Irony?
No. The purpose of any free trade agreement is not productivity, it's about liberalization of trade (i.e. making it easier to trade by removing barriers to trade, such as tariffs).
Productivity is measurable and comparable. The most common measure of an economy's productivity is GDP per hour worked.
Well, I understand the quatifiable stats they are throwing out there. Usually the most stripped down simplistic version of it. That's kind of my point.
Wow!
Trade agreements are to open up markets and to protect specific sectors.
No, you don't actually "understand the quatifiable stats". It's a measurement. It doesn't state what it's suppose to be. We can measure the height of a 5 year old child - that says nothing about what height a 5 year old child is suppose to be. Now, we can measure that same measurement (i.e. height) when the child is 6, then 7, then 8, then, 9, then 10, etc. years old. Again, that measurement (i.e. the child's height) is not telling us what it's suppose to be. It is showing us a change, (call it a trend). For a normal child from the age of 5 to 10 years old - we would assume that child's height to increase over that time period. Moreover, we can take that child's measurement, and compare not only through time, but to other children of the same age over the same time for the sole purpose of comparison. But, it does not tell us what the height should be. Measuring productivity is the same thing. We can see trends over time and we can compare with other economies. Ergo, using the output per unit of input ratio that is GDP per hour worked, we can see that over time, other countries/economies have increased their output per hour worked - and Canada has not kept pace, making us less productive vis a vis those other countries. Other countries for which we have to compete with for investment capital. So, measuring productivity isn't about achieving a number (using your words "achieve that measurement") - it's about trying to achieve improvement. Improvement isn't a single number - it's a trend, both over time and in comparison to other economies. And because it's also in comparison to other economies, it's relative - which also indicates that it's not simply about hitting a single number.
Precluding comparison with other economies where most of the population is spread out across a 5k km line and a freezing north. And it would be 'not as productive' as other economies, not 'making us less productive'. Productivity hasnt shrunk, relative productivity has.
As I stated, comparison of productivity (i.e. it's relativity) is what is important. So no, one should not ignore comparison to other economies.
actually it's due to our political leaders allowing it, enabling it, being to lazy to, scared to fix it
As it should be - industry should, not governments....
But you seem to love it when Trudeau buys and completes a pipeline expansion, which you keep touting as a "win." While ignoring that all taxpayers have underwritten the cost and the risk, which again, is at $30 billion and counting!
That's some creative mathematics. You are clearly selecting points of convenience to get to "60% higher" aren't you? You are taking a Harper year that was "high" and comparing to a JT year that was low. Actually, I don't think you were even doing any research or math on your own - you're probably just regurgitating something you read without an iota of your own research/due diligence/fact checking to see how accurate that claim of "60% higher" is. Now, unlike you I'll admit I'm not going to waste my time and do the leg work you should've done. But, if I were a betting man, if you were to take the average unemployment rate of Harper's tenure to JT's tenure (which would be a rational comparison and NOT a biased comparison of convenience) - the delta would not be 60%. Put another way, if I were to take the unemployment rate during the 08/09 recession (a Harper year) and compare that to 2020 (a JT year and Covid) - I would suspect 2020 was higher. Now, using those highly selective points would be stupid to say Harper is better than JT on account of being selective - but, your "60% higher" is just doing that, bias by conveniently selecting points in time.
Aren't you the one, on another thread, lamenting/chastising others for ignoring global events like pandemics??? Listen mate, no one is denying 08/09 was a recession, and if you want to say there was a recession in 2014 I'm fine with that too. That said, for someone saying JT gets the benefits of bad "things" happening (like pandemics) yet you criticize the other side when other bad "things" (like recessions) happen, is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Harper was dead last in job creation when compared to all other prime-ministers who lasted more than one budgetary cycle. One should do their research.
