Times Change, Truth Is Constant

There is nothing in my lifetime that has surprised me more than the movement to ignore the gender differences that we are born with.

We see it with those who believe that biological men should be able to participate with women in athletic events.

It is even worse seeing those who want to allow life altering sex change surgeries on minors based on how they identify.

Transgenderism is difficult enough to understand as anything other than a mental illness in adults.

It is beyond the pale to believe that any minor has the mental capacity to make a decision to irrevocably change their biological gender.

It was once widely accepted by the psychiatric profession that those who identified as transgender had a mental illness until progressive politics made it unacceptable to have this view.

Let's consider a few examples in my lifetime to understand how far off the rails we are compared to where we once were.

The most popular tv series in the late 1970's and early 80's was MASH which was baed on a medical unit in the Korean War.

One of its main characters was Corporal Klinger who was played by Jamie Farr.

The storyline line involving Klinger was that he was posing as a cross dresser in attempt to be discharged under Section 8 which was used for those unfit for duty due to mental incapacity.

Jamie Farr as Corporal Klinger in MASH
Credit: https://vocal.media/geeks/maxwell-q-klinger-his-evolution-during-m-as-h

In the 1970's biological men were not competing against women in sports. The idea defied all common sense and ideas of fairness.

In fact, in order to maintain the integrity of women's sports the International Olympic Committee used to test athletes for the amount of testosterone in women as the Russians and East Germans were known to use drugs to enhance their performance.

PBS did a documentary series on the doping of East German athletes and the after-effects in 2008.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/doping-for-gold-about-the-episode/7196/

I am also old enough to remember when Democrats and liberals were working hard in the 1970's to get the Equal Rights Amendment ratified as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

The stated purpose was to insure that equal rights for women in matters of divorce, property, employment and other issues would be guaranteed by the Constitution.

Those opposed to the amendment argued that there was nothing in the Constitution that did not already insure equal rights for women on these issues.

However, opponents of the measure argued that if the amendment was enacted a number of unintended complications might follow. 

Same sex marriages could occur, single sex bathrooms might be eliminated, women could be drafted into military service and women's sports would be threatened.

No one at the time suggested that we could see men posing as women populating prisons. It was too ludicrous to contemplate.

Those supporting the amendment scoffed that any of these outcomes would result because of passage of the ERA.

The irony is that all of this has taken place without the ERA ever being ratified.

What I find most interesting is that human civilization has existed for centuries upon centuries without anyone ever suggesting that men could be women and women could be men.

Is all of what we are experiencing today just another example of human evolution?

Those that believe that gender is not biologically determined may believe that to be true in their mind.

However, what they believe is true is not the same as real TRUTH.

The biology of the body is immutable. The human mind can be altered and change. The human mind is also very powerful. It can make us believe many things that are not true. 

We don't allow a person to amputate their own arm or leg merely because in their mind they do not believe the reality of their own biology.

The same is true of those who suffer with anorexia. These individuals starve themselves as they believe in their mind that they are overweight. We don't ignore the biology, agree with them and take their nourishment away to cater to their delusion. 

In each case, we treat their mental illness with concern and compassion for their long-term wellbeing.

We do not affirm their delusion and let them do long-term harm to themselves. We certainly should  not allow that if they are minor children with a brain that is not fully developed with a lifetime ahead of them.

Centuries upon centuries it was well understood that men are men and women are women.

It was not controversial and it was accepted as TRUTH.

What has changed in the last 40 years?

The biology and science has not changed.

However, look at this data on LBGTQ+ identity by generation.

22% of Generation Z states that they consider themselves to be some part of LBGTQ+.

Only 2% of Baby Boomers do.

2.8% of Gen Z state they are transgender. 

Only .2% of Boomers consider they are.

Even more interesting is this graph of trans identification by year of birth.

Those numbers were very steady for births from 1939 to the early 1980's at around 0.4-.05%.

Beginning with births in the mid-1980's there has been explosive growth in transgender identification  with each successive birth year.

This X posts notes that the rise began when the birth year cohorts reached adolescence after the introduction of the Smart Phone.

