QuoteWhy Canada and the U.S. Should Merge, Eh?
It's past time for the two countries to eliminate their border
By DIANE FRANCIS
Dec. 6, 2013 5:51 p.m. ET
When Americans think about Canada—and that doesn't happen often—they usually think of us as the nice, predictable guy next door who never plays his stereo too loud. Even Rob Ford, Toronto's ranting, crack-smoking mayor, has barely dented our squeaky-clean image.
But Americans shouldn't just think more about Canada. They should consider building on the two countries' free-trade deal and forming a more perfect North American union. It is past time for the U.S. and Canada to eliminate their border—either by creating a customs and monetary union or, more radically, by merging outright into a single nation-state or a European Union-style partnership.
Such a merger makes perfect sense. No two countries on Earth are as socially and economically integrated as the U.S. and Canada. They share geography, values and a gigantic border. Their populations study, travel and do business together and intermarry in great numbers. If they were corporations (or European states), they would have merged a long time ago. And each has what the other needs: The U.S. has capital, manpower, technology and the world's strongest military; Canada has vast reserves of undeveloped resources.
Of course, even the most mild-mannered Canadian may sputter at the prospect of being swallowed up by the U.S., and Americans may wonder about the wisdom of absorbing their huge neighbor. But it needn't be so radical. Nobody is proposing that Canada become the 51st state.
Like modern businesses, modern nations must constantly recalibrate their economic and political models. The smartest people in a room prevail until a smarter group comes along. And unless winners adapt, they eventually lose out, in economic and political life as in nature. Today's U.S. or Canada could become tomorrow's Portugal or Greece. In the competitive and interconnected world of the 21st century, countries that stand still will be left behind.
The two North American neighbors increasingly find themselves staring down the barrel of state capitalism, as practiced above all by China, whose state-owned enterprises and sovereign-wealth funds have made a concerted effort to capture markets and resources. In October, the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook database forecast that by 2018, China's economy will be bigger than that of the U.S.—and Asian economies will be bigger than those of the U.S., Canada, Germany, Britain, Italy, France and Russia combined.
If Canada and the U.S. were to join forces, the tables might well be turned. The North American neighbors would become an even more formidable superpower, with an economy larger than the European Union's and a land mass bigger than South America's. The new union would top the world in energy, minerals, water, arable land and technology, and all of it would be protected by the U.S. military. Size matters.
Canadians have traditionally bristled at the thought of falling under the sway of the U.S., but without a deeper cross-border partnership, we face some grim existential challenges. With its small, aging population and relatively small economy, Canada lacks the resources to develop and defend its gigantic piece of real estate. Through a series of aggressive buyout attempts and transactions, China has targeted Canada's resources and empty landmass. In 2007, Russia used a small submarine to symbolically plant its flag on the ocean floor beneath the North Pole and underscore its claim to a large swath of the resource-rich Arctic, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has been pushing the U.N. to affirm his claims to the region.
The U.S. faces serious challenges of its own. It must create millions of jobs for its relatively young population, and even as its political system grows more sclerotic, it must compete for markets, resources and Arctic access with the aggressive practitioners of state capitalism.
Truth be told, the merger of the U.S. and Canada is already well under way. As many as one in 10 Canadians (more than 3 million people) live full- or part-time in the U.S., and an estimated
1 million Americans live in Canada. As of 2010, U.S. enterprises controlled about 10% of Canada's assets, 17% of its revenues and 13% of its corporate profits, according to Statistics Canada. Canadians bought more goods and services from Americans than did the 340 million people living in the European Union—a population 10 times as large.
A still deeper integration could drive major economic growth. Canada's hinterland is largely without infrastructure or development, even though it contains enormous untapped natural resources. Political disputes have also stranded some of the world's most promising hydroelectric and tidal power prospects in the Canadian provinces of Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
Despite the powerful logic of a U.S.-Canada merger, the obstacles remain daunting. Both countries are divided politically and heavily regionalized. To execute so audacious a move would require a level of statesmanship now lacking in both countries.
But remember, the Europeans pulled off something far more dramatic, uniting populations that shared no language and had slaughtered one another for centuries. Other recent examples of deeper integration include the Eastern Caribbean Economic and Monetary Union and the Economic Community of West African States. They all did it by opening their borders to trade and travel—while at the same time leaving governments intact.
Opinion surveys about an outright merger are scant, but as far back as 1964, a poll showed support from 49% of Canadians. In 2007, the World Values Survey Association, a research network of thousands of social scientists, found that about 77% of Americans and 41% of Canadians said they would opt for political union if it meant a better quality of life. In 2011, another poll by Harris/Decima showed that 65% of Canadians backed greater integration with the U.S. and supported a plan to eliminate the border by blending U.S. and Canadian customs, immigration, security and law enforcement efforts.
Those who oppose such a merger are on the wrong side of history. When the North American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1987, the U.S. and Canada (along with Mexico) began a mutually beneficial process of integration that now needs strengthening. Untended, the border has become clogged, damaging trade and tourism. And the wolves are at the door. Just this year China, Inc. picked off a large Canadian oil company and a large American food processor and exporter, without promising either country any reciprocal buyout privileges in China.
Serious discussion of a merger should be a top priority for both the U.S. and Canada. The continental neighbors need one another more now than ever before, and the status quo grows less viable by the day.
—Ms. Francis, a dual Canadian-American citizen, is the author of "Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country," published by HarperCollins.
I'm posting this mainly because of the strange proportion of Canadians here. From what I can tell I mostly agree with the article, which appears to have been given an eye-catching title that has nothing to do with the article itself (and if the author's book is similar I guess you could say the same about it.) The author seems to acknowledge that a true political union is both undesirable and wouldn't happen, but I'm all for more trade and closer integration of economic activity. I don't see any real benefit to a combined currency though, unless there is some benefit on the Canadian side I'm not seeing.
But really I think what the author advocates mostly already happens. We already do much of what she's advocating. Her painting a closer union as a way to magically weaken China makes no sense, as I think our current relationship in no way makes us more or less vulnerable to China nor is it particularly frightening to me when China buys an American pork producer or invests in Canadian natural resources.
But I would be happy to see the border more easily crossed, it's stupid how long it takes these days (least the last time I drove it) and as I understand it border communities on both sides regularly deal with a lot of headache because of the traffic backups. I'd be fine with going back to pre-9/11 style no-passport wave-through crossings and would probably be fine with no real border controls at all on the land borders. Although I suspect the American pharmaceuticals lobby would be opposed to it as it would make getting Canadian pharmaceuticals essentially zero-effort for Americans living near the border.
I would also be fine for cross-border employment to be a bit saner. I've known of a lot of situations where a company in the United States is working with a company in Canada, and the company in Canada does stuff like corporate training. Well, when one of the Canadian corporate trainers needs to fly into Chicago for a week to do a training session there's more paper work and short term visas etc because they are "working" in the United States. I tend to think as long as your paycheck is paid by a Canadian company you should be able to do actual work in the United States without any kind of visa requirement and vice-versa.
Obviously they could never be united, but there could be some work with visas and stuff.
I've heard reports that try to justify the new border restrictions with Canada based on Canada being too Porous when it comes to allowing in outsiders, but have never seen any actual evidence. I suspect those reports were written with the idea that more border controls = need for more guards = more bureaucratic "win" for the ICE bureaucrats.
Agree that we should return sanity to the border and restore the traditional wave-through system, or, better yet, just open the border completely.
Making everyday life easier for their citizens by cutting paperwork like visas or work permits certainly sounds sensible.
