Statistics Canada Reports II

[someone123]

Originally Posted by sgera

I think you’ll find this site interesting: www.Unicornnorth.com

Profiles the evolution of the tech industry in canada and which tech hubs were most successful.

That is interesting and fits with Ottawa generating an outsized number while Toronto has the most in total.

I wonder about their definition of "unicorn". Usually the definition is $1B USD in valuation and it's talking about VC-funded companies supposedly headed toward an IPO. In other words, a VC might buy 10% of a private startup for $100M. Hence the valuation is $1B. They do not have to have revenue, and the rug may be pulled out of them if they are running off of VC money and fail to secure a later round. Even if they IPO they may never be profitable.

This whole framing has come from the VCs themselves and they tend to make it sound like that's the only path, but many successful companies were never VC-backed, and many founders and employees have not necessarily been well compensated even when the VCs were. I think "peak total valuations by American VCs" is really far off the mark as a hypothetical measure of health of Canadian industry. My impression is we don't have a very vibrant domestic VC industry or at least the valuations used to be much lower in the past if you either didn't have a US HQ or, heaven forbid, tried to raise money exclusively domestically. You would probably have to sit for hours with an investor trying to explain to them how you are not building a condo tower.

If you look at the chart, setting aside concerns about the metrics, it's a bit depressing with peak valuations in Canada still not repeating dotcom levels. A US chart would look very different.

[craner]

When does statscan release some population estimates next ?

[James Bond Agent 007]

Right-wing heads will explode. Not only did Canadian GDP rise 3.3% in Q2, Q1 GDP was revised upward from a slight contraction to +0.3%, thus negative right-wing claims that Canada was in a recession.

Canada's economy grew by 3.3% in the second quarter, showing sharp recovery

Canada's economy rebounded sharply in the second quarter, thanks to a jump in exports and stronger domestic investment, according to Statistics Canada data.

The economy grew at an annualized rate of 3.3 per cent in the second quarter, following an upwardly revised 0.3 per cent in the first quarter, Statistics Canada said. For the month of June, GDP was up 0.3 per cent.

With the first-quarter revision, which ​was previously a slight contraction, Canada was not in a technical ​recession, which is usually two consecutive quarters of contraction.

[MolsonExport]

PP must be gnashing his teeth.



He came within a whisker of becoming PM. We are so lucky.

[Taeolas]

Some good news, not only are we out of the recession, we technically never entered one in the first place.

Since we're probably going to take a hit due to the Idiot's Tariffs for this quarter, having a good buffer ahead of time should help.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by craner

When does statscan release some population estimates next ?

Last provincial quarterly estimates were released on June 17, so presumably mid September.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Right-wing heads will explode. Not only did Canadian GDP rise 3.3% in Q2, Q1 GDP was revised upward from a slight contraction to +0.3%, thus negative right-wing claims that Canada was in a recession.

I am not sure who you are referring to as right-wing. There's an extreme populist right wing making up some small percent of politics in Canada who will hate the Liberals no matter what, but Carney's government has broadly adopted some major economic policies promoted by critics of the Trudeau-era government. Carney is a centrist technocrat whereas JT veered into certain select aspects of leftist politics like hyper identity politics (not so much class/wealth aspects, and he is a highly privileged wealthy person). Carney is popular with over half of voters right now, so he's appealing to some of the more conservative contingent.

In particular the feds are pushing forward a lot of major resource development projects and they canned the consumer carbon tax. I think most people would expect the resource development to have a positive impact on GDP, though JT argued many projects not happening had no economic basis (a "noble lie"?).

JT-era immigration policies sort of boosted GDP through population growth but not productivity. I think JT era policies created a very weak economy overall and a semi-competently run economy should be able to outperform it. A well-run Canadian economy with some fixes like improved interprovincial trade might be able to grow even when trade with the US is facing headwinds.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

He came within a whisker of becoming PM. We are so lucky.

I think PP looked plausible next to JT or Jagmeet Singh but isn't viable against a moderately good opponent.

It is a bit like Trump vs. Kamala Harris. A strong candidate would destroy Trump but the party system isn't working to form and promote such candidates.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by someone123

I am not sure who you are referring to as right-wing. There's an extreme populist right wing making up some small percent of politics in Canada who will hate the Liberals no matter what, but Carney's government has broadly adopted some major economic policies promoted by critics of the Trudeau-era government. Carney is a centrist technocrat whereas JT veered into certain select aspects of leftist politics like hyper identity politics (not so much class/wealth aspects, and he is a highly privileged wealthy person). Carney is popular with over half of voters right now, so he's appealing to some of the more conservative contingent.

