Tuesday, December 9, 2025

Gov_Debt

 Copilot:

Canada enjoys a reasonable debt to GDP ratio, but I'm not sure whether provincial indebtedness is factored in. Is it?

Short Answer: Yes — Canada’s headline debt-to-GDP ratio usually refers to federal debt only, but economists and policy institutes often calculate a combined federal–provincial debt-to-GDP ratio, which is significantly higher because provincial indebtedness is included.

🇨🇦 How Debt-to-GDP Is Measured in Canada

1. Federal Debt-to-GDP

The Government of Canada reports its own debt relative to GDP.

This is the figure most often cited internationally (e.g., IMF, World Bank).

As of 2024/25, Canada’s federal debt-to-GDP ratio is in the 40–45% range, which looks moderate compared to other advanced economies.


2. Combined Federal–Provincial Debt-to-GDP

When you add provincial debt, the picture changes.

Combined net debt (federal + provincial) nearly doubled from $1.18 trillion in 2007/08 to about $2.18 trillion in 2023/24.

The combined debt-to-GDP ratio rose from 65.7% in 2019/20 to about 76.2% in 2023/24.

Some provinces are especially indebted: Nova Scotia’s combined ratio is close to 97%, while Alberta’s is much lower at 43%.


3. Provincial Debt Alone

Provinces issue their own bonds and manage their own debt.

Several provinces (Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland & Labrador) carry large debts relative to their economies.

A 2024 Fraser Institute study found that 7 out of 10 provinces had debt burdens larger than their economies when combined with federal debt.

                                                                                       

⚖️ Why This Matters

International comparisons: Canada looks fiscally healthier if only federal debt is counted.

Domestic reality: Provinces are responsible for costly services (healthcare, education, infrastructure), so their debt is substantial.

Policy implications: Federal transfers and equalization payments help poorer provinces manage debt, but the combined burden is what ultimately affects taxpayers and economic growth.

✅ Bottom line: Canada’s “reasonable” debt-to-GDP ratio is true at the federal level, but provincial debt is not automatically factored in. When it is, the combined ratio is much higher — closer to three-quarters of GDP — and varies sharply across provinces.

Would you like me to break down province-by-province debt-to-GDP ratios so you can see which provinces are driving Canada’s higher combined figure?


Which are the culprits, and by how much?

Provincial debt burdens in Canada

Below is a quick view of which provinces drive Canada’s higher combined public debt burden and, where available, by how much.

                                                                                  


Key numbers and context

National combined ratio: Canada’s combined federal–provincial debt-to-GDP is projected at about 74.8% in 2024/25.

Highest province: Newfoundland & Labrador, at 88.4% combined, leads the country’s provincial burden.

Lowest province: Alberta, at 40.8% combined, reflects stronger growth and a larger resource revenue base.

Recent trend: Updated provincial GDP accounts in 2024–2025 modestly reduced measured debt burdens for most provinces by raising the GDP denominators, but the ranking pattern broadly holds.

Direct answer

The main “culprits,” in terms of pushing Canada’s combined public debt ratio higher, are the Atlantic provinces (especially Newfoundland & Labrador) and the large Central provinces (Ontario and Quebec). The lowest contributor is Alberta, with Saskatchewan and, to a degree, British Columbia generally below or near the national combined figure.

If you want, I can pull the latest provincial net debt-to-GDP (provincial-only) figures alongside the combined numbers for a clearer province-by-province picture.


Does Alberta enjoy better borrowing rates than other provinces?

Direct Answer: Yes — Alberta generally enjoys better borrowing rates than many other provinces because of its stronger credit rating (AA, stable) and relatively low debt-to-GDP ratio. Provinces with weaker fiscal positions (like Newfoundland & Labrador or Manitoba) face higher borrowing costs.

                                                                                     



🔑 Why Alberta Gets Better Rates

Credit Rating Strength: Alberta’s AA rating signals low risk to investors, keeping yields lower.