Quote from: Zanza on December 08, 2013, 02:52:11 PM
Making everyday life easier for their citizens by cutting paperwork like visas or work permits certainly sounds sensible.
Yeah, I'm not really seeing a downside here.
It would pretty much wreck the GOP's footing, so I'm all for it.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 08, 2013, 02:53:46 PM
It would pretty much wreck the GOP's footing, so I'm all for it.
Except even the Democrats are far too right-wing to pass muster in Canada. Canadians have no desire to be stripped of proper health care, nor be exposed to the hordes of weapons that everyone in the US is packing. The border is there to protect us.
Uh, how is that a bad thing? We'd push through single payer and almost completely destroy any remaining political influence the South has on this country. You'd be saving us.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 08, 2013, 02:53:46 PM
It would pretty much wreck the GOP's footing, so I'm all for it.
You obviously didn't actually read the article. :lol:
Quote from: Neil on December 08, 2013, 03:05:03 PMExcept even the Democrats are far too right-wing to pass muster in Canada. Canadians have no desire to be stripped of proper health care, nor be exposed to the hordes of weapons that everyone in the US is packing. The border is there to protect us.
I don't think it's really that simple. American Democrats are farther left than Canadian conservatives on a lot of issues, especially the more liberal wing of the party. Blue Dogs and old school Southern Democrats wouldn't find a political home in Canada but they are mostly dying off here as well. The Liberal Party and the Democratic party both reflect realities of the countries in which they operate, but I don't think the average American Democratic voter would have any issue pulling the lever for the Liberal Party and would be a lot more inclined to vote Liberal than Conservative, and there are a lot of independents and Republicans in America who would vote for the Conservative Party. In fact I think if the GOP was less Tea Party and more like the Canadian Conservative Party the GOP would be the majority part with most of the independents identifying with them.
The health care issue is a historical quirk more than anything else. Same as it is in Britain, if LBJ had pushed for an NHS style system or FDR had, then neither party today would be arguing to completely dismantle it. Note how careful even guys like Rick Perry are to say they don't advocate actually undoing Medicare or Social Security. When Canada and the UK passed single payer healthcare it was a much smaller issue. FDR most likely could have done the same, but because of the wage controls he had put in employers had started footing health care costs as a way to attract employees so the need wasn't there. Back then healthcare was a much smaller part of the economy, almost no one had a regular relationship with a doctor and many expensive chronic conditions or debilitating diseases were handled a lot more cheaply. (Cancer is a lot cheaper to deal with in 1930s technology than in 2013.)
If America ever has sweeping healthcare reform it will be in the German model, where you have universal coverage but multiple payers and private options. Obamacare in a sense is just a really poorly implemented version of that, actually.
I think it would destroy both the Democrats & GOP.
I don't think the US is ready to surrender yet.
I'm all for expanding the U.S. National Park Service. "The Yukon National Park & Wildlife Preserve" sounds nice.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 08, 2013, 03:09:33 PM
Uh, how is that a bad thing? We'd push through single payer and almost completely destroy any remaining political influence the South has on this country. You'd be saving us.
That's not what would happen though. The Democrats are just as dependent on the money from the health care industry as the Republicans. You'd be spreading their poison to us.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 08, 2013, 03:13:01 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 08, 2013, 02:53:46 PM
It would pretty much wreck the GOP's footing, so I'm all for it.
You obviously didn't actually read the article. :lol:
Quote from: Neil on December 08, 2013, 03:05:03 PMExcept even the Democrats are far too right-wing to pass muster in Canada. Canadians have no desire to be stripped of proper health care, nor be exposed to the hordes of weapons that everyone in the US is packing. The border is there to protect us.
I don't think it's really that simple. American Democrats are farther left than Canadian conservatives on a lot of issues, especially the more liberal wing of the party. Blue Dogs and old school Southern Democrats wouldn't find a political home in Canada but they are mostly dying off here as well. The Liberal Party and the Democratic party both reflect realities of the countries in which they operate, but I don't think the average American Democratic voter would have any issue pulling the lever for the Liberal Party and would be a lot more inclined to vote Liberal than Conservative, and there are a lot of independents and Republicans in America who would vote for the Conservative Party. In fact I think if the GOP was less Tea Party and more like the Canadian Conservative Party the GOP would be the majority part with most of the independents identifying with them.
The health care issue is a historical quirk more than anything else. Same as it is in Britain, if LBJ had pushed for an NHS style system or FDR had, then neither party today would be arguing to completely dismantle it. Note how careful even guys like Rick Perry are to say they don't advocate actually undoing Medicare or Social Security. When Canada and the UK passed single payer healthcare it was a much smaller issue. FDR most likely could have done the same, but because of the wage controls he had put in employers had started footing health care costs as a way to attract employees so the need wasn't there. Back then healthcare was a much smaller part of the economy, almost no one had a regular relationship with a doctor and many expensive chronic conditions or debilitating diseases were handled a lot more cheaply. (Cancer is a lot cheaper to deal with in 1930s technology than in 2013.)
If America ever has sweeping healthcare reform it will be in the German model, where you have universal coverage but multiple payers and private options. Obamacare in a sense is just a really poorly implemented version of that, actually.
I think that there are some differences between how they approach things. Because Canada doesn't have huge urban populations of people who are trapped as an underclass due to their ancestors being slaves, you don't see the same kind of identity politics on a national level in Canada. I guess it's difficult to say how things compare, since a lot of the things that the Democrats support are things that are already done in Canada. I suppose taxation and regulation are things where the Conservatives would definitely be more like Republicans than Democrats, although obviously not as bad as the modern Republicans. I think that the CPC is sort of in a 1970s progressive Republican space.
I'm skeptical of Canada's ability to pull the US one way or another too much. They only have 10% of the population the US has.
But hey--they can't be made into a single nation-state. And the US already has a method for incorporating new states. They just have to apply.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 08, 2013, 04:51:51 PM
And the US already has a method for incorporating new states. They just have to apply.
Exactly, applying for statehood is a relatively painless process: it's spelled out in the US Constitution, and it's been done. what, 37 times already?
Quote from: Neil on December 08, 2013, 04:06:45 PM
I think that there are some differences between how they approach things. Because Canada doesn't have huge urban populations of people who are trapped as an underclass due to their ancestors being slaves, you don't see the same kind of identity politics on a national level in Canada.
Redskins.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 08, 2013, 04:51:51 PM
I'm skeptical of Canada's ability to pull the US one way or another too much. They only have 10% of the population the US has.
But hey--they can't be made into a single nation-state. And the US already has a method for incorporating new states. They just have to apply.
But they'd have 20 Senators.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 08, 2013, 05:18:11 PM
But they'd have 20 Senators.
There's your shitty film subsidy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 08, 2013, 05:18:11 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 08, 2013, 04:51:51 PM
I'm skeptical of Canada's ability to pull the US one way or another too much. They only have 10% of the population the US has.
But hey--they can't be made into a single nation-state. And the US already has a method for incorporating new states. They just have to apply.
But they'd have 20 Senators.
We could always squish the Maritimes together.
Fuck that. On Wyoming terms they would have something like 60 senators.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2013, 05:04:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 08, 2013, 04:06:45 PM
I think that there are some differences between how they approach things. Because Canada doesn't have huge urban populations of people who are trapped as an underclass due to their ancestors being slaves, you don't see the same kind of identity politics on a national level in Canada.
Redskins.