In particular the feds are pushing forward a lot of major resource development projects and they canned the consumer carbon tax. I think most people would expect the resource development to have a positive impact on GDP, though JT argued many projects not happening had no economic basis (a "noble lie"?).

JT-era immigration policies sort of boosted GDP through population growth but not productivity. I think JT era policies created a very weak economy overall and a semi-competently run economy should be able to outperform it. A well-run Canadian economy with some fixes like improved interprovincial trade might be able to grow even when trade with the US is facing headwinds.

I'm referring, of course, to the boatloads of Maple MAGAts who kept crowing about "Canada is in a recession!" for the past few months because Canada had 2 consecutive quarters of GDP decline.

[someone123]

I think "maple MAGA" is sort of fake, poorly defined, and often misapplied. It's often used as an insult against people who don't self-identify with any movement whereas in the US there are actual MAGA folks, it is coherent as a position, and it's the slogan of the president. There's an irony in that a person who consumes a lot of American media might be more inclined to adopt a "maple MAGA" framing, i.e., this taxonomy is an American import as much as any major political movement in Canada. Maybe we should put retaliatory tariffs on it.

There is the PPC but they are polling at something like 2%.

Trump has very low approval in Canada and recent Carney policies like the trade talk decision have a very high approval rating, such that pro-Trump in Canada for example has to be pretty marginal. Many people are noncommittal and give silly answers to polls so something like a 76% approval rating is very high. Conversely marginal views with no political force behind them can hit some small %.

I don't like how paying attention to basic economic indicators we used to follow for decades, like quarterly GDP growth or productivity, are sometimes now framed as right-wing/problematic/complicated. We should have consistently growing GDP, growing productivity, and inflation in target ranges. There will be some forgiveness for external factors like covid or Trump, but the goals remain the same, broadly.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Right-wing heads will explode....

And indeed right-wing heads are exploding. They're now saying the numbers are "fake" because it's an annualized figure. They don't want to know or understand that the US does that as well. Seeing this everywhere online.

[ssiguy]

Hard left-wingers or right-wingers never have an effect on an election and do not represent Canadians in general. You will always get them but together they maybe account for 10% each. For the vast majority of Canadians, no matter where they live, people are mostly in the "mushy middle" and few are actually so hardcore that they would never vote for another Party. They may do it with their nose plugged but they are open to the idea.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Hard left-wingers or right-wingers never have an effect on an election and do not represent Canadians in general. You will always get them but together they maybe account for 10% each. For the vast majority of Canadians, no matter where they live, people are mostly in the "mushy middle" and few are actually so hardcore that they would never vote for another Party. They may do it with their nose plugged but they are open to the idea.

I guess we could debate it, but in a recent poll, 76% of Canadians backed the Carney government trade talk actions. To me it seems unlikely that a person who is MAGA in any meaningful way would declare this kind of support. That is a very high number. Link: https://angusreid.org/resolve-apprehensi...ut-two-in-five-have-fear-for-their-jobs/

Even a majority of Conservatives held this view. Canada has not experienced the level of partisan tribalism that is seen in the US.

There will always be a wide variety of voices on the internet. It's interesting to hear what's out there, but the views of meaningful political camps have more importance.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think PP looked plausible next to JT or Jagmeet Singh but isn't viable against a moderately good opponent.

It is a bit like Trump vs. Kamala Harris. A strong candidate would destroy Trump but the party system isn't working to form and promote such candidates.

Just watch the Democrats screw this up, and select Harris or AOC to run in 2028. Nothing against the two, but for whatever reason, America does not seem to want a female as President. If Newsom or even Buttlieg runs, they will likely be the next President Trump will be incapacitated by 2028 (there is no question he has dementia), and the rest of the GOP leading candidates are unlikable bootlickers.

At any rate, the CPC is going to go the way of the old PC party, and implode within 12 months. It's clear Poilievre has lost control of his caucus. There is a rumor going around that he wasted to kick out Jivani, but the militant faction of the party would not let him.

[someone123]

The CPC has the problem that the main issues they were complaining about for the last few years have been addressed. JT gone, immigration reform, more major projects, etc. On top of this, the trade war gives the feds something to blame for any poor economic performance.