Debt Profile: Alberta’s debt-to-GDP ratio (~41%) is the lowest among provinces, reducing perceived risk.

Resource Revenues: Oil and gas royalties provide a strong revenue base, reassuring bond markets.

Investor Confidence: Alberta’s fiscal surpluses in recent years have reinforced its reputation for stability.

⚖️ Comparison

Atlantic provinces (esp. Newfoundland & Labrador) pay much higher interest rates because of weak credit ratings and high debt burdens.

Ontario and Quebec borrow at higher rates than Alberta due to their large absolute debts, even though their economies are bigger.

British Columbia is closest to Alberta in terms of borrowing costs, but Alberta’s lower debt ratio gives it a slight edge.

✅ Bottom line: Alberta does enjoy better borrowing rates than most provinces, thanks to its AA credit rating, low debt ratio, and strong resource-backed revenues. This advantage means Alberta spends less on debt servicing compared to provinces with weaker fiscal positions.

Would you like me to show you actual interest rate spreads on provincial bonds (e.g., Alberta vs Ontario vs Newfoundland) so you can see the market difference in basis points?


Yes...

Quick Answer: Yes — Alberta does enjoy better borrowing rates than most provinces. Its AA credit rating and relatively low debt-to-GDP ratio mean investors demand lower yields compared to provinces like Ontario, Quebec, or Newfoundland & Labrador, which carry heavier debt loads and weaker ratings.

                                                                                      



🔑 Why Alberta Borrows Cheaper

Credit Rating Strength: Confirmed AA rating with stable outlook.

Debt Profile: Lowest combined debt-to-GDP (~41%), compared to national ~75%.

Resource Revenues: Oil and gas royalties provide a strong revenue base.

Investor Confidence: Surpluses in recent years reinforce Alberta’s reputation for fiscal discipline.

⚖️ Comparison

Alberta & BC: Pay the lowest borrowing costs.

Ontario & Quebec: Pay moderately higher rates due to sheer debt size.

Atlantic provinces (esp. Newfoundland & Labrador): Pay the highest rates, reflecting weaker credit ratings and high debt burdens.

✅ Bottom line: Alberta’s strong fiscal position translates directly into lower bond yields and borrowing costs compared to most other provinces. Investors reward Alberta with tighter spreads, saving the province millions annually in debt servicing.


Would you like me to pull actual yield numbers for recent Alberta vs Ontario vs Newfoundland bond issues (e.g., 10-year maturities) so you can see the precise market difference in percentage terms?


What is a basis point?

A basis point (bp) is a unit of measure used in finance to describe changes in interest rates, bond yields, or other percentages. 

                                                                                                


💡 Why It’s Used

Financial markets deal with very small changes in rates. Saying “the yield rose by 0.05%” is clunky — instead, traders say “it rose by 5 basis points.”

It avoids confusion: if someone says “rates increased by 0.5%,” that could mean to 0.5% or by 0.5 percentage points. Basis points make it clear.

📌 Example

If Alberta bonds yield 3.00% and Ontario bonds yield 3.25%, the difference is 25 basis points.

If the Bank of Canada raises its policy rate from 4.50% to 4.75%, that’s an increase of 25 basis points.

✅ Bottom line: A basis point is simply a precise way of expressing tiny changes in percentages — 1 bp = 0.01%.

Would you like me to illustrate this with a visual chart showing basis point changes vs percentage changes so you can see how they scale?


Colder

 It's bad (-22C) , but there is more extreme cold elsewhere. Below, Yakutsk, Russia:


                                                                                   



Copilot:

Russia; describe to me the various 'subjects' of the Russian Federation...

Quick Answer: The Russian Federation is composed of 85 federal subjects (though some are disputed internationally). These subjects are the country’s primary administrative divisions, and they fall into several categories: republics, krais (territories), oblasts (regions), federal cities, autonomous oblast, and autonomous okrugs.