Are not urban, and were never slaves. The populations on reserves bitch about everything, but so long as they stay on reserves, nothing can be done for them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2013, 04:56:23 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 08, 2013, 04:51:51 PM
And the US already has a method for incorporating new states. They just have to apply.
Exactly, applying for statehood is a relatively painless process: it's spelled out in the US Constitution, and it's been done. what, 37 times already?
Also impossible. The US Constitution would be inadequate for the purpose.
I don't think there's any desire whatsoever in Canada to join the US.
Quote from: PDH on December 08, 2013, 05:45:10 PM
Fuck that. On Wyoming terms they would have something like 60 senators.
Alright, we merge Wyoming, Montana and Saskatchewan as well.
Quote from: Neil on December 08, 2013, 05:50:04 PM
Are not urban, and were never slaves.
But do practice identity politics.
Quote from: Neil on December 08, 2013, 05:50:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2013, 05:04:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 08, 2013, 04:06:45 PM
I think that there are some differences between how they approach things. Because Canada doesn't have huge urban populations of people who are trapped as an underclass due to their ancestors being slaves, you don't see the same kind of identity politics on a national level in Canada.
Redskins.
Are not urban, and were never slaves. The populations on reserves bitch about everything, but so long as they stay on reserves, nothing can be done for them.
What about the Quebecers? :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2013, 05:53:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 08, 2013, 05:50:04 PM
Are not urban, and were never slaves.
But do practice identity politics.
Yeah they do. There's the whole Quebecois identity too. But American style identity politics have a different flavour - if I had to make a generalization, I'd say they seem to be much more racially focused (it's all about Blacks and Whites and Asians and Jews and Hispanics or otherwise finding a racial group whose quirks, experiences and grievances you share), whereas the Canadian ones tend to be much more nation focused - Native groups and the Quebecois are all acknowledged to be nations, and much of the back and forth has to do with the explicit political rights that come that (or do not come with that).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2013, 05:53:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 08, 2013, 05:50:04 PM
Are not urban, and were never slaves.
But do practice identity politics.
Maybe, but nobody caters to them because they're irrelevant in an electoral sense. Tiny populations spread across ridings full of lily-whites. So no, the major parties don't play that game.
They only factor in terms feel-good Canadian diversity.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 08, 2013, 05:18:11 PM
But they'd have 20 Senators.
But only 10 Reprsentatives in the House.
The problem with Canada is that it is full of Canadians.
Quote from: dps on December 08, 2013, 06:25:38 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 08, 2013, 05:18:11 PM
But they'd have 20 Senators.
But only 10 Reprsentatives in the House.
Nah, I think they'd have at least 16-20. Though unless they adjusted the cap on congressmen, similarly sized states will scream.
Canadian provinces joining the existing US system will never work, though. A more EU-like arrangement would be better, and more realistic.
Or Canada and U.S. could join the EU (need to change the name ten, though). :P
If they're 10% of the US, they should get like 45, no?
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 08, 2013, 06:55:51 PM
Canadian provinces joining the existing US system will never work, though.
Sure it would, in the hypothetical situation where the Canadians
wanted to join.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2013, 06:56:41 PM
If they're 10% of the US, they should get like 45, no?
You're right, looking at the populations, much closer to 30-40.
But it would take native Americans running rampant all over North America to drive the US and Canada together. And they'd try and put a maple leaf onto the flag somewhere. :mad:
Ontario alone has a higher population than Illinois. Quebec is comparable to Virginia. BC and Alberta are similar in size to Kentucky and Oregon.
Canada in total has less people than California.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 08, 2013, 07:04:22 PM
Canada in total has less people than California.
And yet a lot more Oil.
Oil already has enough representatives in Congress.
Quote from: Neil on December 08, 2013, 03:05:03 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 08, 2013, 02:53:46 PM
It would pretty much wreck the GOP's footing, so I'm all for it.
Except even the Democrats are far too right-wing to pass muster in Canada. Canadians have no desire to be stripped of proper health care, nor be exposed to the hordes of weapons that everyone in the US is packing. The border is there to protect us.
Isn't there something of a gun culture among rural Canadians?
Easing travel restrictions sounds perfectly sane. Do the same with Europe too.
On topic, the NYT has an article about the US denying entry to a Canadian woman travelling to Florida to board a cruise ship, on the grounds that she had been diagnosed with depression and tried to commit suicide, and therefore presented a threat to others.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2013, 08:08:31 PM
On topic, the NYT has an article about the US denying entry to a Canadian woman travelling to Florida to board a cruise ship, on the grounds that she had been diagnosed with depression and tried to commit suicide, and therefore presented a threat to others.
Anytime you have a border crossing where you have to give documentation and go through a process it opens up the floodgates to that kind of noise. That's why I'd be in favor of an uncontrolled land border with Canada much as borders are in the Schengen Area. That, and further economic cooperation were really all the article was talking about (well, and it proposed a currency union which is a general concept I oppose), all the talk of full political unification is really outside the bounds of the article.
Quote from: fhdz on December 08, 2013, 07:34:42 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 08, 2013, 03:05:03 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 08, 2013, 02:53:46 PM
It would pretty much wreck the GOP's footing, so I'm all for it.
Except even the Democrats are far too right-wing to pass muster in Canada. Canadians have no desire to be stripped of proper health care, nor be exposed to the hordes of weapons that everyone in the US is packing. The border is there to protect us.
Isn't there something of a gun culture among rural Canadians?
I suppose, but they tend to be more into rifles and shotguns. The heavy restrictions on handguns keep us safe.
What would be some practical steps towards greater integration that could actually happen and be meaningul?
1. Obviously opening up the border is a no-brainer.
2. Have the US fully adopt the metric system.
3. Trade and business should be largely unfettered. Some issues here with taxes and such though - we don't want US areas trying to lure Canadian businesses away with tax deals, for example. How to handle that?
4. Common currency.
5. Jettison Quebec.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 08, 2013, 06:27:10 PM
The problem with Canada is that it is full of Canadians.
See, everybody but you overlooks the real problem here.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2013, 08:08:31 PM
On topic, the NYT has an article about the US denying entry to a Canadian woman travelling to Florida to board a cruise ship, on the grounds that she had been diagnosed with depression and tried to commit suicide, and therefore presented a threat to others.
How did they know she'd been diagnosed?
Quote from: PDH on December 08, 2013, 09:18:21 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 08, 2013, 06:27:10 PM
The problem with Canada is that it is full of Canadians.
See, everybody but you overlooks the real problem here.
I have a knack for these things.
Quote from: garbon on December 08, 2013, 09:26:34 PM
How did they know she'd been diagnosed?
T'is a puzzlement.
Quote from: Berkut on December 08, 2013, 09:15:00 PM
What would be some practical steps towards greater integration that could actually happen and be meaningul?
1. Obviously opening up the border is a no-brainer.
Sure.
Quote2. Have the US fully adopt the metric system.
Fuck No!
Quote3. Trade and business should be largely unfettered. Some issues here with taxes and such though - we don't want US areas trying to lure Canadian businesses away with tax deals, for example. How to handle that?
Since some areas of the US already try to lure businesses there form other parts of the US, why not? And Canadian areas could presumably try the same tactic.
Quote4. Common currency.
Gotta think on this one.
Quote5. Jettison Quebec.
If only it could literally be jettisonned into the Atlantic.
Quote from: dps on December 08, 2013, 10:42:18 PM
Quote2. Have the US fully adopt the metric system.
Fuck No!
Eh we pretty much already have. Anybody who uses measurements professionally uses the metric system. Only amateurs use the English system for anything, it being a horrible system and all.
