because they HAVE TO to try to desperately pay all the bills. The Canadians have had a baby bust. So while the Canadian government's own projections show that by 2050 some provinces will be paying 80% of gross tax receipts on single payer healthcare, they'll simultaneously not have enough young people working to pay for the pensions of retirees. The only way you can fix that is taking on any immigrant who will come to try to restock the younger demographic. This isn't some WOOO WE LOVE IMMIGRATION fest ... it's a last ditch effort to stay afloat financially.

- You assume Canada would just be annexed in whole outright. That's not necessarily the case. Just annexing Alberta as the 51st state is the death knell of Canada as a country. The US could pick and choose which provinces it wants to let in. And it's not even necessarily a one way street. As hard economic reality sets in north of the border you'd find political attitudes would change quickly in some areas as well.

- You say SK and Alberta can't stand on their own. To the contrary. Without their oil money Canada can't stand as a nation. Single payer would go bankrupt overnight. The transfer payments to Quebec to stay in the union would stop. The pension system would go under. And this is despite the fact that Canada gets a free ride on defense by simply being our neighbor. And Canada shows its appreciation for the people of Alberta being fleeced to the tune of over $5,000/yr for every person in the province .... but refusing to let them build a pipeline. It's the kind of gross incompetence you'd expect from a government led by a well coiffed bobblehead with no knowledge, no meaningful experience, and no policy beyond virtue signaling.

(11-15-2018 03:49 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 12:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Canada has its regional disparities, but its far more resilient than you might think. Even the Quebec Libre movement has largely abated. Alberta isn't as conservative as you think (heck, they even have a NDP government right now - an odd and probably temporary election result - but still).

And Canadians actually are proud of their country and like being Canadian. They might not like their health care system, but they are terrified of the impact of being part of the US one. They operate more on consensus than Americans do and they like that.

They are also, proud globalists. And they have more immigration than we do. And they don't particularly have that big of a problem with it.

From a political perspective, the end of Canada would be a disaster for the conservative movement in the USA, especially if Canada just joined the US. Newfoundland, British Columbia, Ontario (in a 50% system - rather than a first past the post with one moderately conservative party and a liberal party and a leftist party - Ontario would be very liberal), New Brunswick, PEI, Nova Scotia, and PEI would be strong Democratic bastions. Quebec is a strange bird. Economically, they're quite far to the left, but they tend to be more xenophobic than other Canadians, but I suspect they'd be liberal - fearing the English only people on the right wing in the USA. Manitoba looks more like Minnesota politically than North Dakota. Alberta and Saskatchewan....okay they'd be open to a Republican government, but that's about it and they can't stand on their own. The Arctic - liberal.

From the top:
- Quebec Libre is quiet right now because the citizens of Ontario (and increasingly the citizens of Alberta) are paying for them to stay in. You'd shut up too if you were literally being bribed every month with millions of Canadian rubles.

- Alberta has NDP majority because in provinces there are no regular elections. They are simply called for whenever the party in charge wants one. So they called for their last one while the Wild Rose party was holding its own internal leadership election. The NDP still lost seats heavily. The next election they call for will be their last as a majority ... so they'll not call for one as long as possible. How "Democratic" of our Canadian neighbors ... the government can simply tell you that you're not allowed to have an election if they don't like the outcome.

- At least you admit that they don't like their single payer system ... that puts you ahead of most of your political compatriots who think that Canada has a love affair with their rationed care and long waiting lines for low quality service. But hey, America is cashing in on that one. Canadians all over purchase private insurance that is recognized in America so if they actually become seriously ill they'll become medical tourists in the US to receive immediate high quality care. What a concept -- responsible behavior and financial planning to look after yourself medically. Pretty much the exact opposite of the Democrat Party platform.

- They have more immigration because they HAVE TO to try to desperately pay all the bills. The Canadians have had a baby bust. So while the Canadian government's own projections show that by 2050 some provinces will be paying 80% of gross tax receipts on single payer healthcare, they'll simultaneously not have enough young people working to pay for the pensions of retirees. The only way you can fix that is taking on any immigrant who will come to try to restock the younger demographic. This isn't some WOOO WE LOVE IMMIGRATION fest ... it's a last ditch effort to stay afloat financially.

- You assume Canada would just be annexed in whole outright. That's not necessarily the case. Just annexing Alberta as the 51st state is the death knell of Canada as a country. The US could pick and choose which provinces it wants to let in. And it's not even necessarily a one way street. As hard economic reality sets in north of the border you'd find political attitudes would change quickly in some areas as well.