Is all of this due to Smart Phones and social media?

Is it something else in the environment?

It most definitely has nothing to do with a change in biology over the last 40 years.

Times do change.

However, truth is constant.

That holds true whether you believe it or not.

Voting Machine or Weighing Machine?

Benjamin Graham was a Wall Street legend who wrote two of the most revered books on investing in stocks---Security Analysis (1934) and The Intelligent Investor (1949).

Warren Buffett credits Graham with much of his early education in security analysis even going so far to refer to him as a "second father".

What did Graham mean with the quote above?

On a short run basis the stock market is driven by sentiment. Prices are determined by human beings with emotions who are attempting to project a company's future worth. It results in a very subjective valuation.

In the long run, stock prices will correlate with the actual financial performance and earnings of the company. An objective valuation for the stock will be reached based on data.

If we ever needed a real-life example of what Graham was referring to when he said the stock market was a voting machine, when he have seen it in 2025.

It has been a wild ride driven by sentiment and emotion as investors react to the Trump presidency.

It started before Trump took office.

Consider this chart of the performance of the S&P 500 between July 1, 2024 and December 31, 2024.

The sentiment of the market after the Trump-Biden debate seemed to be that Trump would win and it would be good for business in the United States.

Biden dropping out and being replaced by Kamala Harris and the unrelenting positive media exposure promoting her created uncertainty that pushed market sentiment negative for several weeks.

However, as that narrative died down and polling started to show Trump was holding his own against Harris throughout the remainder of the summer and early fall, sentiment turned positive again.

Last minute jitters caused a pullback in the last week before the election but Trump's election pushed sentiment higher immediately and led to all time market highs in the month after he was elected.

The following chart shows the performance of the S&P 500 from the beginning of 2025 until the market close yesterday (5/13/25).

A few takeaways.

The S&P 500 is up just under 1% since January 1.

It is down about 2% since Trump was inaugurated.

The S&P 500 is 4% higher now than when Trump first announced his tariff plan on April 2.

It is 20% higher than it was when the market reached its low on April 8 in the wake of the tariff announcements.

What does all of this tell us?

It confirms the truth of Benjamin Graham's quote.

In the short run the market is nothing but a voting machine reflecting current sentiments and emotions of human beings.

The underlying value of companies like Amazon, Tesla and Nvidia do not gyrate wildly from day to day or month to month. However, the stock price can vary dramatically based on sentiment as we have seen recently.

It should be remembered that the value of a company's stock does not necessarily equate to the true value of the company.

The stock price on any given day is based solely on the sentiments of buyers and sellers in the market as to what the value of Apple or Tesla is today.

However, its real value will only be revealed based on the future revenues to be generated, cash flow created and profits derived to the benefit of the shareholders over time.

Those objective measures over the long run will ultimately provide an objective value of the business enterprise the same as a weighing machine can provide the actual weight of an object.

Graham earned his reputation by understanding the difference between the stock price of a company and  its real value and taking advantage of situations where companies were undervalued by the stock market.

For that reason he is considered "the father of value investing". 

Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger carried that thinking even further which at one time made Buffett the richest man in the world without inventing, manufacturing or producing any tangible product or service.

I don't know where Trump's tariff, trade and economic policies will lead longer term any better than CNBC's market maven Jim Cramer knows where the stock market is headed in the short term.

Link: https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1922342327508783506

Are stock prices today overvalued or undervalued compared to what we will find out in the future?

I do know that the United States cannot continue to run $2 trillion annual deficits forever.

I do know that being able to continue financing a $37 trillion national debt will be very challenging.

I know that the United States cannot continue to outsource manufacturing, mining, pharmaceutical and other critical functions to countries like China. That may be a sustainable national strategy with t-shirts and toys but it is not with those things necessary for long term national survival.

I also know that no other country in the world has the constitutional, political and economic system to be able to provide the necessary platform that provides anyone with the smarts, savvy and passion to succeed as easily as it can be done in the United States.

There is a reason why half the world wants to immigrate to the United States.