I mean I have used it all my life and I still am like 'ok how many cups in how many quarts and how many pints and how many gallons?' 'how many feet in a mile again?' I mean fuck that shit.
Just imagine you're driving through west Texas and the signs on the interstate say 400 kilometers to the next podunk town. 200 miles is bad enough.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 09, 2013, 01:16:44 AM
Just imagine you're driving through west Texas and the signs on the interstate say 400 kilometers to the next podunk town. 200 miles is bad enough.
One of the weirdest moments of my driving life was driving along I-10 home and I passed the sign saying 'Welcome to Texas' and I was like 'alright! Back in the home state!'.
Next sign: '550 miles to San Antonio' FUCK
Think how much more awesome it would be to have it say like 900 Km to San Antonio?
Quote from: garbon on December 08, 2013, 09:26:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2013, 08:08:31 PM
On topic, the NYT has an article about the US denying entry to a Canadian woman travelling to Florida to board a cruise ship, on the grounds that she had been diagnosed with depression and tried to commit suicide, and therefore presented a threat to others.
How did they know she'd been diagnosed?
Edward Snowden.
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2013, 01:44:22 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 09, 2013, 01:16:44 AM
Just imagine you're driving through west Texas and the signs on the interstate say 400 kilometers to the next podunk town. 200 miles is bad enough.
One of the weirdest moments of my driving life was driving along I-10 home and I passed the sign saying 'Welcome to Texas' and I was like 'alright! Back in the home state!'.
Next sign: '550 miles to San Antonio' FUCK
Think how much more awesome it would be to have it say like 900 Km to San Antonio?
At least you can do 80 on that highway now (I averaged closer to 90).
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2013, 12:29:02 AMEh we pretty much already have. Anybody who uses measurements professionally uses the metric system. Only amateurs use the English system for anything, it being a horrible system and all.
I mean I have used it all my life and I still am like 'ok how many cups in how many quarts and how many pints and how many gallons?' 'how many feet in a mile again?' I mean fuck that shit.
That's one of those hits against the customary system that isn't really valid. Anyone that actually needs to know that information, absolutely does. Remembering how to convert cups to quarts to pints to gallons is honestly something a fifth grade could do (and does), and I assure you any professional baker or chef in the United States can probably help you with it.
Lots of contractors and people in the construction trade also use the standard measurement system professionally. In fact it's one of the areas where a base 10 system isn't necessarily any easier because it's not realistic to be dividing by ten all the time on a real job, and when you start needing to cut a six foot 2 x 4 into thirds or fourths the metric system is no more friendly with its measures than the customary system and arguably it is less friendly.
That's what Valmy saying, any professional baker or chef is using metrics.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Listening to someone argue that the metric system isn't really better is like listening to someone argue that people really did ride dinosaurs, or that the moon landings never happened, or any other pseudo-science BS.
It doesn't even rate an actual argument in response anymore.
It may be better. But I'm not convinced it's that much better to be worth the trouble of making the switch.
An added benefit is that it annoys the Euros.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 09, 2013, 10:26:43 AM
That's what Valmy saying, any professional baker or chef is using metrics.
No, in the United States I'd suspect they're still using cups/ounces. I do watch cooking shows, and I've never heard them use anything but customary terms.
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 10:27:56 AM
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Listening to someone argue that the metric system isn't really better is like listening to someone argue that people really did ride dinosaurs, or that the moon landings never happened, or any other pseudo-science BS.
It doesn't even rate an actual argument in response anymore.
Blah, blah, blah. Listening to someone with a dogma, who is thus inclined to be dogmatic on a topic, like you on this one, is like listening to a fire-and-brimstone preacher. It doesn't convince, but it sure is amusing. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder.
The metric system is easier to learn, and better for complex calculations. The imperial system is better for the everyday stuff, because it is based in the human body. The future is in the metric system without question, because its advantages are more future proof. That doesn't make it "better" for everyone, though.
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2013, 12:29:02 AM
Quote from: dps on December 08, 2013, 10:42:18 PM
Quote2. Have the US fully adopt the metric system.
Fuck No!
Eh we pretty much already have. Anybody who uses measurements professionally uses the metric system. Only amateurs use the English system for anything, it being a horrible system and all.
I mean I have used it all my life and I still am like 'ok how many cups in how many quarts and how many pints and how many gallons?' 'how many feet in a mile again?' I mean fuck that shit.
I'd say the opposite that we pretty much haven't. I don't know why what is used professionally should be a gauge. In daily living, in the US, encountering the metric system is not a common occurrence.
Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2013, 10:41:23 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2013, 12:29:02 AM
Quote from: dps on December 08, 2013, 10:42:18 PM
Quote2. Have the US fully adopt the metric system.
Fuck No!
Eh we pretty much already have. Anybody who uses measurements professionally uses the metric system. Only amateurs use the English system for anything, it being a horrible system and all.
I mean I have used it all my life and I still am like 'ok how many cups in how many quarts and how many pints and how many gallons?' 'how many feet in a mile again?' I mean fuck that shit.
I'd say the opposite that we pretty much haven't. I don't know why what is used professionally should be a gauge. In daily living, in the US, encountering the metric system is not a common occurrence.
2 liter bottles of soda are pretty common.
I use both daily.
I use metric for air temparature, weather, but when talking pool water I use Imperial.
I cook & measure in imperial. Carpentry is obviously done in imperial. Distances & speed are in metric.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 09, 2013, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2013, 10:41:23 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2013, 12:29:02 AM
Quote from: dps on December 08, 2013, 10:42:18 PM
Quote2. Have the US fully adopt the metric system.
Fuck No!
Eh we pretty much already have. Anybody who uses measurements professionally uses the metric system. Only amateurs use the English system for anything, it being a horrible system and all.
I mean I have used it all my life and I still am like 'ok how many cups in how many quarts and how many pints and how many gallons?' 'how many feet in a mile again?' I mean fuck that shit.
I'd say the opposite that we pretty much haven't. I don't know why what is used professionally should be a gauge. In daily living, in the US, encountering the metric system is not a common occurrence.
2 liter bottles of soda are pretty common.
I can't speak to their commonality, but are you saying that one example refutes what I've said? :P
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 09, 2013, 10:45:52 AM
I use both daily.
I use metric for air temparature, weather, but when talking pool water I use Imperial.
I cook & measure in imperial. Carpentry is obviously done in imperial. Distances & speed are in metric.
And I would suggest that for most people in the US, metric isn't used for any of those.
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 10:27:56 AM
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Listening to someone argue that the metric system isn't really better is like listening to someone argue that people really did ride dinosaurs, or that the moon landings never happened, or any other pseudo-science BS.
It doesn't even rate an actual argument in response anymore.
Fuck you very much, maybe try eating a cock and dying, mkay?
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2013, 10:34:26 AM
It may be better. But I'm not convinced it's that much better to be worth the trouble of making the switch.
An added benefit is that it annoys the Euros.
Yup, this is my point. The metric system is better designed, because essentially it is a designed system of measure. The customary system grew out of random past practices that were eventually standardized, it's messy because when it was standardized there were all kinds of measures people had taken to using over the years that really made little sense unless you were using them and didn't fit well into any sort of unified system (see: hectares, the whole pints/gallons/quarts thing etc.)
The real argument against a "switch" to metric is any situation you care to think of where it actually makes economic sense to switch to the metric system by and large...we've already done it. Most people's interaction with the measurement system comes down to three scenarios: 1. weighing yourself, 2. guesstimating how far it is from point a to point b, 3. measuring things for cooking/baking.