                                                                                     



🌍 Key Details
Total subjects: 85 (including Crimea and Sevastopol, disputed internationally).

Largest by area: Sakha Republic (Yakutia), over 3 million km².

Smallest by area: Sevastopol, ~864 km².

Most populous: Moscow, over 13 million people.

Least populous: Nenets Autonomous Okrug, ~41,000 people.

⚖️ Political Significance
Republics are the most autonomous, with their own constitutions and official languages.

Federal cities are directly controlled by the central government due to their strategic importance.

Autonomous okrugs often overlap administratively with oblasts or krais but retain special status for indigenous peoples.

Oblasts and krais are the backbone of Russia’s administrative system, functioning much like provinces in other countries.

🧭 Context
Russia’s federal subjects reflect its vast geography and ethnic diversity. From the tundra of Chukotka to the industrial heartland of Sverdlovsk, each subject plays a role in balancing local identity with Moscow’s centralized power. The system is complex: some regions enjoy cultural autonomy, while others are tightly controlled by the federal government.

Would you like me to map out the subjects by region (European Russia, Siberia, Far East, Caucasus, etc.) so you can see how they’re distributed geographically? That gives a clearer picture of Russia’s immense diversity.


What kind of tax arrangements are there with Republics, such as Sakha?

Quick Answer: Republics like Sakha (Yakutia) follow the general Russian Tax Code, but they enjoy greater fiscal autonomy than oblasts or krais. They can set certain regional tax rates, retain a larger share of revenues from natural resources, and negotiate special arrangements with Moscow due to their ethnic and geographic status.

🏛 Tax System in Russian Republics
1. General Framework
All federal subjects, including republics, operate under the Russian Tax Code.

Taxes are divided into:

Federal taxes (e.g., VAT, excise duties, corporate profit tax, personal income tax).

Regional taxes (e.g., property tax, transport tax, gambling tax).

Local taxes (e.g., land tax, personal property tax).

2. Republic-Level Autonomy
Republics have constitutions and can legislate within the framework of the Tax Code.

They can adjust rates of certain regional taxes (e.g., property and transport taxes).

They often negotiate special fiscal arrangements with Moscow, especially where resource extraction is central (oil). 


So they are not autonomous with respect to raising and spending, such as the US States or Canadian Provinces are...

Exactly — you’ve put your finger on one of the big differences between Russia’s federal subjects and the federal units in countries like the United States or Canada.

                                                                                      



⚖️ The Bottom Line
Russia’s federal subjects are administrative divisions with limited fiscal sovereignty. They do not enjoy the same freedom to raise and spend money as US states or Canadian provinces. Moscow maintains strong control over taxation and redistribution, which keeps regions financially dependent on the center.

This centralization is deliberate: it ensures political stability and prevents wealthy resource-rich regions (like oil-producing Khanty-Mansi or gas-rich Yamalo-Nenets) from becoming too independent. In contrast, US states and Canadian provinces are designed to be semi-sovereign fiscal entities, balancing local autonomy with federal unity.

Would you like me to break down which Russian regions are most dependent on federal subsidies versus those that are net contributors? That paints a vivid picture of how uneven Russia’s fiscal landscape really is.







Monday, December 8, 2025

Walk-through

 A document was published Friday in Washington, outlining American Foreign Policy, 

as defined by the trump Administration. Below, le Monde walks us through it (in French):

https://archive.ph/nmCOJ

Copilot:

Last Friday, theTrump Administration made public a document on America's Foreign Policy. What was the occasion? The president was off to a meeting somewhere...

The occasion was the release of President Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy on December 4, 2025, just before he appeared at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C. to present and frame the document publicly.

📌 What Happened

On Thursday, December 4, 2025, the Trump Administration formally unveiled its National Security Strategy (NSS), a document that every U.S. president typically issues once per term to outline America’s global priorities.

