Economic progress stalling for Canada and other G7 countries

For decades, Canada and other countries in the G7 have been known as the economic powerhouses of the world. They generally have had the biggest economies and the most prosperous countries. But in recent years, poor government policy across the G7 has contributed to slowing economic growth and near-stagnant living standards.

Simply put, the Group of Seven countries—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States—have become complacent. Rather than build off past economic success by employing small governments that are limited and efficient, these countries have largely pursued policies that increase or maintain high taxes on families and businesses, increase regulation and grow government spending.

Canada is a prime example. As multiple levels of government have turned on the spending taps to expand programs or implement new ones, the size of total government has surged ever higher. Unsurprisingly, Canada’s general government spending as a share of GDP has risen from 39.3 per cent in 2007 to 42.2 per cent in 2022.

At the same time, federal and provincial governments have increased taxes on professionals, businessowners and entrepreneurs to the point where the country’s top combined marginal tax rate is now the fifth-highest among OECD countries. New regulations such as Bill C-69, which instituted a complex and burdensome assessment process for major infrastructure projects and Bill C-48, which prohibits producers from shipping oil or natural gas from British Columbia’s northern coast, have also made it difficult to conduct business.

The results of poor government policy in Canada and other G7 countries have not been pretty.

Productivity, which is typically defined as economic output per hour of work, is a crucial determinant of overall economic growth and living standards in a country. Over the most recent 10-year period of available data (2013 to 2022), productivity growth has been meagre at best. Annual productivity growth equaled 0.9 per cent for the G7 on average over this period, which means the average rate of growth during the two previous decades (1.6 per cent) has essentially been chopped in half. For some countries such as Canada, productivity has grown even slower than the paltry G7 average.

Since productivity has grown at a snail’s pace, citizens are now experiencing stalled improvement in living standards. Gross domestic product (GDP) per person, a common indicator of living standards, grew annually (inflation-adjusted) by an anemic 0.7 per cent in Canada from 2013 to 2022 and only slightly better across the G7 at 1.3 per cent. This should raise alarm bells for policymakers.

A skeptic might suggest this is merely a global phenomenon. But other countries have fared much better. Two European countries, Ireland and Estonia, have seen a far more significant improvement than G7 countries in both productivity and per-person GDP.

From 2013 to 2022, Estonia’s annual productivity has grown more than twice as fast (1.9 per cent) as the G7 countries (0.9 per cent). Productivity in Ireland has grown at a rapid annual pace of 5.9 per cent, more than six times faster than the G7.

A similar story occurs when examining improvements in living standards. Estonians enjoyed average per-person GDP growth of 2.8 per cent from 2013 to 2022—more than double the G7. Meanwhile, Ireland’s per-person GDP has surged by 7.9 per cent annually over the 10-year period. To put this in perspective, living standards for the Irish grew 10 times faster than for Canadians.

But this should come as no surprise. Governments in Ireland and Estonia are smaller than the G7 average and impose lower taxes on individuals and businesses. In 2019, general government spending as a percentage of GDP averaged 44.0 per cent for G7 countries. Spending for governments in both Estonia and Ireland were well below this benchmark.

Moreover, the business tax rate averaged 27.2 per cent for G7 countries in 2023 compared to lower rates in Ireland (12.5 per cent) and Estonia (20.0 per cent). For personal income taxes, Estonia’s top marginal tax rate (20.0 per cent) is significantly below the G7 average of 49.7 per cent. Ireland’s top marginal tax rate is below the G7 average as well.

Economic progress has largely stalled for Canada and other G7 countries. The status quo of government policy is simply untenable.

Author:

Jake Fuss

Related Topics:#EconomiProgress #FraserInstitute #G7 #GovernmentSpending #JakeFuss #ProductivityGrowth

Up Next

Farming group accuses Canadian gov’t of trying to blame agriculture for ‘climate change’

Don't Miss

Official Temperature Data Aren’t ‘Data’ and Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict Freedom

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trudeau claims under oath that Jordan Peterson, Tucker Carlson are funded by Russia

Business / 6 hours ago

All politicians—no matter the party—should engage with natural resource industry

Health / 6 hours ago

Prostate Cancer: Over-Testing and Over-Treatment

Business

All politicians—no matter the party—should engage with natural resource industry

Published on October 17, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

When federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault recently criticized Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre for hosting a fundraiser that included an oil company executive, he raised an interesting question. How should our politicians—of all parties—engage with Canada’s natural resource sector and the industry leaders that drive our natural resource economy?

Consider a recent report by the Chamber of Commerce, entitled Canada’s Natural Wealth, which notes that Canada’s natural resources sector contributed $464 billion to Canada’s economy (measured by real GDP) and supported 3 million jobs in 2023. That represented 21 per cent of the national economy and 15 per cent of employment.

Within the natural resources sector, mining, oil and gas, and pipeline transmission represent 45 per cent of all GDP impact from the sector. Oil and gas production accounted for $71 billion in GDP in 2023. If you throw in the support sector for oil and gas production, and for manufacturing petroleum and coal products, that number reaches nearly $100 billion in GDP.

