What is the GOP's answer to Canada's wealth?

[rumborak]

So far Europe could be written off as "well, doesn't work, does it?", but I would think Canada's success, despite their clear "socialist" policies will hit home much closer.
Has there been any acknowledgment of it so far, or are they trying to ignore it?

rumborak

[snapple]

I haven't seen anything, but I haven't really been paying attention to it (just got a new job that I'm starting soon, plus baseball season is well into full swing which generally takes up my free time).

Canada also has a mucccccccch smaller population, which makes the whole wealth thing (on average) easier to achieve, IMO. But, this is without reading into it. I don't know how GDP is figured out.

(I promise, if I read something posted by the Heritage Foundation or otherwise, I'll post it here)

[El Barto]

That's easy.  They'd cite it as yet another failure of Obama's policies.  From their perspective, the Canadians haven't gone forward in as much as we've gone backward.   Going back to the glory days of W is the answer. 

[theseoafs]

Canada also has a mucccccccch smaller population, which makes the whole wealth thing (on average) easier

Well, the GOP's main problem with "socialism" (the term being defined quite broadly here) isn't that it would be difficult to implement, is it?  Their position is that socialism cannot work, no?

[snapple]

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/19/o-canada-riding-high-on-greater-economic-freedom/

That's what The Heritage Foundation says.

[snapple]

Canada also has a mucccccccch smaller population, which makes the whole wealth thing (on average) easier

Well, the GOP's main problem with "socialism" (the term being defined quite broadly here) isn't that it would be difficult to implement, is it?  Their position is that socialism cannot work, no?

Well, sure. That's more the conservative front. I think it's easier to implement in a country with roughly ~10% of the population of the USA.

[Super Dude]

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/19/o-canada-riding-high-on-greater-economic-freedom/

That's what The Heritage Foundation says.

I hate to be "that guy," but that's pretty typical of a self-identified conservative news blog. Although, they are nearly right: the policies that are construed as socialism over on this end of the bridge have actually created more prosperity and thus greater individual freedom as a result.

A bridge I was less than a half hour away from earlier tonight.

[El Barto]

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/19/o-canada-riding-high-on-greater-economic-freedom/

That's what The Heritage Foundation says.

I hate to be "that guy," but that's pretty typical of a self-identified conservative news blog. Although, they are nearly right: the policies that are construed as socialism over on this end of the bridge have actually created more prosperity and thus greater individual freedom as a result.

That's an intriguing assessment.  Perhaps they've created a system which now allows a greater tolerance for risk without fear of crashing the plane like we've done. 

[Super Dude]

I don't know if this is what you're getting at, but I do believe that the U.S., be it government or corporate culture, is so insanely risk averse in pretty much every possible area. I mean it, everything from healthcare to the fuel economy to entertainment.

[snapple]

I just posted the link because that's the only GOP/Conservative group I follow. Generally, the blogs have a lot more depth to them.

[jingle.boy]

Well, sure. That's more the conservative front. I think it's easier to implement in a country with roughly ~10% of the population of the USA.

How do you figure?  I don't see how size matters in implementing policy.  If so, you'd think at almost 1.5B people, Communism would be tough in China.

And just to set the record straight, some political and economic policies are "socialist" up here, but by-and-large, we're a democratic and commercial country/culture.

[XJDenton]

China's only communist in name, but I agree I never understood the scale argument.

[snapple]

China's only communist in name, but I agree I never understood the scale argument.

Because not everything scales the same way. Look at how a Newton's cradle. In mythbusters, they tried to make it work on a wrecking ball level. Sometimes, when things get big, it just doesn't work.

[Super Dude]

This is one of those times when apples and oranges doesnt quite say it.

[snapple]

This is one of those times when apples and oranges doesnt quite say it.

But it's more opinion. I just don't think it will work here. I hardly find using Canada's healthcare system as a comparison for the USA. ~30m to ~300m is a huge difference.

[rumborak]

Germany is 85m and it works there. Scale is not really an argument.

rumborak

[snapple]

Germany is 85m and it works there. Scale is not really an argument.

rumborak

So, the USA is over triple the size of Germany. I'd argue it is an argument that could be made.

[rumborak]

At some point it starts looking as if you're looking for any kind of differentiator so you can treat the US differently.

rumborak

[snapple]

I want to just drop one of these bad boys  , but I shouldn't do that.

Scale is an issue. Especially with the amount of debt the United States is already in.

[theseoafs]

I see no reason to believe that the sheer number of people in the United States would preclude the effectiveness of socialist policies.

Snapple, if you have a specific reason to believe that the US's size is a problem, then I'm sure we'd be more responsive to the argument.  Right now, it seems like you're targeting size arbitrarily.  You might as well just say "the US is south of Canada, so socialism might not work down here where it's warmer".

This is one of those times when apples and oranges doesnt quite say it.

The expression "comparing a socioeconomic policy to an oversized physics toy" might work here.