Previous  1 ... 11  12  13  14  15  16  17 ... 21  Next

United States:

The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $37,800. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy considerably greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to entry in their rivals' home markets than the barriers to entry of foreign firms in US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The years 1994-2000 witnessed solid increases in real output, low inflation rates, and a drop in unemployment to below 5%. The year 2001 saw the end of boom psychology and performance, with output increasing only 0.3% and unemployment and business failures rising substantially. The response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. Moderate recovery took place in 2002 with the GDP growth rate rising to 2.4%. A major short-term problem in first half 2002 was a sharp decline in the stock market, fueled in part by the exposure of dubious accounting practices in some major corporations. The war in March/April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq shifted resources to the military. In 2003, growth in output and productivity and the recovery of the stock market to above 10,000 for the Dow Jones Industrial Average were promising signs. Unemployment stayed at the 6% level, however, and began to decline only at the end of the year. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.

GDP:
purchasing power parity - $10.99 trillion (2004 est.)

GDP - real growth rate:
3.1% (2004 est.)

GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $37,800 (2004 est.)

GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 1.4%
industry: 26.2%
services: 72.5% (2004 est.)

Investment (gross fixed):
15.2% of GDP (2004 est.)

Population below poverty line:
12% (2004 est.)

Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 1.8%
highest 10%: 30.5% (1997)

Distribution of family income - Gini index:
45 (2004)

Inflation rate (consumer prices):
2.3% (2004 est.)

Labor force:
146.5 million (includes unemployed) (2004 est.)

Labor force - by occupation:
farming, forestry, and fishing 2.4%, manufacturing, extraction, transportation, and crafts 24.1%, managerial, professional, and technical 31%, sales and office 28.9%, other services 13.6%
note: figures exclude the unemployed (2001)

Unemployment rate:
6% (2004 est.)

Budget:
revenues: $1.782 trillion
expenditures: $2.156 trillion, including capital expenditures of NA (2004 est.)

Public debt:
62.4% of GDP (2004 est.)

Agriculture - products:
wheat, corn, other grains, fruits, vegetables, cotton; beef, pork, poultry, dairy products; forest products; fish

Industries:
leading industrial power in the world, highly diversified and technologically advanced; petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining

Industrial production growth rate:
0.3% (2004 est.)

Electricity - production:
3.719 trillion kWh (2001)

Electricity - consumption:
3.602 trillion kWh (2001)

Electricity - exports:
18.17 billion kWh (2001)

Electricity - imports:
38.48 billion kWh (2001)

Oil - production:
8.054 million bbl/day (2004 est.)

Oil - consumption:
19.65 million bbl/day (2001 est.)

Oil - exports:
NA (2001)

Oil - imports:
NA (2001)

Oil - proved reserves:
22.45 billion bbl (1 January 2002)

Natural gas - production:
548.1 billion cu m (2001 est.)

Natural gas - consumption:
640.9 billion cu m (2001 est.)

Natural gas - exports:
11.16 billion cu m (2001 est.)

Natural gas - imports:
114.1 billion cu m (2001 est.)

Natural gas - proved reserves:
5.195 trillion cu m (1 January 2002)

Current account balance:
$-541.8 billion (2004 est.)

Exports:
$714.5 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)

Exports - commodities:
capital goods, automobiles, industrial supplies and raw materials, consumer goods, agricultural products

Exports - partners:
Canada 23.4%, Mexico 13.5%, Japan 7.2%, UK 4.7%, Germany 4% (2003)

Imports:
$1.26 trillion f.o.b. (2003 est.)

Imports - commodities:
crude oil and refined petroleum products, machinery, automobiles, consumer goods, industrial raw materials, food and beverages

Imports - partners:
Canada 17.4%, China 12.5%, Mexico 10.7%, Japan 9.3%, Germany 5.3% (2003)

Reserves of foreign exchange & gold:
$85.94 billion (2003)

Debt - external:
$1.4 trillion (2001 est.)