However, the success of the United States and its businesses is not assured nor automatic.

And we cannot even allow a fraction of those who want to enter the United States to just show up and walk across the border or have the Democrats fly them in so they can retain their political power.

It takes making the right decisions going forward.

And making some very tough decisions that will not be popular with everyone.

It requires a recognition that the United States did a lot more things right than wrong to make it the wealthiest and most powerful nation the world has even seen. We are not going to continue to advance by turning our backs on what made us great.

It means prioritizing merit rather than race or class in decisions about people.

It is necessary to understand that we are best when we are united to make America better rather than creating divisions to tear us apart.

Donald Trump understands all of this.

These principles are at the core of his Make American Great Again policies.

He may not succeed.

However, the voters have stated that he be given the opportunity to try.

Most of the establishment and elites didn't want to give him the chance the first time. They also did everything they could to make sure he did not have a second chance.

This was not because they feared he would fail. It was because they live in fear that he will  succeed.

The votes have been counted but Donald Trump still must face the weighing machine with actual results that can be shown to the American people. 

There are a lot of weighty issues to solve in the United States.

The United States also carries the weight for a good part of the rest of the world.

What Donald Trump does or does not do may not only determine the future course of the United States but of the entire world.

May God Bless the United States of America, President Trump and all our other elected leaders in making the right decisions that will be weighed for our benefit over the long term.

How Much Longer Will Europe Be Europe?

How much longer will Europe be Europe?

I saw this recent factoid about the population of Brussels, Belgium.

Only 1 in 4 of the population of Brussels, Belgium has a Belgian background. 

This leads to a more startling fact.

Brussels is home to the headquarters of both the European Union and NATO so a portion of those numbers are attributable to foreign diplomats and military officers.

However, I don't think most of those expats are rioting about racism.

Brussels has been inundated with Muslim immigrants.

Link: https://x.com/realMaalouf/status/1919741692074168742

The streets of Brussels look more like Kabul or Tehran than the headquarters city of the EU.

How can Belgium be Belgium without Belgians?

Or Germany be Germany without Germans?

Or Italy be Italy without Italians?

How much longer will Europe be Europe?

Demography is destiny.

There is no country in Europe that has a total fertility rate equal to 2.1 which is required for a stable population.

These numbers also understate the TFR of the native born population as immigrants typically have higher birth rates.

For example, Belgium's TFR of 1.53 is comprised of 1.39 for the native born population and 2.23 for those not born in the EU.

Credit: https://x.com/BirthGauge/status/1765720327043129820/photo/1

In France, the comparable numbers are 1.35 and 2.35.

In Germany it is 1.35 and 2.05.

These numbers lead us to an obvious conclusion.

Europe will be a majority Islamist continent at some point in the foreseeable future.

The United States has many problems but they are nothing compared to Europe.

An aging population.

Low birth rates.

Unsupportable pension promises.

Massive social welfare costs that have to be supported.

Increasing social and religious tensions due to the large migrant populations.

High energy costs and religious-like commitment to Net Zero.

A burdensome array of regulations and government bureaucracy that stifles innovation.

For example. look at this graphic that compares the number of public companies in the United States and Europe founded over the last 50 years that have a $10+ billion market cap today.

This is one example of why Europe has fallen substantially behind the United States economy in GDP per capital over the last 25 years.

25 years ago GDP per capita was similar in the U.S., the EU and UK.

The United States has substantially outperformed those on the other side of the Atlantic since 2000 as this graphic indicates.

Source: https://www.northerntrust.com/europe/insights-research/2024/weekly-economic-commentary/europe-struggling-to-keep-pace

Overregulation and lack of innovation is largely responsible for a large gap in productivity improvement between the United States and the EU.

Europe would be facing a lot of problems in the future even without the Muslim invasion that has overtaken many countries on the continent.

However, I believe allowing so many immigrants in from Muslim countries will not allow Europe to address their other problems and recover its prior prominence.

Europe will no longer be Europe.

It will be something far different than it has in the past.