For #1, there is no societal difference between me thinking of my weight in pounds, stones, or kilograms. None. It has no impact. Even in metric Britain people still think of themselves in stone, and it has no larger societal impact at all. Most digital scales you buy even in the U.S. have settings for kg/stone/lb.
For #2, again, it doesn't really matter if Valmy is thinking "San Antonio is 560 mi away" versus 900 km away.
For #3, for infrequent cooks or bakers it is indeed not all that intuitive as to how you go from teaspoons to tablespoons to cups to quarts to pints etc. But, if you're an infrequent cook then what's the real societal cost to just looking that information up? For that matter, most people should be weighing their ingredients because for most things volume measures aren't all that useful. And dealing in ounces is pretty easy and most people know 16 oz = one pound. Further, last I checked you can buy a metric measurement set for cooking. So if you dislike using teaspoons, cups etc your salvation is a mere $5.99 away.
Where using metric has actually mattered, people use it. I believe most manufacturing already uses metric, and despite the press the Mars probe got, NASA actually typically works purely in metric. For the Apollo program (almost 50 years ago) NASA was working entirely in metric.
What metric advocates are really arguing for is changing all the road signs and banning the sale of customary measuring cups and scales, a move that actually doesn't affect much at all and is unnecessary. The argument that doing this will create "metric literate students" who can then more easily go into the STEM fields is bunk. Any kid smart enough to be in the STEM fields who is pursuing that path is going to know metric like the back of their hand.
Where metric makes sense we should use it, but for the minor areas of day-to-day life where regular people interact with the measurement system there is no reason to use legislative fiat to get rid of customary measurements--they don't hurt anything there.
I would guess also temperature would be another daily use of the measurement system for most people. But again, whether an individual thinks of "32" as "cold" or "hot" is not really that important.
As grumbler says, when doing calculations is where metric really shines. But most people do not do calculations involving the measurement system on a day to day basis. Where they do, those fields often use metric and even when they don't we're talking people who use these measures every day (like construction trades), so I doubt they struggle much with the concept of 12 inches to a foot or etc.
Quote from: fhdz on December 08, 2013, 07:34:42 PM
Isn't there something of a gun culture among rural Canadians?
Not as in the US. Hunters who don't want to be treated like criminals just to practice their sport, yes. But people having 3 dozen firearms at home with enough munitions to sustain a zombie apocalypse, no, not really, I mean, not in a significant number.
I guess I think of beer in terms of ounces for a single serving, but liters/milliliters for larger measures. At this point it doesn't feel unnatural to shift between the two.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 09, 2013, 10:25:36 AM
Lots of contractors and people in the construction trade also use the standard measurement system professionally. In fact it's one of the areas where a base 10 system isn't necessarily any easier because it's not realistic to be dividing by ten all the time on a real job, and when you start needing to cut a six foot 2 x 4 into thirds or fourths the metric system is no more friendly with its measures than the customary system and arguably it is less friendly.
In the offices, we work almost exclusively with the metric system. On site, though, things are of a different matter. As you explained, a 2x4... well, the pieces of wood are already in imperial system, so it's a lot easier to use imperial measures for the rest. Except when dealing with Wal-Mart or other american companies, then they deliver their plans in english and imperial measurements. I have to translate all the fucking notes on the plan and try to make Excel work with their silly measures 12'-1" 3/4 X 15' 3 1/2". :yucky:
But most of our steel comes from Europe or Canada, so anything dealing with that is already in metric, so it's easier to use the real measures than an approximation.
I think the last bastion of the imperial system is the soft lumber industry. Once we have conquered that, we will be able to isolate those evil worshippers of non base 10 systems.
If America and Canada merged, does that mean Americans wouldn't know who their own leaders are?
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2013, 10:40:29 AM
The imperial system is better for the everyday stuff, because it is based in the human body.
how is it based in the human body?
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2013, 11:07:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2013, 10:40:29 AM
The imperial system is better for the everyday stuff, because it is based in the human body.
how is it based in the human body?
One foot is actually the length of garbon's foot.
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2013, 10:58:26 AM
I guess I think of beer in terms of ounces for a single serving, but liters/milliliters for larger measures. At this point it doesn't feel unnatural to shift between the two.
I think of beer in terms of bottle, the rest is irrelevant. Who wants an ounce of beer anyway??
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2013, 11:06:20 AM
If America and Canada merged, does that mean Americans wouldn't know who their own leaders are?
It means Justin Trudeau would be your next Democrat President. Think of it, then decide if it's a good idea or not.
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2013, 11:07:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2013, 10:40:29 AM
The imperial system is better for the everyday stuff, because it is based in the human body.
how is it based in the human body?
Yeah, if only the decimal, errrh, I mean metric, system were based on some standard that had something to do with the human body!
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2013, 11:11:21 AM
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2013, 11:07:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2013, 10:40:29 AM
The imperial system is better for the everyday stuff, because it is based in the human body.
how is it based in the human body?
One foot is actually the length of garbon's foot.
Damn...and you know what they say about men with big feet...:perv:
Open border sounds sensible.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 09, 2013, 10:54:22 AM
I would guess also temperature would be another daily use of the measurement system for most people. But again, whether an individual thinks of "32" as "cold" or "hot" is not really that important.
As grumbler says, when doing calculations is where metric really shines. But most people do not do calculations involving the measurement system on a day to day basis. Where they do, those fields often use metric and even when they don't we're talking people who use these measures every day (like construction trades), so I doubt they struggle much with the concept of 12 inches to a foot or etc.
Your basic argument is that we should use an outdated and antiquated system of measurement (and more importantly we should continue to use TWO systems of measurement) because in the cases where it matters and is measurable, we've already changed, so therefore, we should NOT change in those cases where the benefit is not so objectively measurable.
That isn't a very good reason to keep two conflicting systems around.
And I don't think we should legislate anything - I just think the government should switch all signs, use only the metric system in any kind of government work and communication (much like the military already does) and we should standardize all public education using only the metric system.
If people want to keep buying measuring sticks with feet on them, they can go right ahead.
Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2013, 11:24:50 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2013, 11:11:21 AM
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2013, 11:07:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2013, 10:40:29 AM
The imperial system is better for the everyday stuff, because it is based in the human body.
how is it based in the human body?
One foot is actually the length of garbon's foot.
Damn...and you know what they say about men with big feet...:perv:
A foot that is only one foot in length isnt that long. ;) It is after all the standard measurement :P
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 12:36:54 PM
And I don't think we should legislate anything - I just think the government should switch all signs, use only the metric system in any kind of government work and communication (much like the military already does) and we should standardize all public education using only the metric system.
Maybe you should look up what legislate means. :hmm:
By god, I will keep my cubits!
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 12:36:54 PMYour basic argument is that we should use an outdated and antiquated system of measurement (and more importantly we should continue to use TWO systems of measurement) because in the cases where it matters and is measurable, we've already changed, so therefore, we should NOT change in those cases where the benefit is not so objectively measurable.
That isn't a very good reason to keep two conflicting systems around.
And I don't think we should legislate anything - I just think the government should switch all signs, use only the metric system in any kind of government work and communication (much like the military already does) and we should standardize all public education using only the metric system.
If people want to keep buying measuring sticks with feet on them, they can go right ahead.
I don't see any benefit to the Federal government changing all its signs. None. I'm not saying that the benefit is not so objectively measurable, I'm saying there is virtually no benefit to justify it. If a majority of people think in kilometers and such, then switch the signs. Until then, there is no reason to do so.