In a real sense, the CPC probably did help improve things, even if they're now losing out because their desired politics were adopted somewhat. The Greens and NDP have had this "problem" at times as well, which is actually a political victory. All parties adopted some kind of climate change policy for example. It's good that we have a system with a variety of parties even if the Liberals end up in power most of the time.

It also reminds me of Quebec separatism and how sometimes the easiest way to take the wind out of their sails is to ask them what they want and give it to them.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

Just watch the Democrats screw this up, and select Harris or AOC to run in 2028. Nothing against the two, but for whatever reason, America does not seem to want a female as President...

I've heard multiple people say that but it doesn't make much sense considering that Hilary won the popular vote by almost 3 million in 2016.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think "maple MAGA" is sort of fake, poorly defined, and often misapplied. It's often used as an insult against people who don't self-identify with any movement whereas in the US there are actual MAGA folks, it is coherent as a position, and it's the slogan of the president. There's an irony in that a person who consumes a lot of American media might be more inclined to adopt a "maple MAGA" framing, i.e., this taxonomy is an American import as much as any major political movement in Canada. Maybe we should put retaliatory tariffs on it.

I agree that it isn't a huge percentage of people, but I don't think it's fake, poorly defined, or misapplied. It simply refers to people who side with the Trump admin in disputes with Canada because they identify more with right-wing ideology than with a sense of Canadian patriotism or solidarity. Specifically people who don't have any actual rationale for siding with the US GOP other than Fox news talking points or culture war stuff that usually has no direct relation to the issue at hand (whataboutism on steroids). Saying Canada has "fallen", is a woke disaster and in decline for having a high rate of immigrantion, having stronger environmental protections, LGBT+ rights, etc. Especially focusing on quantitative stuff like GDP while ignoring qualitative stuff like HDI, poverty rates, inequality, etc. They don't need to refer to themselves by a movement name for it to be pretty clear what movement they're aligned with based on the similarity of the talking points.

[someone123]

I mean that it is sort of fake in that it's unclear what it means as a substantive political identity or movement in Canadian politics outside of maybe marginal Alberta separatists. I say poorly-defined because I guess there wouldn't be a lot of agreement on a clear definition (whereas "CPC member" is objective for example), and misapplied because it's often wielded as a pejorative label. I am not sure I've seen anybody explicitly self-identify as maple MAGA, though I am sure it's happened somewhere.

Watching Fox news and agreeing with anti-woke or "own the libs" material doesn't necessarily map onto meaningful political issues. Actually those American culture war issues, like DEI or bathroom stuff or trans female athlete debates, often have extremely limited practical import, and there is a personalist angle around Trump specifically that doesn't translate into the Canadian sphere.

Trump's approval rating is around 33 percent among actual US voters so I would imagine that whatever maple MAGA constituency exists is in decline as well.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

I mean that it is sort of fake in that it's unclear what it means as a substantive political identity or movement. I say poorly-defined because I guess there wouldn't be a lot of agreement on a clear definition (whereas "CPC member" is clear defined for example), and misapplied because it's often used wielded a pejorative label. In fact I am not sure I've seen anybody explicitly self-identify as maple MAGA, though I am sure it's happened somewhere.

Watching Fox news and agreeing with anti-woke or "own the libs" material doesn't necessarily map onto meaningful political issues. Actually those American culture war issues, like bathroom stuff or trans female athlete debates, often have extremely limited practical import.

Oh, if you just mean that it isn't an official movement with central organization or structure like a political party or and that the associated beliefs and behaviours aren't productive or substantive, then absolutely. 100% agree with that. But I don't think something not being a self-identity or something being used as a pejorative detract from its accuracy. You could say the same for a lot of things like anti-vaxers, NIMBYs, or even transphobes and xenophobes. These are all terms applied to people by their critics while the targets of the terms don't believe they deserve the criticism.

When people take destructive positions they usually present them as being "pro" something that they claim to be protecting or defending. Protecting children. Protecting neighbourhood character. Protecting freedom. Defending "real" Canadians. Defending "common sense". They try to present whatever it is with a positive spin. That doesn't make the critics wrong. It just means people don't like being criticized whether or not they deserve it and that no one is the villain in their own story.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

And indeed right-wing heads are exploding. They're now saying the numbers are "fake" because it's an annualized figure. They don't want to know or understand that the US does that as well. Seeing this everywhere online.

Did anyone ask for a running commentary on Twitter??