I have told my children and others that if they have an interest in experiencing Europe, its churches, and its history as the foundation of Western culture, I would advise going sooner rather than later. 

The trend is clear and it favors Islam. 

Europe is going to look like nothing we would recognize in another 20-30 years if the trend is not reversed.

And it does not appear that it will be easily reversed when the EU elites are openly targeting those who support nationalism from assuming power such as the AfD party in Germany, Marine LePen in France and the conservative candidates in Romania.

This is the case even though the people in many countries are voting to preserve their culture, heritage and identity.

These people understand that Europe (or substitute another country) will not be Europe if they don't change course they are on.

Why are others intent on destroying the last vestiges of what their forebears built?

Reflecting On V-E Day

Tomorrow is the 80th anniversary of V-E Day---the date that Germany surrendered to the Allies in World War II.

Almost six years of war on the European continent resulted in untold levels of death and destruction.

I recently came across this graphic on the casualty totals in Europe from World War II.

24 million in the Soviet Union.

7.7 million in Germany.

5.6 million in Poland.

1 million in what was Yugoslavia and 825,000 in Greece.

On the other hand, a mere 100 in neutral Switzerland and in Turkey.

In addition, an estimated 250,000 Americans also died in the European theater in World War II.

160,000 Americans perished in the Pacific theater.

It is hard to wrap our minds around these numbers 80 years later.

War really is hell.

When all of the death and destruction was over the United States enacted the Marshall Plan which was designed to assist Europe in rebuilding their economies after the war.

The United States contributed $13.3 billion between 1948 and 1951 to assist in rebuilding the economies of 16 European countries ( Germany and the UK were excluded).

That would amount to $150 billion in today's dollars.

It allowed Europe to rebuild and recover.

At BeeLine we like to put things in context.

Let's put that amount of money in context on what is going on in the world today. 

At the time of the Marshall Plan, the populations of the European countries that received the aid was approximately 143.5 million.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, aid to Palestinians totaled over $40 billion between 1994 and 2020. Taking account of subsequent aid and inflating the total amount to current dollars would equal about $50 billion. 

This aid flowed in from European and Arab countries in addition to Japan and the United States. One source puts the amount of aid from the United States to Palestine at over $7.6 billion since 1993. 

That would total about $10 billion in today's dollars.

This aid was provided for a population of about 2 million that lived in Gaza.

On a per capita basis, adjusted for inflation, Palestine has received 20 times more aid than the Europeans did to rebuild war-torn Western Europe under the Marshall Plan after World War II.

If you consider just the U.S. aid, Palestine received over four times as much aid per capita as was provided to Europe in the Marshall Plan.

If you look at the money that was given the Palestinians since the mid-1990's, and compare it to the Marshall Plan, you really have to wonder where all the money went? 

The Marshall Plan dollars allowed Europe to rebuild and create robust economies and lives for its people.

Did we get anything to advance the lives of Palestinians from all that aid money?

It seems that most of the money went for the tools of terrorism and to enrich the leadership of Hamas and the PLO

What did this aid get us?

A continuing cycle of terror that culminated in the horrific attack on Israel in October, 2023.

More war from Hamas and more misery for the Palestinian people.

Where are the protests about all of this wasted money and lost opportunity?

There is a reason that the Palestinian people are living an oppressed life.

The numbers above say it all.

War is hell.

Failing to embrace peace and attempting to build prosperity for the populace in its aftermath is worse.

On the 80th anniversary of V-E Day take a moment to reflect on the death and destruction that took place in Europe during World War II.

Much of it was caused by the ambitions and actions of one man.

That reflection might also serve to show how ridiculous the attempts that are made by some to compare Trump to Hitler.

Trump is the one man right now who is working the hardest to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine to put an end to the senseless carnage in that war.

Trump is also the man who was first to make a proposal to rebuild Gaza and establish a path for a viable economy there.

Perhaps it was just a negotiating ploy to get other Arab nations to step up to the task of rebuilding but the fact remains that Trump knows the value of building a sustainable economy in Gaza for stability and peace in the region.