As for standardizing education (which would require legislation), the reality is in any kind of high school science class even in my day we used metric (SI) measurements. The only time I remember using feet and customary is in things like math word problems in school or in grade school when we learned how many feet were in a mile and feet in a yard. I think if we're going to start standardizing education (which we've poorly done as is), there are probably much more important action items than this one. But still, yes, I'd be fine with teaching kids in school nothing but the metric system. But I also believe in the classes where units of measure are important they already primarily use the metric system. It's only in very elementary classes where they are teaching the measurement system itself, and in esoteric math problems that they use customary units. I don't know that it's a big deal to switch that out, so whatever. It won't change much, though.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2013, 12:37:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2013, 11:24:50 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2013, 11:11:21 AM
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2013, 11:07:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2013, 10:40:29 AM
The imperial system is better for the everyday stuff, because it is based in the human body.
how is it based in the human body?
One foot is actually the length of garbon's foot.
Damn...and you know what they say about men with big feet...:perv:
A foot that is only one foot in length isnt that long. ;) It is after all the standard measurement :P
Average shoe size is smaller though. :P
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 09, 2013, 12:47:00 PM
As for standardizing education (which would require legislation), the reality is in any kind of high school science class even in my day we used metric (SI) measurements. The only time I remember using feet and customary is in things like math word problems in school or in grade school when we learned how many feet were in a mile and feet in a yard. I think if we're going to start standardizing education (which we've poorly done as is), there are probably much more important action items than this one. But still, yes, I'd be fine with teaching kids in school nothing but the metric system. But I also believe in the classes where units of measure are important they already primarily use the metric system. It's only in very elementary classes where they are teaching the measurement system itself, and in esoteric math problems that they use customary units. I don't know that it's a big deal to switch that out, so whatever. It won't change much, though.
A downside for me was that I don't think using the metric system, so while I calculated all those things in science class - they didn't really mean much to me apart from experiments where we had to measure things out.
Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2013, 11:24:50 AM
Damn...and you know what they say about men with big feet...:perv:
They're clowns? :unsure:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 08, 2013, 01:36:40 PM
The author seems to acknowledge that a true political union is both undesirable and wouldn't happen, but I'm all for more trade and closer integration of economic activity. I don't see any real benefit to a combined currency though, unless there is some benefit on the Canadian side I'm not seeing.
Yeah, a true political union would be unworkable. No Canadian would want to give up their single payor health care system (other than perhaps BB) and few Americans would want to adopt the Canadian system. Even if we could ever get past the numerous other issues, this would always be the deal breaker.
QuoteBut really I think what the author advocates mostly already happens. We already do much of what she's advocating. Her painting a closer union as a way to magically weaken China makes no sense, as I think our current relationship in no way makes us more or less vulnerable to China nor is it particularly frightening to me when China buys an American pork producer or invests in Canadian natural resources.
It is true that what she is talking about mostly already happens. But since that terrible day on September 11, 2001 the movement of goods, services and people between our nations as, in my view, become needlessly difficult and inefficient creating substantial costs for both our economies.
I dont think you should be as unconcerned about state capitalist enterprises (ie Chinese interests) buying up Canadian resource companies. The main reason this hasnt registered much on your radar is because the Canadian government has resisited most such attempts. But imagine how secure US energy and resource reserves would be if Canadian resources were being shipped to fuel the Chinese economy.
QuoteBut I would be happy to see the border more easily crossed, it's stupid how long it takes these days (least the last time I drove it) and as I understand it border communities on both sides regularly deal with a lot of headache because of the traffic backups. I'd be fine with going back to pre-9/11 style no-passport wave-through crossings and would probably be fine with no real border controls at all on the land borders. Although I suspect the American pharmaceuticals lobby would be opposed to it as it would make getting Canadian pharmaceuticals essentially zero-effort for Americans living near the border.
That would be nice. But I doubt I will see it again. Online pharmacueticals are now sold routinely into the US. I dont think that is the major issue. Security issues seem to be the big deal - whether real or imagined.
QuoteI would also be fine for cross-border employment to be a bit saner. I've known of a lot of situations where a company in the United States is working with a company in Canada, and the company in Canada does stuff like corporate training. Well, when one of the Canadian corporate trainers needs to fly into Chicago for a week to do a training session there's more paper work and short term visas etc because they are "working" in the United States. I tend to think as long as your paycheck is paid by a Canadian company you should be able to do actual work in the United States without any kind of visa requirement and vice-versa.
Yeah, this becomes needlessly complicated given the kind of integration of cross border businesses.
Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2013, 12:51:02 PM
Average shoe size is smaller though. :P
The world is built for small people :grr:
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2013, 12:57:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2013, 12:51:02 PM
Average shoe size is smaller though. :P
The world is built for small people :grr:
Yes it is built for shorter people. :yeah:
Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2013, 10:41:23 AM
In daily living, in the US, encountering the metric system is not a common occurrence.
It wasn't in canada until the 70s-80s. There was massive opposition to the change, raising much of the same arguments as is used here. Resistance to change can be very strong, sometimes. But I'm glad the gov't didn't listen to these people. at first, from what I remember, both systems were used in parallel in retail stores, and gradually, it phased away.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 09, 2013, 12:47:00 PM
If a majority of people think in kilometers and such, then switch the signs. Until then, there is no reason to do so.
Kinda circular argument here. The majority will never think in km if it ain't teached in schools instead of imperial system, and it won't be teached in schools because the government does not use it...
I'd say like Berkut, have the Government use metric exclusively, then the people will adapt. Stores usings lbs instead of kg will fade away over the course of a generation.
I remember my teachers telling me back in the day that we'd be fully on the metric system by the 90s :lol:
I support the merger with Canada.
I have a weak spot for superpowerdom status and crushing China with Canadian made Stryker infantry carriers.
How can we work together towards this lofty goal of a North American Union?
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2013, 01:40:09 PM
I remember my teachers telling me back in the day that we'd be fully on the metric system by the 90s :lol:
It is just a matter of everybody getting a proper science education. SCIENCE!
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2013, 03:08:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2013, 01:40:09 PM
I remember my teachers telling me back in the day that we'd be fully on the metric system by the 90s :lol:
It is just a matter of everybody getting a proper science education. SCIENCE!
You are blinding me.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2013, 12:55:39 PM
Yeah, a true political union would be unworkable. No Canadian would want to give up their single payor health care system (other than perhaps BB) and few Americans would want to adopt the Canadian system. Even if we could ever get past the numerous other issues, this would always be the deal breaker.
These are run by the provinces, right? No reason they'd be forced to get rid of them.
BTW--when non-metric stuff are used in Canada, is it Imperial or English?
The US has already adopted metric as much as possible, aside from changing road signs. Usually though, when somebody (especially youngsters on euot) says we should adopt metric, they actually mean we should ban everything else. Which is obviously never going to be feasible. I doubt anyone has ever done it that way. Do any European states have metric system enforcement police?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 09, 2013, 03:33:30 PM
These are run by the provinces, right? No reason they'd be forced to get rid of them.
It gets a bit confusing and involves a discussion of tax policy in this country. Health care is a Provincial responsiblity but for the "have not provinces" funding for the system is subsidized through federal equalization payments which aim to have a minimum consistent level of health care access across the country. In addition all provinces recieve a significant contribution from Federal tax dollars through other payment schemes under the Canada Health Act. This is because although the Feds have limited constitutional areas of responsibility they also take in the greater share of tax dollars which need to be given back to the provinces through some mechanism so that the provinces can afford to run their areas of responsbility.