Economic aid - donor:
ODA, $6.9 billion (1997)

   

Canada
Economy - overview:

As an affluent, high-tech industrial society, Canada today closely resembles the US in its market-oriented economic system, pattern of production, and high living standards. Since World War II, the impressive growth of the manufacturing, mining, and service sectors has transformed the nation from a largely rural economy into one primarily industrial and urban. The 1989 US-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (which includes Mexico) touched off a dramatic increase in trade and economic integration with the US. As a result of the close cross-border relationship, the economic sluggishness in the United States in 2001-02 had a negative impact on the Canadian economy. Real growth averaged nearly 3% during 1993-2000, but declined in 2001, with moderate recovery in 2002-03. Unemployment is up, with contraction in the manufacturing and natural resource sectors. Nevertheless, given its great natural resources, skilled labor force, and modern capital plant Canada enjoys solid economic prospects. Two shadows loom, the first being the continuing constitutional impasse between English- and French-speaking areas, which has been raising the specter of a split in the federation. Another long-term concern is the flow south to the US of professionals lured by higher pay, lower taxes, and the immense high-tech infrastructure. A key strength in the economy is the substantial trade surplus. Roughly 90% of the population lives within 160 kilometers of the US border.

GDP:
purchasing power parity - $958.7 billion (2004 est.)

GDP - real growth rate:
1.7% (2004 est.)

GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $29,800 (2004 est.)

GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 2.2%
industry: 29.2%
services: 68.6% (2004 est.)

Investment (gross fixed):
19.5% of GDP (2004 est.)

Population below poverty line:
NA

Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 2.8%
highest 10%: 23.8% (1994)

Distribution of family income - Gini index:
31.5 (1994)

Inflation rate (consumer prices):
2.8% (2004 est.)

Labor force:
17.04 million (2004 est.)

Labor force - by occupation:
agriculture 3%, manufacturing 15%, construction 5%, services 74%, other 3% (2000)

Unemployment rate:
7.8% (2004 est.)

Budget:
revenues: $348.2 billion
expenditures: $342.7 billion, including capital expenditures of NA (2004 est.)

Public debt:
77% of GDP (2004 est.)

Agriculture - products:
wheat, barley, oilseed, tobacco, fruits, vegetables; dairy products; forest products; fish

Industries:
transportation equipment, chemicals, processed and unprocessed minerals, food products; wood and paper products; fish products, petroleum and natural gas

Industrial production growth rate:
0.2% (2004 est.)

Electricity - production:
566.3 billion kWh (2001)

Electricity - consumption:
504.4 billion kWh (2001)

Electricity - exports:
38.4 billion kWh (2001)

Electricity - imports:
16.11 billion kWh (2001)

Oil - production:
2.738 million bbl/day (2004 est.)

Oil - consumption:
1.703 million bbl/day (2001 est.)

Oil - exports:
2.008 million bbl/day (2001)

Oil - imports:
1.145 million bbl/day (2001)

Oil - proved reserves:
5.112 billion bbl (1 January 2002)

Natural gas - production:
186.8 billion cu m (2001 est.)

Natural gas - consumption:
82.25 billion cu m (2001 est.)

Natural gas - exports:
109 billion cu m (2001 est.)

Natural gas - imports:
4.46 billion cu m (2001 est.)

Natural gas - proved reserves:
1.691 trillion cu m (1 January 2002)

Current account balance:
$18.63 billion (2004 est.)

Exports:
$279.3 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)

Exports - commodities:
motor vehicles and parts, industrial machinery, aircraft, telecommunications equipment; chemicals, plastics, fertilizers; wood pulp, timber, crude petroleum, natural gas, electricity, aluminum

Exports - partners:
US 86.6%, Japan 2.1%, UK 1.4% (2003)

Imports:
$240.4 billion f.o.b. (2003 est.)

Imports - commodities:
machinery and equipment, motor vehicles and parts, crude oil, chemicals, electricity, durable consumer goods

Imports - partners:
US 60.6%, China 5.6%, Japan 4.1% (2003)

Reserves of foreign exchange & gold:
$36.27 billion (2003)

Debt - external:
$1.9 billion (2000)

Economic aid - donor:
ODA, $1.3 billion (1999)

   

Now, here's why I posted those. First off, Rev_blair is a master of the hyperbole. When he says things like "The news. You guys import everything. Most importantly you don't have enough energy. Without our gas and electricity, your industry shuts down. Without our oil your ag industry isn't capable of producing enough food to feed yourselves.

You have a huge trade deficit. You have a massive debt that is mostly foreign owned. Your dollar, even with the recent devaluation, is considered to be extremely over-valued.