There is much to reflect on this May 8.

Beware Conventional Wisdom and Consensus

I attended a junior high school track meet last week to watch my grandson compete.

He ran the 1600 meters, 400 meters and 4 x 200 meter relay but in between his events I caught some of the high jump competitors.

They all approached the bar and thrust their head and shoulders over the bar going backwards and then pulled their legs over the bar at the end.

 

Credit: https://www.teachpe.com/sports-coaching/athletics/high-jump/high-jump

It is a vastly different technique than what was used in the high jump when I was in middle school.

When Dick Fosbury was a sophomore in high school he could not clear 5 feet which was the minimum qualifying jump height for many high school meets.

Fosbury high jumped like everyone else did in his sophomore year using the so-called ''straddle method" where he approached the bar and thrust one leg up and over the bar and ended up with his body straddling over the bar as he attempted to get his trailing leg over as well.

The Straddle Method
Credit: http://www.knowqout.com/sports/the-man-who-took-jumping-to-new-heights/

However, by the end of his junior year in high school Fosbury jumped 6'3" to break the school record at his high school. A year later he was runner-up in the Oregon state track and field meet.

How did he improve so rapidly?  He ignored the conventional wisdom and found a better way to clear the bar. His new high jump method became known as the "Fosbury Flop."

This is how Fosbury describes it.

I take off on my right, or outside, foot rather than my left foot. Then I turn my back to the bar, arch my back over the bar and then kick my legs out to clear the bar.” 

The Fosbury Flop
Credit: http://www.knowqout.com/sports/the-man-who-took-jumping-to-new-heights/

Five years after Fosbury started experimenting with his new method he won the Gold Medal at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City.

By the next Olympics, 28 of the 40 competitors were using the Fosbury Flop. Today you don't find anyone doing anything else.

Fosbury's idea and his independence about ignoring conventional wisdom changed the world of high jumping.

I doubt that any of those middle schoolers at the track meet even knew that there was a time when everybody did not high jump the way they were doing it.

Pete Gogolak was another individual thinker who came up with a better way to placekick a football.

Gogolak was the first college football kicker to kick the football soccer style rather than the straight ahead style that had been in use for decades. Rather than use the toe to kick the ball, Gogolak kicked the ball with the instep of his foot similar to the way he had learned to kick a soccer ball in his native Hungary.

Pete Gogolak kicking at Cornell University

Credit: Cornell University Athletic Communications

The rest is history. Gogolak (as well as his younger brother Charlie) went on to the NFL and changed the way the ball was kicked forever. There are no longer any kickers who toe the ball like Lou "The Toe" Groza did.

Fosbury and Gogolak proved that conventional wisdom and consensus are not always correct.

We hear a lot about the the consensus of scientists and others these days.

However, conventional wisdom or consensus is not scientific fact.

A scientific fact is the law of gravity, the boiling point of water or the distance to the moon. 

Prior to the 15th century, the consensus of scientists was that the earth was the center of the universe.

In the 18th century, the consensus of medical scientists was that blood letting was the best method to cure illness.

As recently as 35 years ago the consensus was that peptic ulcers were caused by stress. We now know it is caused by bacteria.

I could go on and on. In fact, in most cases like these, the consensus of scientists was proven wrong by one person who did not believe the consensus and proved it wrong.

Much of the success of Elon Musk with Tesla and SpaceX is due to the fact that he is not willing to accept the the constraints of consensus, conventional wisdom or "that is the way it has always been done".

Time and again as challenges were met at SpaceX or Tesla, Elon would be unwilling to accept that something could not be done to solve the problem or improve the process.

Elon Musk believes that anything that is not prohibited by the laws of physics is capable of being accomplished given sufficient knowledge and effort.

Simply stated, if the law of physics does not prevent it, man can attain it. Physics is the only constraint when looking to solve a problem. If physics does not dictate it can't be done, there is a solution.

This philosophy imbues Musk with a unique optimism that allows him and those he leads to overcome incredible obstacles.

For example, consider this image I saw recently about how SpaceX's Raptor engine has evolved under Musk's guidance.