One point the Quebec separatists make that I agree with is that the Feds should collect less tax and let the Provinces collect that revenue directly to do what they will with those revenues. The Conservatives have been moving slowly in the direction. But the issue of Federal and Provincial tax points is an unwieldy beast at the best of times.
QuoteBTW--when non-metric stuff are used in Canada, is it Imperial or English?
Imperial. We are as baffled by the English Stone as you are.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 09, 2013, 03:33:30 PM
These are run by the provinces, right? No reason they'd be forced to get rid of them.
BTW--when non-metric stuff are used in Canada, is it Imperial or English?
The US has already adopted metric as much as possible, aside from changing road signs. Usually though, when somebody (especially youngsters on euot) says we should adopt metric, they actually mean we should ban everything else. Which is obviously never going to be feasible. I doubt anyone has ever done it that way. Do any European states have metric system enforcement police?
:Raises hand:
Technically, anyway - since trading standards officers will go to markets and other places and make sure that traders are using metric scales.
Still, we all love metric in the UK...that's why we buy milk in 0.568l, 1.136l, 2.272l, and 3.480l sizes...
--------
I was born after our currency decimalised and metrication began.
I used metric in all my physics and chemistry lessons, as is only sensible.
I've never worked in an industry that still used Imperial Measures.
For all that I still have to convert weights of meat into pounds and ounces to get some mental idea of how much is really there that my brain and stomach will mutually agree with; I have never heard anyone ask for a metric weight in the local butcher, even though his scales have to be metric (he's doing the conversions in his head, no doubt.) For example, I ordered a Christmas Turkey the other week as a "12-14 pound" bird.
I think of my own weight in pounds and stone, not kilos. Despite having worked in manufacturing and export where all weights are metric as I noted above.
Distance is in miles (fortunately the signs still agree with me); ask me how may miles I can walk in an hour I can tell you - ask me how many kilometres and I have to convert (albeit with a simple calculation.)
Imperial measures are really quite resilient. And what I use in my personal life has never affected my work, so I fail to see what Berkut's issue is with the survival of Imperial or other traditional measures.
I learned as a teen that there are seven grams in a quarter-ounce.
Drug culture for the win! :D
FWIW, I was taught metric in school. I was not taught English measurements. That was in the 1980s.
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2013, 11:07:08 AM
how is it based in the human body?
Think about it for a second. One "foot?"
An inch is 1/12 of a foot, by definition, but is also about the distance between the first and second joints of an adult human index finger. The gallon is the weight of eight pounds of wine (or similar drink), the largest size it was convenient for humans to lift and pour. These measurements all varied over time and by country, as they were based on human convenience, not logic or a desire for absolute standards.
IIRC the yard was originally based on the length of an arm.
BTW, isn't hectare a metric measure?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2013, 05:07:55 PM
IIRC the yard was originally based on the length of an arm.
BTW, isn't hectare a metric measure?
One unit of heck. :D
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 09, 2013, 03:33:30 PM
These are run by the provinces, right? No reason they'd be forced to get rid of them.
To correct what CC posted, all provinces receive Federal transfer money for healthcare and higher education, "have nots" or have is a false debate, as equalization payments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments_in_Canada) aren't tied to this.
Equalization payments are a way to enforce Federal control over provincial spending, even though, by law, it isn't tied to anything special. By simply changing the formula at will, the Feds will insure dominance a province and force it to comply to tis will. The calculations change in 2005-2006, and changed again in 2008 to insure Newfoundland's vote. And the Federal has decided to now change the way healthcare transfers are made, tying them to Canada's GDP growth with a minimum of 3%.
Alberta receives federal money for it's healthcare and education system, but under the equalization system, they need to give money back to the Feds so that no province could have a superior healthcare or university network while other provinces literally starve. Say, you can't have a Massachussets and a Mississipi or Texas when it comes to healthcare and universities, theoritically, they should be at the same level.
Provinces run them according to Federal guidelines. The worst of it is mandatory public healthcare.
A doctor can't work for both public & private clinics, and many provinces have quota systems to avoid over-charges. What that means is a surgeon operates 1-2 days and see patients the rest of the week and the surgical rooms are under-used.
A province can not charge anything for a service it already provides for free, so they can't even ask for a 5$ or 10$ fee when you go directly to the ER for a non emergency (such as going there to get pills for a cold or a virgnity certificate for your daughter).
However, public hospitals are free to subcontrats part of their work to private clinics, such as MRI. And it's a shocker if an hospital rents its room to a private clinic, because God forbid we recuperate some costs out of underused facilities.
Quote
BTW--when non-metric stuff are used in Canada, is it Imperial or English?
As if it's not confusing enough as it is :glare:
Ah, I've seen both, but I think people mostly uses Imperial gallons when they talk of gallons.
20L = 5 gallons, I think it's Imperial?
QuoteThe US has already adopted metric as much as possible, aside from changing road signs. Usually though, when somebody (especially youngsters on euot) says we should adopt metric, they actually mean we should ban everything else. Which is obviously never going to be feasible. I doubt anyone has ever done it that way. Do any European states have metric system enforcement police?
Not banning, just using it everywhere for government purpose and mandatory teaching in classes. All official government communications must be made in metric. Eventually, people will adapt.
In Canada, it goes a step further in that stores must use metric, but are free to use any other measurement system aside.
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2013, 04:53:57 PM
Think about it for a second. One "foot?"
People aren't equal in foot size, IIRC. Last time I bought a pair of shoes, there ware various sizes...
Quote
An inch is 1/12 of a foot, by definition, but is also about the distance between the first and second joints of an adult human index finger.
Ok, I suppose that can make sense.
QuoteThe gallon is the weight of eight pounds of wine (or similar drink), the largest size it was convenient for humans to lift and pour.
That is just silly. Stronger humans can raise bigger cups, big drinker will have bigger cups compared to non drinkers.
Quote
These measurements all varied over time and by country, as they were based on human convenience, not logic or a desire for absolute standards.
wich is why it is antiquated.
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2013, 05:25:06 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 09, 2013, 03:33:30 PM
These are run by the provinces, right? No reason they'd be forced to get rid of them.
To correct what CC posted, all provinces receive Federal transfer money for healthcare...
sigh. You fail at basic reading. If you had not been so quick to mouth the Quebec separatist line you might have read further into my post where I said
QuoteIn addition all provinces recieve a significant contribution from Federal tax dollars through other payment schemes under the Canada Health Act
Its funny that you think equalization has nothing to do with have not provinces paying for their health care. Lets make a deal. Lets stop all equalization payments if they dont do anything for Quebec or the others. I know we could use our tax dollars more effectively than you do. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2013, 05:31:55 PM
Its funny that you think equalization has nothing to do with have not provinces paying for their health care. Lets make a deal. Lets stop all equalization payments if they dont do anything for Quebec or the others. I know we could use our tax dollars more effectively than you do. ;)
Equalization is based on the fiscal capacity of a province, i.e. how much taxes they can raise to fund their services to achieve a canadian average. What they do with the money afterward is no one's concern.
I've been to kown to advocate a stop to equalization payments... We take our taxes, you take yours. You get what you want, we get what we can pay. No indirect subsidies or federal tax breaks to one particular industry either, like say, automotive or oil industry. No centralization of all finance in Toronto via a Federal regulatory agency either. Equal split of government spending per capita throughout the country every year :)
Let's compete on equal and may the best one win the race. If Quebec is to become a dump where no one truly wants to live, so be it. But let's at least pretend we start equal.