- You say SK and Alberta can't stand on their own. To the contrary. Without their oil money Canada can't stand as a nation. Single payer would go bankrupt overnight. The transfer payments to Quebec to stay in the union would stop. The pension system would go under. And this is despite the fact that Canada gets a free ride on defense by simply being our neighbor. And Canada shows its appreciation for the people of Alberta being fleeced to the tune of over $5,000/yr for every person in the province .... but refusing to let them build a pipeline. It's the kind of gross incompetence you'd expect from a government led by a well coiffed bobblehead with no knowledge, no meaningful experience, and no policy beyond virtue signaling.

I worked in Alberta for years. I was there when Notley took over as Primier (the original NDP election win - which seemed to me more of a revolt against a truly overheated economy that didn't work for most people there - lots of Ferraris on 16th but lots of people struggling with high housing costs too). I'm still paying takes in Alberta.

About the 2015 elections. The NDP didn't call the elections, the Tories did. And the NDP win was a shock. It was like everyone about 3 weeks before the election, said "screw this, I'm voting NDP. I"m tired of the Tories and I'm tired of the crowding out in our economy". By the way, in 2017 Wildrose and the Tories merged to form the United Conservative Party on a Provincial level. They'll likely take over at the next general election.

Alberta and Saskatchewan represent 18.3 percent of the Canadian economy. And the excess export value from AB and SK is only 55 billion CAD based upon 2017 figures from Statistics Canada.

But, I think you overstate the desire of Albertans and Saskatchewanites to leave, and more importantly, to join the USA.

A significant percentage, if not a majority of Albertans were born somewhere else in CANADA or overseas. They're Canadian, they love their country, and they don't want to be American. Even the Wild Rose folks.

Alberta is also a lot less nativist than you might think. The second most 'immigrant' major Canadian city...is Calgary. Edmonton isn't far behind (and it has ALWAYS been very liberal - even when Alberta was voting for Stockwell Day or Preston Manning). Alberta's oil industry runs on foreign workers. By the way, Calgary's mayor is a Muslim. In a Canadian context, it might look conservative. But to me, it feels a LOT like Minneapolis.

You're also deluding yourself if you think that even Albertans are as right wing as you think they are. Harper would be a Democrat in the USA. Also, Canada actually has a government that is usually far to the RIGHT of its populace because there is usually 1 major right of center party (the Tories) and 2 major left of center parties (the NDP and the Liberals). In a 2 party system, I doubt that many NDP or Liberal voters are going to be Republicans.

And while it was true, during the 90s and before Alberta was very Conservative, its not like that anymore. And you can't simply use Canadian political parties as proxies for US ones. Wild Rose is a complicated party if viewed from an American perspective. If you're looking for a closer nativist/Donald Trump/anti-Globalist proxy in Canada....I'd pick Ford in Ontario (who won there - but he's still not a full on Republican/Trumpian nativist either - and he only 'won' with 40 percent of the vote - and Ontario is still going to vote LIberal in the next Federal election)

Its true, I'm less familiar with SK (I only had one client there and rarely had to go onsite), but SK is TINY economically.

I'm not saying they want to be the 51st state. What I am saying is:




As for the rest of my points -- you largely ignored them.

OMG, I just watched that.

1) Wild Rose is NOT a seccesionist party! And the United Conservatives are even less of one
2) A large reason why Alberta's population is growing is because of immigration from other countries (and they have higher birth rates) and that Albetra's overheated economy draws young economic migrants from other parts of Canada. The migrants would be scared of an independent or US Alberta and the the migrants from within Canada aren't that likely to want to secede from the country they grew up in and leave their birthplaces behind.

3) Regarding Keystone XL. Keystone XL is a major issue for Alberta. But there are proposals, that are not being blocked by Ottawa to build a pipeline to the Atlantic Coast of Canada for export. The reason why this isn't as much of an issue right now as you might think is that Albertan tar sand heavy crude is REALLY EXPENSIVE to extract and even with Keystone, much of it is uneconomic at current levels. Alberta's other big export, natural gas, is somewhat geographically blocked in, but its subject to the same glut that exists throughout the North American natural gas pipeline system. In other words, joining the USA wouldn't do as much as he thinks it would. Also, remember that since the market for oil and natgas is finite, that any AB gains in market share would come at the expense of American ones. Obama's opposition to Keystone wasn't just environmental, but also a desire to protect American producers.