The NSS is a comprehensive foreign policy blueprint that guides how U.S. agencies—from the Pentagon to the Treasury—allocate resources and set priorities.

President Trump tied the release to a speech at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C., where he highlighted the strategy’s themes.

🌍 Key Themes of the 2025 NSS

Western Hemisphere focus: A stronger U.S. military presence in the Americas to counter migration, drug trafficking, and adversarial powers.

Europe in decline: The document controversially described Europe as facing “civilizational erasure” and criticized EU policies.

Energy dominance: Calls for a return to “American energy dominance,” rejecting climate science consensus.

Russia-Ukraine war: Framed resolution of the conflict as a central U.S. interest.

Limited attention to Middle East & Africa: Unlike past strategies, these regions received less emphasis.

⚠️ Why It Matters

The NSS is not just symbolic—it influences budgets, military deployments, and diplomatic priorities across the U.S. government.

Trump’s version marked a sharp departure from previous strategies, emphasizing non-interventionism and “America First” principles.

The timing—right before his public remarks in Washington—was deliberate, giving the president a platform to frame his foreign policy worldview as he headed into further international engagements.

✅ Takeaway

The “document on America’s Foreign Policy” you’re referring to was the 2025 National Security Strategy, released on December 4, 2025, with the occasion being Trump’s speech at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C. to present the strategy.

Would you like me to break down how this NSS compares to earlier ones (like Biden’s 2022 version) so you can see how Trump’s approach diverges? That contrast is quite revealing.


Yes...

In short: Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) diverges sharply from Biden’s 2022 version. Trump’s plan emphasizes “America First,” Western Hemisphere dominance, and skepticism of global alliances, while Biden’s focused on strategic competition with China and Russia, climate change, and rebuilding coalitions.

🔑 Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS)

Western Hemisphere focus: Calls for U.S. “preeminence” in the Americas, reviving a Monroe Doctrine–style approach.

Europe in decline: Describes Europe as facing “civilizational erasure,” criticizing EU integration and migration policies.

Energy dominance: Rejects climate science consensus, promoting fossil fuel expansion and “energy independence.”

China & Taiwan: Mentions deterring China from seizing Taiwan but does not frame Beijing as the top challenge.

Middle East & Africa deemphasized: Unlike past strategies, these regions are not central priorities.

Economic nationalism: Advocates trade protectionism and reshoring industries.

Tone: Skeptical of alliances, critical of NATO/EU, and focused on sovereignty over multilateralism.

🌍 Biden’s 2022 National Security Strategy (NSS)

Strategic competition with China & Russia: Framed China as the “most consequential geopolitical challenge,” with Russia as an acute threat.

Climate change as core security issue: Positioned climate action as central to U.S. security and prosperity.

Coalition-building: Emphasized alliances (NATO, EU, Indo-Pacific partners) as force multipliers.

Domestic investment: Linked industrial policy, technology, and supply chains to national security.

Democracy promotion: Framed defending democratic values as a strategic imperative.

Tone: Cooperative, multilateral, and future-oriented, stressing shared challenges like pandemics and cyber threats.

                                                                                  


⚠️ Why This Matters

Policy direction: Trump’s NSS signals a retreat from global coalition leadership, focusing instead on regional dominance and domestic sovereignty.

Global perception: Allies may see the U.S. as less reliable, while adversaries may interpret the shift as opportunity.

Climate & energy: The stark contrast on climate policy could reshape global negotiations and energy markets.

👉 The contrast is striking: Biden’s NSS was about global competition and cooperation, Trump’s is about regional dominance and unilateralism.

Would you like me to map out how these differences could affect Canada specifically—given your location in Quebec—on trade, defense, and climate policy? That could make the comparison more tangible for you.


I find mention of regional dominance disquieting. The US coudn't be stronger within...

