Coyne – Tariffs are only the start: we must buckle down for years of conflict with the U.S. [population]
2025/03/08 7 Comments
Coyne somewhat surprisingly ends up endorsing the Century 2100 population goal, with little critical thinking regarding its limitations and fallacies (a larger population does not mean a more prosperous population):
…Last, and perhaps most important: if we’re tired of the Americans kicking sand in our faces, maybe it’s time we bulked up. We’re roughly 42 million to their 340 million today. But suppose we aimed to make that eight-to-one margin more like four-to-one by the end of the century. Suppose, that is, we took seriously the idea of aiming for a population of 100 million.
To get there in 75 years would require no acceleration in population growth: in fact, it would mean slowing our growth considerably, to roughly 1.2 per cent per annum, from the 1.5 per cent annually it has averaged over the last 75 years.
It isn’t only our relationship with the United States this would change. Most other large developed countries are projected to flatline or shrink over the same interval. By 2100, according to the United Nations, the population of Japan will fall from 123 million today to 74 million; Germany, from 85 million to 71 million; Italy, from 59 million to 35 million. France and the United Kingdom are projected to grow slightly, to 68 million and 74 million, respectively.
Were we merely to double our current population by then (a growth rate of less than 1 per cent annually), therefore, we would be the second largest developed country, a major player on the world stage – and better placed to hold our own against the Great Republic to our south.
Source: Tariffs are only the start: we must buckle down for years of conflict with the U.S.
About Andrew
Multicultural Meanderings 
Coyne is not neutral on Century 21; he’s one of its advocates. He set up a Globe and Mail session to promote it, you’ll see if you look.
Coyne is not neutral on Century 21; he’s one of its advocates. He set up a Globe and Mail session to promote it, you’ll see if you look.
The Globe, with support for the business community, set up the session, and Coyne, to my recollection, wasn’t involved. True, he has written at least one other commentary favouring population growth. Keller, on the other hand, has been an ongoing critic of the government’s immigration policies.
I am sorry but I agree with Mr. Coyne. We have a country that is about 90% uninhabited, we have a great deal of room to expand. Population expansion can be a great bennefit to all of us & future generations. My only complaint against Mr. Coyne’s opinion piece is that he would refer to the swamp to our south as a ” Great Republic “. This place is not and never has been great……… any country that over 50% of the voters would vote for a convicted fellon, a con-artist, a sexual preditor, a habitual liar, and a major scam artist to be their president can never be great.
Thank you
We have the space but the vast majority live next to the US border and in our major cities. Unlikely to change and governments to date have not addressed the infrastructure, healthcare and housing needs of a much larger population. Larger population doesn’t address productivity and prosperity as the last few years have indicated.
No need to be sorry, appreciate our exchange of views.
Our major problem is that we have an aging population and a shortage of workers for many of the economic sectors. The worst shortage are in construction, healthcare, skilled trades, and the service sector. We can not depend on imigration for the long road, yes it will take many years but we must start now. I hope we as Canadians have to forsight to move forward quickly.
Thank You
James
Most of the demographers believe that immigration will only have a limited impact on long-term aging trends given that immigrants themselves age.