Shouldn’t any responsible leader want to regularly consult with industry leaders in the natural resource sector to determine how they can facilitate expansion of the sector’s contribution to Canada’s economy?

The Chamber also notes that the natural resource sector is a massive contributor to Canada’s balance of trade, reporting that last year the “sector generated $377 billion in exports, accounting for nearly 50% of Canada’s merchandise exports, and a $228 billion trade surplus (that is, exports over imports) —critical for offsetting trade deficits (more imports than exports) in other sectors.”

Again, shouldn’t all government leaders want to work with industry leaders to promote even more natural resource trade and exports?

The natural resource sector also accounts for one out of every seven jobs in Canada’s economy, and the wages offered in the natural resource sector are higher than the national average—annual wages in the sector were $25,000 above the national average in 2023. And workers in the sector are about 2.5 times more productive, meaning they contribute more to the economy compared to workers in other industries.

One more time—shouldn’t all of Canada’s political leaders, regardless of political stripe, want to work with natural resource producers to create more high-paying jobs for more Canadians?

Finally, the Chamber of Commerce report suggests that some environmental policies require swift reform. Proliferating regulations have made investing in Canada a “riskier and more costly proposition.” The report notes that carbon pricing, Clean Fuel Regulations, proposed Clean Electricity Regulations, proposed federal emissions cap and proposed methane regulations all deter investment in Canada. Which means less economic opportunity for many Canadian workers.

With so much of Canada’s economic prosperity at stake, it’s not improper—as Guilbeault and others suggest—for any politician to meet with and seek political support from Canada’s natural resource industry leaders. Indeed, to not meet with and listen to these leaders would be an act of economic recklessness and constitute imprudent leadership of the worst kind.

Author:

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Business

Data Center Demand: The Biden-Harris Energy Transition Will Just Have To Wait

Published on October 16, 2024

Todayville

A nuclear power plant

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Google has made big news in the energy space over the past week, and all of it conflicts with the Harris-Biden goals of a glorious future powered entirely by windmills, solar arrays and presumably some combination of Unicorn fur and fairy dust.

Last week, the Washington Post ran a major story detailing the fact that Nebraska’s Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) will be forced to keep two coal-fired power generation units running for years longer than previously planned to accommodate the electricity needs of new data centers being built in the area by Google and Meta. Originally scheduled to be shuttered at the end of 2023, the units will now remain active through 2026, and local residents and activists expressed skepticism they will be shut down even then.

“A promise was made, and then they broke it,” the Post quotes local resident Cheryl Weston as saying. “The tech companies bear responsibility for this. The coal plant is still open because they need all this energy to grow.”

Well, yes, they do. Given the way supposed deadlines and promises related to this government-forced energy transition have been consistently extended and broken, Weston’s skepticism seems well-grounded.

By now, most everyone is aware of the enormous new demand the proliferation of data centers is placing on the U.S. regional power grids. The new demand from Big Tech is being added to an electric system already strained by huge demands from crypto mining, EV charging and general population growth and economic expansion.

This demand growth threatens to overwhelm the ability of power companies to build new electric generating capacity rapidly enough to keep up. This is especially true for companies operating in areas that restrict such new generating capacity to be “green,” i.e. intermittent wind and solar.

In the Washington Post’s story, the OPPD attributes the need to keep the coal units running on the slow development of anticipated new wind and solar capacity. But that avoids the reality that these data centers and other big power demand hogs require reliable generation, 24 hours a day, 7 days every week. The limitations of intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar, even when combined with current backup battery tech, leaves companies like Google and Meta demanding more reliable, consistent generation.

This reality is not limited to the Omaha area. On Monday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Google and parent company Alphabet are also backing a new company engaged in the development of a new generation of modular nuclear reactors as a means of securing its future electricity supplies. In a deal with nuclear startup Kairos Power, Google commits to buying power from seven Kairos reactors when they go live in the coming years.

“The end goal here is 24/7, carbon-free energy,” Google/Alphabet senior director for energy and climate Michael Terrell said. “We feel like in order to meet goals around round-the-clock clean energy, you’re going to need to have technologies that complement wind and solar and lithium-ion storage.”

These developments involving Google and Meta come on the heels of other recent stories detailing efforts by tech giants to secure their future power needs. In early October, Constellation Energy announced it will reactivate its Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania to feed the power needs of nearby data centers under development by Microsoft. Constellation announced a similar deal in July to power data centers owned by Amazon from other nuclear facilities it operates.

The securing of their own power supplies could well become a requirement for big tech companies in some regions, as regulators and grid managers become increasingly concerned about their potential to drain regional grids of needed capacity to keep the lights on for everyone else. Bloomberg recently reported on comments by Thomas Gleeson, Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Texas, warning data center developers they should plan to provide at least part of their own power needs if they wish to connect to the grid in a timely fashion.

What it all means is that demand for reliable, 24/7 power supplied by nuclear, natural gas and even coal is going to continue rising for the foreseeable future. The glorious energy transition will just have to wait for reality.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.