I hear you — the phrase regional dominance can sound unsettling, because it implies projecting power outward rather than focusing inward. Let’s unpack why it appears in Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy and why it might feel disquieting.

🌎 What “Regional Dominance” Means in the NSS

Western Hemisphere focus: The document emphasizes U.S. “preeminence” in the Americas, echoing the old Monroe Doctrine.

Strategic intent: It suggests the U.S. should be the uncontested power in its own hemisphere, limiting influence from rivals like China or Russia.

Practical implications: More military presence in Latin America, tighter border controls, and economic leverage over neighbors.

🏠 Why Critics Say “Stronger Within” Matters More

Domestic resilience: Many argue that America’s strength comes from internal stability — strong institutions, infrastructure, and social cohesion.

Economic competitiveness: Investing in technology, education, and industry at home can be more effective than projecting dominance abroad.

Global credibility: Allies often judge U.S. leadership by how well it manages its own democracy and economy.

Risk of overreach: History shows that focusing too much on external dominance can drain resources and weaken domestic priorities.

⚖️ The Tension

Trump’s NSS: Frames dominance as necessary to secure borders and prevent external threats.

Alternative view: A stronger U.S. “within” — through domestic investment, unity, and innovation — naturally translates into influence abroad without needing to assert dominance.

💡 Takeaway

Your instinct is valid: regional dominance can sound like a distraction from internal strength. The debate is really about where security comes from — outward projection of power versus inward resilience.

Would you like me to show you historical examples where the U.S. leaned too heavily on external dominance (like Vietnam or Iraq) versus times it invested inward (like the New Deal or post-WWII industrial boom)? That contrast might make the “stronger within” idea more concrete.


I just thought this might be a reference to the US stance toward Canada, Mexico...

That’s a very perceptive connection. When Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy talks about regional dominance or Western Hemisphere preeminence, it does indeed touch on the U.S. stance toward Canada and Mexico, since they are America’s closest neighbors and core partners in North America.

🇨🇦 Canada

Trade & energy: Canada is deeply tied to the U.S. economy through USMCA (the successor to NAFTA). A push for “energy dominance” could mean pressure on Canadian oil, gas, and hydro exports.

Defense & NORAD: Canada is a critical partner in continental defense. A U.S. emphasis on dominance could translate into stronger expectations for Canadian military spending and cooperation in Arctic security.

Diplomatic tone: The NSS’s skepticism of alliances may strain traditional U.S.-Canada cooperation, especially on climate and multilateral institutions.

🇲🇽 Mexico

Border security: The NSS highlights migration and drug trafficking as threats. This points to tougher U.S. border enforcement and demands on Mexico to curb flows northward.

Economic leverage: Mexico’s manufacturing supply chains are vital to U.S. industry. Economic nationalism could mean stricter trade rules or tariffs.

Security cooperation: The U.S. may push Mexico harder on cartel violence and fentanyl trafficking, framing it as a hemispheric security issue.

🌎 Why “Regional Dominance” Matters

It signals that the U.S. sees North America not as a partnership of equals, but as a sphere where it must remain the uncontested leader.

For Canada and Mexico, this stance can feel less like cooperation and more like pressure — whether on defense, trade, or border issues.

The language echoes the Monroe Doctrine tradition, where Washington historically sought to limit external influence in the Americas (e.g., Europe, now China).

✅ Takeaway

Your intuition was right: regional dominance in Trump’s NSS is very much about Canada and Mexico. It frames them less as allies in a balanced partnership and more as neighbors within a U.S.-led sphere of influence.

Would you like me to dig into how Canada’s government has responded so far to this NSS? That could show whether Ottawa sees it as a threat, a challenge, or simply rhetoric.


Tell me about the Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine was a U.S. foreign policy announced in 1823 that declared the Americas off-limits to future European colonization and intervention. It became a cornerstone of American diplomacy, shaping relations in the Western Hemisphere for nearly two centuries.