Source: https://x.com/GaurabC/status/1915012865075106199

The Raptor 3 engine delivers 51% more thrust with 36% less weight than the Raptor 1 engine.

All because Elon would not accept conventional wisdom or traditional thinking.

Our experiences of the last few years should have reinforced the basic truth to beware conventional wisdom and consensus.

Do you remember when the consensus was the best way to treat serious Covid was with a ventilator?

Source: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/03/18/905222/we-need-more-ventilators-heres-what-it-will-take-to-get-them/

Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent manufacturing ventilators in early 2020.

Source: https://x.com/toobaffled/status/1918079681255096627

How often do we hear about the consensus of scientists when it comes to climate change?

Those scientists are telling us that rising CO2 levels are going to warm the planet.

However, in the late 1970's and early 1980's the concerns were just the opposite.

Time magazine's cover story of December 24, 1979 was about the cooling of America.

Source: https://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19791224,00.html

Here is a headline from 1982 about fears that rising carbon dioxide levels could cause another ice age.

Credit: https://x.com/JunkScience/status/1918153976932954416

What is the next item of consensus or conventional wisdom that could be turned on its head?

I am interested in seeing what HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy finds in his study of the possible causes of autism.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0z9nmzvdlo

The data would seem to suggest that something is not right somewhere.

The consensus is that this is due to genetics or increased awareness in that more cases of autism are being identified and diagnosed than was the case in the past.

It would surprise me if RFK, Jr. can arrive at a satisfactory answer in that short period of time considering the complexity and the wide spectrum of autism cases as well as the entrenched attitudes about the issue today.

For example, consider this headline of last week on the reaction of health experts that HHS is now going to order placebo testing on all new vaccines.

Why would this be alarming?

I think most people assume this is already the standard protocol.

However, this has not typically been done with childhood vaccines.

The argument is that if a new childhood vaccine is developed it is unethical to withhold the vaccine to the placebo test group.

This was also why the Covid vaccine control groups in the clinical test period were cut short which did not allow for a full assessment of possible longer term side effects from these vaccines.

An initial assessment was made that the vaccines were "effective" and it was then determined that all participants in the clinical trial control group should get the vaccine on ethical grounds. This then foreclosed any determination if the vaccines were safe and without side effects for the longer term.

A consensus seems to have also developed during Covid that the Pfizer vaccine was the "better" vaccine.

About 60% more Pfizer Covid vaccines doses were administered in the United States than were Moderna doses.

However, a recent study done involving all Florida adult residents who took the Covid vaccines between December 18, 2020 and August 31, 2021, involving almost 1.5 million matched institutionalized adults who received at least two doses six weeks apart, found the following in a 12 month follow up period.

(All numbers deaths per 100,000)

Covid Mortality                           Pfizer     55.5                   Moderna   29.5               

Non-Covid Mortality                  Pfizer    791.6                  Moderna  588.4

Cardiovascular Mortality           Pfizer    248.7                  Moderna  162.4

All Cause Mortality                     Pfizer    847.2                  Moderna  617.9

Wouldn't it have been nice to have this information earlier?

What was missing from the study was an analysis comparing vaccinated vs. unvaccinated adults. What would that data show?

Of course, we found during Covid that it wasn't just enough to have consensus.

The United States government and many in the mainstream media, and other governments around the world, determined that there was no room for any differences in opinion or dissent on dealing with Covid. Differing views and opinions were censored or labeled as misinformation.

We can only hope that our experience doing Covid is a cautionary tale for the future.

Conventional wisdom and consensus is not always right.

In fact, at times it is 100% wrong.

Dick Fosbury proved that.

So did Pete Gogolak.

Beware conventional wisdom and consensus.

It is only by doing so that societies improve and advance.

What's Next For Canada?

What's next for Canada now that the national elections have left the Liberals in control of the country for another four years?

In many respects Canada is facing much more difficult problems than the United States.

Canada's economy is very dependent on trade with the United States but the threat of tariffs puts the country's future in doubt.