This stuff has all bee shown and linked to over and over again at this site Johnny, sometimes in one of the many versions of this same discussion. "

....it is a hyperbole. First off, the Canada is only 1 market for oil. What does this mean?....it means that Canada competes with others when they sell oil. If Canada was to decide NOT to sell oil to the US, they would lose money on it, and other markets would make money. Of course, Canada deciding not to sell to the US could throw off other markets, including the US's and their own, and greatly effect the world, most likely. Second off, Rev_blair says we import everything, yet we export a good deal of goods to, even electricity . While it is true that the US imports electricity, Rev_blair makes it sound like Canada alone is responsible for US electricity, and that without their electricity, our industry would shut down. While losing out on a market like Canada's electricity, the US still produces more electricity than their consumption. Of course, those stats are old and might not take into account the current stat of consumption. Another thing I don't get is why Rev_blair keeps acting like it's Canada alone who is A. helping the US and exporting/importing with them, and B. that it's only the US who benefits from Canada giving them certain goods. Do not electric companies benefit from the export of electricity to the US? If Canada had a better way to make money, why are they still selling to the US?

Debts, I agree are a problem in the US, and hopefully the problem with them will be solved, but like I've said, I'm not that great of an economist, so I can't offer solutions.

For a country that imports everything, it's funny that we export stuff...

   

See ..now Rev, you're just being mean to him ... how will you ever educate anyone if you're pissing them off?

Hey Johnny?
So, its ok if the USA invades poor unsupported countries, eh?
I think your attitude lends ample credence to my point... this country needs a more intimidating military. Your government has black hawks routinely flying into Canada's airspace (in the name of homeland security) without permission. Its a slippery slope! Your government is increasingly erratic in its thinking.

   

Wow, I never knew that I said it was okay to invade poor unsupported countries. Thank you for speaking for me!

   

This is like shooting fish in a barrel Johnny ... you say you don't support your government but look at the stuff you have said. You obviously derive great comfort from your countries superior power on this planet. History provides me ample proof that your country understands only one rule ...

might means right ...

   

I know your involved with Rev. Johnny did you happen to read my last [ost and see the point I was trying to make

   

First off ... I am not in cahoots with Rev ... we just agree on a lot of points. I don't think he supports my view on beefing up the military though.

Second, yes .. I read the above article and feel it supports my assertion that we do in fact need a strong military.

Did I miss any points beyond that?

   

oh ..
uhm .. richard .. sorry .. I thought you were talking to me ...

   

I meant exactly what I said, Johnny. Look at the parts of your country that depend on Canadian electricity...that's what's known as "industrial heartland." Oh California is in there too...the film and computer industries. Our natural gas and oil produce a lot of the electricity you produce yourselves too. This isn't hyperbole, it's plain, hard fact.

You have a huge trade deficit, Johnny. You do not produce the basic things that your citizens need.



I'm not being mean at all, just expecting him to educate himself.



That's true. I like Romeo Dallaire's plan of up to 40,000 men and women trained in peacekeeping, including officers with a knowledge of psychology and anthropology. I think the best way to protect ourselves is to use our wealth to help others because it pays a long-term dividend. That same force could protect our sovereignty by patrolling and training in our north. Beyond that I'd like to see a civilian force to do a lot aid work and save the military for operations where people with guns are necessary. All operations, military and civilian, should work through the UN.

If we were forced into a defensive war, that force would be available, but that isn't our main concern.

   

Dallaire's proposal for the Canadian army sounds good to me, Rev. Large, conventionally armed and equipped armies are essentially meant to fight long, drawn-out wars of attrition. Canada could never win such a war against the U.S., so in terms of defending Canada from an invasion, I see no point in Canada acquiring huge numbers of tanks, for instance. With that said, I think we should keep the few tanks we do have!

Canada's best hope of defending herself against an invasion would be in inflicting major losses on the Americans immediately following the beginning of their attack. It would be our only hope of knocking some sense into them and getting them to call it off. This is based on the assumption that the Americans might not be willing to accept heavy losses. I know this may seem like a risky assumption to make, but judging from how Bush and the boys go out of their way to play down U.S. casualties in Iraq, I think its reasonable to believe that the U.S. gov't would not be willing to accept more than a few thousand casualties in any attempted annexation of Canada.