4) Alberta will continue to butt heads with Ottawa over subsidy issues, just like California and NY sometimes do over their subsidies to Washington.
5) If you polled Texans and Albertans, you'd probably find more Texans telling a pollster, I'd like to be independent...but in reality they aren't serious. Polls have shown that even on a lark, less than 25 percent of Albertans will say 'lets go indy'.
6) The analyst in the video makes the not-credible assumption that economic projects will straight line outward. No, AB isnt going to have their subsidy increase to 20k a year per capita. Probably because AB isn't necessarily going to have extraordinary returns forever. What will happen is that the subsidy will likely be phased out
7) The last Quebec indpendence vote was over a generation ago. The PQ of today is firmly Canadian and they're even more linked into Canada now then they were then. Quebec isn't going anywhere.

In short, its an interesting scenario, but its rather doubtful that his ideas will actually come to fruition. I question if he really understands Canada, the long term trends in oil and gas prices, the breakdown of the demographics among Alberta's young population (and their loyalties), the current political situation in Quebec, and used a dubious tactic of assuming that economic trends will continue as a straight line, or that Quebec will bail as soon as the subsidies are removed.

(11-15-2018 06:26 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  OMG, I just watched that.

1) Wild Rose is NOT a seccesionist party! And the United Conservatives are even less of one
2) A large reason why Alberta's population is growing is because of immigration from other countries (and they have higher birth rates) and that Albetra's overheated economy draws young economic migrants from other parts of Canada. The migrants would be scared of an independent or US Alberta and the the migrants from within Canada aren't that likely to want to secede from the country they grew up in and leave their birthplaces behind.

3) Regarding Keystone XL. Keystone XL is a major issue for Alberta. But there are proposals, that are not being blocked by Ottawa to build a pipeline to the Atlantic Coast of Canada for export. The reason why this isn't as much of an issue right now as you might think is that Albertan tar sand heavy crude is REALLY EXPENSIVE to extract and even with Keystone, much of it is uneconomic at current levels. Alberta's other big export, natural gas, is somewhat geographically blocked in, but its subject to the same glut that exists throughout the North American natural gas pipeline system. In other words, joining the USA wouldn't do as much as he thinks it would. Also, remember that since the market for oil and natgas is finite, that any AB gains in market share would come at the expense of American ones. Obama's opposition to Keystone wasn't just environmental, but also a desire to protect American producers.

4) Alberta will continue to butt heads with Ottawa over subsidy issues, just like California and NY sometimes do over their subsidies to Washington.
5) If you polled Texans and Albertans, you'd probably find more Texans telling a pollster, I'd like to be independent...but in reality they aren't serious. Polls have shown that even on a lark, less than 25 percent of Albertans will say 'lets go indy'.
6) The analyst in the video makes the not-credible assumption that economic projects will straight line outward. No, AB isnt going to have their subsidy increase to 20k a year per capita. Probably because AB isn't necessarily going to have extraordinary returns forever. What will happen is that the subsidy will likely be phased out
7) The last Quebec indpendence vote was over a generation ago. The PQ of today is firmly Canadian and they're even more linked into Canada now then they were then. Quebec isn't going anywhere.

In short, its an interesting scenario, but its rather doubtful that his ideas will actually come to fruition. I question if he really understands Canada, the long term trends in oil and gas prices, the breakdown of the demographics among Alberta's young population (and their loyalties), the current political situation in Quebec, and used a dubious tactic of assuming that economic trends will continue as a straight line, or that Quebec will bail as soon as the subsidies are removed.

And the Democrats aren't a socialist party. But it is still where the socialists end up.

As expensive as Albertan crude is, if the US refineries switch over entirely to run on the pure light sweet crude they get from fracking then there is no more market for Albertan crude short of the Canadians setting up their own refineries from scratch. That will be both extremely expensive and time consuming.

The projections to $20k/person are based upon Ontario retiring in mass. The Canadian workforce is about to have an American style baby boomer retirement boom. Only there's no big fat millenial generation in Canada to prop that generation up in its retirement. So you have the simultaneous massive drains of single payer, pensions, and comparatively few working young to pay for it all. It's a messy nightmare.

I think the Quebecois, if the handouts from Ontario Alberta ever stop, will go back to loudly wanting independence. Their silence is literally being bribed up on a monthly basis.

(11-15-2018 08:10 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 06:26 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  OMG, I just watched that.

