In her article Diane Francis makes some comparisons. I'll ignore military spending as a proportion of GDP since less than half of NATO actually meets the 2% goal. Instead let's look at the other two comparisons.
https://twitter.com/jmt_18325/status/1403228993487130624
She lists a number of countries that she says are doing better than Canada: China, India, South Korea, Russia, Australia, Ukraine, but at the end she says that GDP/ hour worked is the best way to compare. I agree with her, that's a great way to assess, but it breaks her argument.
The problem for her editorial is that those six countries all have lower GDP/hour than us, in fact none of them are even above the average. Canada isn't the highest, but at 50.29 we're 16.8 gdp/h above the average. the #3 slot (Belgium) is a great comparison, at just 10 better.
What about her claim that the cabinet is all amateurs? A quick glance of the top slots shows: Harvard educated Rhodes scholar who was managing director of Thompson Reuters, person with over 30 yrs experience in federal government, award winning physician, Lawyer from Harvard law,
London School of Economics educated economist, navy veteran and astronaut, award winning business owner, CEO, military and police veteran, policy researcher, international development VP, legal scholar.
I'd really like it if editorial writers could actually have a coherent message instead of "I don't like them so they must be bad, let me figure out some cherry picked information".
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