Even a large, conventionally armed Canadian army would not be able to inflict those kinds of losses on the invading forces quickly enough, but a large and capable air force would. It should mainly focus on maintaining control of Canadian airspace, but also have a strong ground-attack capability. The CF-18s are good planes, but we really have far too few of them. Should we have nukes? In theory it would be a great deterrent, but for all kinds of good reasons it's not going to happen!!! As for our navy, it should possess a large number of small vessels rather than a small number of large vessels. Imagine the U.S. navy trying to move a fleet into the Strait of Georgia, on its way to Vancouver. Such an intrusion would best be stopped by a swarm of Canadian missile-armed PT boats. This type of vessel would also be useful on the Great Lakes and inland waterways.

On a more realistic note, the biggest threat to Canada from the U.S. is in the Arctic, where the U.S. and several other countries have repeatedly violated Canadian sovereignty, as Rev noted earlier. It absolutely boggles my mind that our gov't continues to ignore this and that our armed forces are so drastically limited in their ability to operate in this region. None of our navy vessels have so much as an ice-strengthened hull!! No air force bases!! No regular army presence!! This was reported again on CBC a few days ago and of course Graham went out of his way to play the whole thing down.

   

When I said I see the US attacking nations in those places, I never said I support it, I was just pointing out the places I see as being more likely to be attacked. I don't really see how those lines support my government, I'm just trying to be real as to how countries tend to go about things. India and pakistan have had disputes, China and India have had disputes, Russia and Chechnya(not really a country, I know, more of a province of the Russia) have disputes, I'm just saying that tons of countries have disputes, but I'm not saying might means right, just that the world is a power game. Everyone in the world practices their will to power in some way. You all keep misunderstanding me, and when I don't say exactly what you want to hear you suddenly think I support the US. I have my own viewpoints of the war and such, but why should I have to choose you guys side in a debate and say everything you want to hear? Instead of normal debate, I'm suddenly accused of supporting my government, when in reality I was just trying to point out the likelihood of Canada being attacked, nothing more or less. Now, I have pointed out the likelihood of Canada winning a war against the US, and tried to take an opposing side to everything that everyone says, but I still don't see how that means I support the US, I was just looking at numbers and coming up with what I think would happen. Just because in the debate I choose the US side(mainly because everyone was just repeating the same "Canada would kick the US's ass)doesn't mean that I'm suddenly an Iraq war supporter -- US should go fight everyone in the world -- US is always right -- US does no wrong -- type of person. If you think that, you greatly mistake me. In my personal life I actually dislike Bush and voted for Kerry, going to vote for Nader next time if he runs, and I'm hoping for a peaceful world just like everyone else where we can compromise on both sides and try to have a better understanding. I did see a few things that I thought Rev_blair had wrong.

He uses hyperboles when he describes the US. He didn't us a hyperbole when he was talking about the US debts, BUT he did when he says the US has no resources and Canada gives them all their resources. That is untrue. While the US does trade with Canada and get electricity from Canada, Enron was a big part of the California blackouts a couple years ago, and the US is still able to produce power, it's just sometimes you see either A. cheaper markets B. a way to get electricity and conserve your own. I have yet to see most places which say the US is running out of resources(although I agree with the oil problem, but I've see that the US still has tons of natural gas, even more than Canada). Also, and main reason the US has been having trouble, from what I've seen on the news, isn't because of a lack of all resources(they still have a good number of certain resources which aren't oil -- although Rev_blair seems to think it's all about oil)but companies sending jobs overseas to make more money because they can pay workers less.

Oh, one last thing mcpuck, that's some nice cutting and pasting you did there. You took that last line which I was talking in context of economic policies, and made it sound like I'm talking about the wars the US pursues around the world. That last line was talking about trading policies the US has with Canada. Real nice work trying to put together something that makes it look like I support US wars.

Old but interesting.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/G ... resources'

   

Johnny,
I have no interest in using erroneous tactics to win a debate of any kind. If I misrepresented your words, it was not intentional. I'm sorry if that happened.

I enjoy our discourse

Beyond that I still contend that you do derive a lot of comfort and satisfaction with being a citizen of such a powerful nation. Being patriotic is a fine thing. Americans have a lot to be proud of.

Despite my rabid assertion regarding a stronger Canadian military, I still have no appreciation for national military bravado in the world theater.

Rev,

You peacekeeping group seems like an appropriate direction to go in. One of the biggest things I want to stress is that we need to stop buying American military equipment. American military stuff seems to be well made but it is very expensive to purchase, maintain and replace. We need to have a home grown industry. Government money will make its way through our economy paying back huge dividends.