77% of Canada exports go to the United States.

Those exports represent 22% of Canada's total GDP.

In fact, more goods are exported from Canada to the United States each year than any goods that are transferred among the provinces of Canada.

It will be difficult for Canada to win any trade war with the United States considering those numbers.

Housing affordability in Canada is far worse than in the United States.

The median home price in Canada is C$896,000 ($645,000 at the current exchange rate into $USD)

In Toronto it is C$1.2 million and in Vancouver it is C$1.7 million.

The average mortgage payment as a % of income is 62%.

In the United States the median house price has just passed $400,000.

Average incomes in the United States are also about 20% higher than in Canada---$66,622 vs $54,630.

Simply stated, house prices in Canada are 60% higher even though incomes are 20% lower than in the United States.

This is a major problem for Canada especially for younger people who increasingly consider that home ownership is an impossible dream.

A major reason that housing has become so unaffordable in Canada is that immigration has been allowed to skyrocket over the last decade under the Liberal Party.

The argument was that the added population was necessary to allow Canada's economy to grow.

However, if that was the reason, it has failed miserably.

Canada has one of the worst records for economic growth in the world over the last decade.

The immigration does not appear to have helped the economy but it will undeniably change the demographics and culture of Canada for the future.

Almost 30% of the population of Canada today was born outside the country.

In Toronto, that number is 47% and in Vancouver it is 42% according to recent estimates. 

By comparison, the percentage of foreign-born in the United States today is 15% which is the highest that it has ever been in the long history of the country.

As an example of how pervasive immigration has become to the fabric of Canada consider the fact that there are more Sihks in the Canadian legislature than there are in India's.

12 Liberals and 10 Conservatives.

As was the case in the United States election of 2024, there was a major divide in the way urban centers voted compared to the rest of the country.

Liberal Party support was greatest in urban centers where the concentration of immigrants is also highest.

We are also seeing the same trend in Canada that we are seeing in the United States lately.

Younger voters have become more conservative and older voters more liberal.

Voters 54 years of age and younger favored the Conservative Party.

Voters 55+ were the difference in the election for the Liberals.

Credit: https://x.com/RobynUrback/status/1918015772867121525

The biggest challenge Canada faces is the divide between those in Western Canada (with the exception of the Vancouver area) and the population centers in the East.

This is particularly true for the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan..

Due to their stronger fiscal position the Western Provinces, including Alberta and Saskatchewan, do not receive any equalization payments from Ottawa. This indicates that these provinces are effectively subsidizing the Eastern Provinces.

Alberta has already begun taking steps for a referendum on separation from Canada in the wake of this week's election.

I would expect to see a referendum on this issue to pass in Alberta within the next year.

If this occurs I would not be surprised to see Saskatchewan follow suit.

At that point under the constitutional rules and statutes in place the national government of Canada is required to bargain in good faith with regards to the complaints of the provincial residents.

These provinces have plenty to complain about.

Alberta and Saskatchewan have 95% of Canada's oil and gas reserves and 75% of its farmland.

However, they are vastly underrepresented in Canada's legislature.

The Liberal Party and Carney are openly hostile to the oil and gas industry and the any pipeline construction that is necessary to further monetize Alberta's natural resources.

In fact, Carney recently stated that companies who are not committed to "Net Zero" will be punished.

I assume that includes the cattle farmers in Alberta and Saskatchewan as well as the oil and gas producers. We know the the "Net Zero" crowd also would like to eliminate meat.

Link to video: 1917845975273558023

I don't expect Canada to be able to secede and become an independent country or to join the United States as the Canadian constitution requires all the other provinces to agree to separation. 

The other provinces are deriving too much economic benefit from Alberta and Saskatchewan to let them separate in the near future.

However, I do foresee a period of turmoil and tumult for Canada as result of the policies that the Liberals will undoubtedly continue to pursue.

Considering the deep political and social divisions that have developed in Canada it is not far-fetched that we might see Canada implode or split apart in the longer term.

What's next for Canada makes me even more grateful to be living in the United States of American right now.