« Goldpunk, strategy space, and Michael Woodford | Main | Why Medicare Vouchers Are Inefficient »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

would it not throw everything off if you could show that your population would have been much smaller (probably true?) without resource extraction?

Michael: Probably correct if we are just talking about the 20 percent share of total GDP. However, according to the Keay article the average ratio of counterfactual to observed real GNP per capita is just 0.823. Thus, he finds a significant contribution of natural resources to per capita output. It is per capita output rather than the total size of the economy that is the better indicator of individual benefit and welfare.

"Natural Resources Canada that apparently demonstrate that natural resources account for almost 20 percent of economic activity in Canada."

Where is the box drawn? Even the keyboard I am typing on is plastic which is petrochemical which is oil extraction. But less flippantly, is the person who works at the Sudbury smelter working in natural resources? They aren't mining. The heavy equipment mechanic or electrician underground?

What about the company that buys forklifts and ruggedizes them for use underground and sells them to Vale? Manufacturing or natural resource sector?

I guess what I am saying is the 20% number surely tells you more about your /definition/ of the natural resources sector than anything else.

I can't figure out why oil sands upgraders are in the "mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction" NAICS codes, while oil refineries and smelters are in manufacturing.

I'm interested in the amount of Dutch Disease fretting in Canada is Australia looks sanguine by comparison

Yet, borrowing from Kenneth Carter in a different context, a buck is a buck no matter where earned.

Except, it isn't. One way of earning a buck has a different set of consequences for our social future than another.

Macdonald and Baldwin's recent paper touches on this theme:


"From 1870 to 2010, the cumulative growth in the volume of real gross national income (GNI) due to trading gains is 18% larger than the more common measure of production, gross domestic product (GDP). The pattern is one of a long, initial period of positive growth in the gap between real GNI and real GDP from 1870 to 1920. This was followed by spurts of growth associated with the two world wars that were partly, but not fully, offset by subsequent reversals. The 1970s and the post-2000 petroleum and resource boom continued the long-term trend of an increasing differential between real GNI and real GDP."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

Blog powered by Typepad