1) Wild Rose is NOT a seccesionist party! And the United Conservatives are even less of one
2) A large reason why Alberta's population is growing is because of immigration from other countries (and they have higher birth rates) and that Albetra's overheated economy draws young economic migrants from other parts of Canada. The migrants would be scared of an independent or US Alberta and the the migrants from within Canada aren't that likely to want to secede from the country they grew up in and leave their birthplaces behind.

3) Regarding Keystone XL. Keystone XL is a major issue for Alberta. But there are proposals, that are not being blocked by Ottawa to build a pipeline to the Atlantic Coast of Canada for export. The reason why this isn't as much of an issue right now as you might think is that Albertan tar sand heavy crude is REALLY EXPENSIVE to extract and even with Keystone, much of it is uneconomic at current levels. Alberta's other big export, natural gas, is somewhat geographically blocked in, but its subject to the same glut that exists throughout the North American natural gas pipeline system. In other words, joining the USA wouldn't do as much as he thinks it would. Also, remember that since the market for oil and natgas is finite, that any AB gains in market share would come at the expense of American ones. Obama's opposition to Keystone wasn't just environmental, but also a desire to protect American producers.

4) Alberta will continue to butt heads with Ottawa over subsidy issues, just like California and NY sometimes do over their subsidies to Washington.
5) If you polled Texans and Albertans, you'd probably find more Texans telling a pollster, I'd like to be independent...but in reality they aren't serious. Polls have shown that even on a lark, less than 25 percent of Albertans will say 'lets go indy'.
6) The analyst in the video makes the not-credible assumption that economic projects will straight line outward. No, AB isnt going to have their subsidy increase to 20k a year per capita. Probably because AB isn't necessarily going to have extraordinary returns forever. What will happen is that the subsidy will likely be phased out
7) The last Quebec indpendence vote was over a generation ago. The PQ of today is firmly Canadian and they're even more linked into Canada now then they were then. Quebec isn't going anywhere.

In short, its an interesting scenario, but its rather doubtful that his ideas will actually come to fruition. I question if he really understands Canada, the long term trends in oil and gas prices, the breakdown of the demographics among Alberta's young population (and their loyalties), the current political situation in Quebec, and used a dubious tactic of assuming that economic trends will continue as a straight line, or that Quebec will bail as soon as the subsidies are removed.

And the Democrats aren't a socialist party. But it is still where the socialists end up.

As expensive as Albertan crude is, if the US refineries switch over entirely to run on the pure light sweet crude they get from fracking then there is no more market for Albertan crude short of the Canadians setting up their own refineries from scratch. That will be both extremely expensive and time consuming.

The projections to $20k/person are based upon Ontario retiring in mass. The Canadian workforce is about to have an American style baby boomer retirement boom. Only there's no big fat millenial generation in Canada to prop that generation up in its retirement. So you have the simultaneous massive drains of single payer, pensions, and comparatively few working young to pay for it all. It's a messy nightmare.

I think the Quebecois, if the handouts from Ontario Alberta ever stop, will go back to loudly wanting independence. Their silence is literally being bribed up on a monthly basis.

First of all, Ontario isn't going to retire en masse. Remember, Canada will probably just raise taxes across the board if they need to. And reduce benefits around the margins. Not that hard.

Quebec is far happier in Canada these days. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-...s-election

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/...-1.3788110

While you might like the Economist (its globalist) or the CBC (obviously they support Canada),

I think the article makes sense...73% Francophone support for remaining in Canada sounds about right to me.

A lot of the resentment was related to pre 1975 discrimination by Anglophones against Quebecers. People who remember those days are few and far between. 1995 was the final gasp.

Greater Montreal has almost half the population of Quebec and it is profoundly pro-Canada.

----

That guy from the video really is out there. I think if you mentioned your predictions to a non-political Albertan or Quebecer, they'd probably laugh at the predictions. Sorry to be a bit dismissive, but you appear to reduce the concerns of Quebecois to simply a money grub. The situation is far, far, FAR more complicated than that.

(11-15-2018 08:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  That guy from the video really is out there. I think if you mentioned your predictions to a non-political Albertan or Quebecer, they'd probably laugh at the predictions. Sorry to be a bit dismissive, but you appear to reduce the concerns of Quebecois to simply a money grub. The situation is far, far, FAR more complicated than that.

https://zeihan.com/trade-talk-part-i-of-...-going-on/