Freaker,

I think you have some really good ideas. Canada's Air Force has a very weak ground support system. We do not have a particular weopons platform to perform this role and we do not have an attack helicopter per se.

I believe your idea regarding a large fleet of smaller boats has been examined by the military and has been deemed an effective strategy but of course like all military initiatives in our country, it has been treated as a trite thought.

   

I will admit, I do have feel somewhat happy to be an American(something which people will beat you down for feeling nowadays)but it's not a happiness of what my country does, but of past deeds of my country such as the WW2 generation, the 60-70's movements which really pushed for new ideas, and mainly the good things. I would never think my country is perfect, but can't people be beyond black and white and enjoy the good while they know there is bad? Just like Canadians like their country, I still like my country. I mean, whatever country you are born in will feel like your home land. My liking of my country goes beyond politics to things like the Rocky Mountains, the mississippi river, New York city, NASA program, etc. I'm sure you all don't want to hear patriotic rants of an American, but I'm just explaining my viewpoint. You have to seperate politics and your country sometimes or else you will hate everything in this world, you know. While I might debate certain things like a war with Canada and the US, I in no way support countless wars around the world, and I would never blindly follow my government, I mean if you look back at the US history, our people have a history of rebelling against the government, and still alot of people walk around saying "fuck the government" and consider themselves liberals here, which is why I just get frustrated whem some people on this site think that the US is Nazi Germany. Yes, our government does messed up things and there's alot of stupid people, but those people are stupid because they are either unwilling to see the facts and find out stuff, or their pride won't let them give up a party, or whatever reason, but it's not because we are all brainwashed and have no means of finding out information, or if we try to say something to the government we will be sent off to a prison camp, because otherwise you wouldn't have seen those thousands of protesters in New York.

   

John when it comes to Americans rant about what is good about their country I could listen to what you have to say all day for I know you will have the good sense to highlight the attributes of your country that do indeed make it great. When I hear some like Human or Godz do the same thing it just puts it all in perspective as to why I have a healthily fear of the US when they do stuff like this. Any country can be great, and with great power comes responsibility. Something lacking with the baby boomer generation who currently run the show and here is why:

- they have grown up in a time of major growth, thus living their childhood in ever-improving prosperity and in an atmosphere of progress and economic optimism. They were thus the first generation to have the luxury to revolt against the materialistic preoccupations of their parents while fully benefiting from these material advantages (and not having lived through the Depression and war like their parents)

- they had the incredible chance of living their 20s after the pill and before AIDS, thus being the first generation (and only one so far) able toe enjoy sex without limitation and almost without consequences;

- after having experimented with abandon every kind of ideology and -isms, made divorce, single-parent families and criminality grow exponentially, and been generally irresponsible for most of their life, they have lately become "born-again" and are trying to push back medieval morality on the rest of the population ("family values", "war on drugs", welfare reform)

- after having sent their black or poor neighbors fight the Vietnam War, they discredited their military until a few terrorists smacked them in the face, and it suddenly became fashionable - and necessary - for them, fully in power, to use the full force (and more) of the US military to kick Arab ass indiscriminately

- in Europe at least, the social net overwhelmingly favors them, by making their jobs almost untouchable while putting all the needs for flexibility of the economy on the young (who cannot find a stable job easily) and the old (who were kicked out into early retirement or irremediable unemployment).

- they are the first generation to live at a time when (i) there is a retirement age (ii) people live longer than that age and (iii) the system is able to fund their pensions by contributions by those following them - and they could well be the last, as they are keen to let other generations pay - again - for their old age.

- after having been pampered anti-capitalist lefties in their youth, they became ruthless corporate overachievers, and were in charger of the large scale rightist attempt to push back the social net they benefited from but want to deny to others. The massive stock market and housing bubbles this has created have allowed them to capture a huge portion of the wealth (overvalued stocks and houses), at the expense of the young who cannot afford to buy housing or save with a perspective of decent returns

Not all boomer's are bad but a lot have gone rotten and gorged on all the fruits of their position and left precious little for those of us who have to live after them. The me! me! me! generation is why we are fighting in Iraq now for oil so they can drive the SUV to McDonald's and keep in power people like Bush so they can get the tax break that is only robbing the birthright of the young. The boomer's will be long dead and we will have endless debt to pay for generations. It makes me sick, but I don't hate you John, never be afraid to say what you think here.

   

Previous  1 ... 11  12  13  14  15  16  17 ... 21  Next