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2013, 05:48:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2013, 05:31:55 PM
Its funny that you think equalization has nothing to do with have not provinces paying for their health care. Lets make a deal. Lets stop all equalization payments if they dont do anything for Quebec or the others. I know we could use our tax dollars more effectively than you do. ;)
Equalization is based on the fiscal capacity of a province, i.e. how much taxes they can raise to fund their services to achieve a canadian average. What they do with the money afterward is no one's concern.
Like I said, I know that is the separatist party line. But the political reality in this country is that our Provinces contribution to your Province is really only saleable here because it helps you fund your health care. We dont really have much interest in giving you free money for much else.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2013, 05:07:55 PM
IIRC the yard was originally based on the length of an arm.
BTW, isn't hectare a metric measure?
It is, my mistake I meant to pair some other little known measure with acre and accidentally picked a metric one. Acres are a bit strange, though, in that they were originally defined on the basis of being a furlong by a chain; a furlong is 660 feet, a chain is 66 feet (so a furlong is ten chains and 80 chains to a mile) so a traditional "true" acre must always be a rectangle with two sides ten times the length of the other two sides. But as the term acre is used today it applies to any plot or lot of land regardless of shape, as long as it is 10 square chains (43, 560 sq. ft) in total area.
It's also useful to know that a chain can be divided into four rods or 100 links (each link being 33/50ths of a foot, with 8,000 links to a mile, 1,000 to a furlong, 25 to a rod.)
Goddamn useful.
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2013, 05:29:51 PM
People aren't equal in foot size, IIRC. Last time I bought a pair of shoes, there ware various sizes...
Yes, and that's why the length of a "foot" (and inches, etc) has varied over time and by country/region, exactly as I said. Reading comprehension issues, or just being contrary?
QuoteThat is just silly. Stronger humans can raise bigger cups, big drinker will have bigger cups compared to non drinkers.
Huh? Reading comprehension issues, or just being contrary?
Quotewich is why it is antiquated.
No,
that's not why it is "antiquated!" :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2013, 12:55:39 PM
Yeah, a true political union would be unworkable. No Canadian would want to give up their single payor health care system (other than perhaps BB) and few Americans would want to adopt the Canadian system. Even if we could ever get past the numerous other issues, this would always be the deal breaker.
Why would they have to give that up?
Vermont has single payer doesn't it?
EDIT: Seems you've answered the question already.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 09, 2013, 06:21:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2013, 05:07:55 PM
IIRC the yard was originally based on the length of an arm.
BTW, isn't hectare a metric measure?
It is, my mistake I meant to pair some other little known measure with acre and accidentally picked a metric one. Acres are a bit strange, though, in that they were originally defined on the basis of being a furlong by a chain; a furlong is 660 feet, a chain is 66 feet (so a furlong is ten chains and 80 chains to a mile) so a traditional "true" acre must always be a rectangle with two sides ten times the length of the other two sides. But as the term acre is used today it applies to any plot or lot of land regardless of shape, as long as it is 10 square chains (43, 560 sq. ft) in total area.
It's also useful to know that a chain can be divided into four rods or 100 links (each link being 33/50ths of a foot, with 8,000 links to a mile, 1,000 to a furlong, 25 to a rod.)
Wow, I don't even remember ever hearing of chains as a unit of measurement before. :blush:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2013, 07:33:15 PM
Wow, I don't even remember ever hearing of chains as a unit of measurement before. :blush:
Ignorant SOB. :ultra:
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2013, 01:40:09 PM
I remember my teachers telling me back in the day that we'd be fully on the metric system by the 90s :lol:
I think it's weird how usage varies here. Not sure why but in the UK we still use miles, inches, feet and pints (Lord how we use pints), for body weight most people still use pounds and stone. Some people still use pounds for food, but that's mainly the old now. But I'd guess most people use metric for cooking, temperature and metres.
I imagine the US would be much the same.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2013, 07:31:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2013, 12:55:39 PM
Yeah, a true political union would be unworkable. No Canadian would want to give up their single payor health care system (other than perhaps BB) and few Americans would want to adopt the Canadian system. Even if we could ever get past the numerous other issues, this would always be the deal breaker.
Why would they have to give that up?
Vermont has single payer doesn't it?
EDIT: Seems you've answered the question already.
Re Vermont : Not yet, they need a ACA waiver first. Once they get that, they will go full Single Payer, they expect to do that by 2017, iirc.
Do eggs come 10 in a carton in metric countries? :hmm:
In this country, no.
In the UK, yes.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 09, 2013, 09:40:42 PM
In this country, no.
In the UK, yes.
:mellow:
Normally by 6 or 12, so by the dozen :)
(US)American, voted no. Variety is the spice of life. :Canuck:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 09, 2013, 09:45:55 PM
(US)American, voted no. Variety is the spice of life. :Canuck:
Agreed. I like difference, I think we're all merging together too much anyway (mondialisation <_<).
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 09, 2013, 09:45:55 PM
(US)American, voted no. Variety is the spice of life. :Canuck:
Despite being one country, the US has a lot of variety.
Meanwhile isn't Canada known for being sort of beige?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2013, 07:33:15 PMWow, I don't even remember ever hearing of chains as a unit of measurement before. :blush:
I had to look up the numbers for furlongs and rods which are not used for anything I'm familiar with but I was aware they existed. I did actually have memorized that a chain was 66 feet because of some reading I had done about the building of the railroads and chains was a very widely used measure, but combined with miles. Chains are even still used in some property documents and even maybe surveying in parts of the United States. Links are notable just because there are 100 of them in a chain, but I don't think they have any practical application being of such odd length.
The old league unit of measure also made sense--it was the distance a person, on average, could walk in an hour. At 3 miles that sounds about right for an average person walking at an average pace even today.
Furlongs are used in horse racing. :smarty:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 09, 2013, 09:45:55 PM
(US)American, voted no. Variety is the spice of life. :Canuck:
Was that vote in the poll over whether the two threads should be merged? :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 09, 2013, 09:44:11 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 09, 2013, 09:40:42 PM
In this country, no.
In the UK, yes.
:mellow:
Normally by 6 or 12, so by the dozen :)
It's been 10 years but I remember 10 eggs boxes in Tesco.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 09, 2013, 09:55:10 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2013, 07:33:15 PMWow, I don't even remember ever hearing of chains as a unit of measurement before. :blush:
I had to look up the numbers for furlongs and rods which are not used for anything I'm familiar with but I was aware they existed. I did actually have memorized that a chain was 66 feet because of some reading I had done about the building of the railroads and chains was a very widely used measure, but combined with miles. Chains are even still used in some property documents and even maybe surveying in parts of the United States. Links are notable just because there are 100 of them in a chain, but I don't think they have any practical application being of such odd length.
Now that you mention it, I do remember reading about chains in reference to rail roads now.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 09, 2013, 10:07:14 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 09, 2013, 09:44:11 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 09, 2013, 09:40:42 PM
In this country, no.
In the UK, yes.
:mellow:
Normally by 6 or 12, so by the dozen :)
It's been 10 years but I remember 10 eggs boxes in Tesco.
Depends on the brand - Supermarket own label and the specialist/higher quality eggs use the 6/12 size. Odd brands like "Big and Fresh" and "Happy" tend to come in 10 size.
Likewise with milk - it's the supermarkets own label milk that tends to come in pint, 2 pint, 4 pint and 6 pint sizes (even if they have to be labelled in ltrs.) Brands such as Cravendale or Yeo valley have gone to a litre size.