🌎 Origins and Context

Date & Author: Introduced by President James Monroe on December 2, 1823, during his annual message to Congress.

Backdrop: Many Latin American nations had recently gained independence from Spain. The U.S. feared that European powers—especially Spain, France, and Russia—might attempt to reassert control.

British Role: Britain, with its powerful navy, supported the idea of limiting European influence in the Americas, which helped give the doctrine practical weight.

📜 Core Principles

No New Colonization: The Western Hemisphere was closed to future European colonization.

Non-Interference: European powers should not interfere in the political affairs of newly independent nations in the Americas.

U.S. Neutrality: In return, the U.S. pledged not to meddle in European internal affairs or wars.

⚖️ Significance

Immediate Impact: Initially, the doctrine had little enforcement power—the U.S. lacked a strong military. It relied on Britain’s naval dominance to deter European intervention.

Long-Term Influence: Over time, it became a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, invoked repeatedly to justify American actions in Latin America.

Roosevelt Corollary (1904): Expanded the doctrine, asserting the U.S. right to intervene in Latin American nations to stabilize them, effectively turning the Monroe Doctrine into a tool of U.S. imperialism.

Cold War Era: Used to oppose Soviet influence in Cuba and elsewhere in the hemisphere.

🌐 Legacy

Latin America: While it protected independence from Europe, many Latin American nations saw it as a cover for U.S. dominance.

Modern Relevance: The doctrine still echoes in U.S. policy discussions, especially regarding foreign influence in the Americas.

✅ In short: The Monroe Doctrine began as a defensive policy against European colonialism but evolved into a justification for U.S. intervention and influence across the Western Hemisphere.

Would you like me to break down how different U.S. presidents have reinterpreted the Monroe Doctrine over time—from Theodore Roosevelt to the Cold War and beyond? That’s where the story gets even more interesting.

                                                                           *     *     *

Today is my birthday. I got invited to lunch by Lyse yesterday, and feasted on an Italian

poutine. This evening, I am watching a film, Scarface; apparently a cult film of the ganster

genre. I am told it was extremely cold on the day of my actual birth. Well, it is again...


Below, an AI generated image of Stalin eating McDonalds. The historians of the future

are going to be sooo confused!!


                                                                            



Sunday, December 7, 2025

Maybe Not_So_Bad

 There is currently a lot of moaning and groaning on the net about how Las Vegas

might be going under: not so sure. Tourists numbers are one thing, revenues from

the ones that are ther another. Below:


Saturday, December 6, 2025

On_Division

 Things seem to be getting murky in the House on how various budget-related bills might

be passed next week. Below:

https://archive.ph/umIZZ

Copilot:

Canadian government; what does it mean that a confidence motion is approved 'on division'?

In Canadian parliamentary practice, when a confidence motion is approved “on division”, it means the motion passed without a recorded standing vote — the Speaker declared it carried because no one demanded a formal division, even though some MPs clearly disagreed. In other words, the House acknowledges there was opposition, but it doesn’t tally individual votes.

🔎 Breaking it down
Confidence motions: These are votes that test whether the government still has the support of the House of Commons. Losing one usually forces the government to resign or triggers an election.

“On division”: This phrase signals that the motion passed, but not unanimously. Some MPs voiced opposition (often by saying “No” when the Speaker asked), yet no party or group requested a recorded vote (a “division” where MPs stand or electronic votes are counted).

Practical effect: The government survives the confidence test, but the record doesn’t show exactly how many MPs opposed. It’s a way to move business along without prolonging debate or forcing a roll-call vote.

⚖️ Why it matters
Political optics: Passing “on division” can reduce drama. It avoids headlines about razor-thin margins (like 170–168 votes) while still acknowledging dissent.

Procedural efficiency: It saves time in the House, especially when opposition parties don’t want to force a full division but also don’t want to appear as endorsing the government unanimously.

Minority governments: In Canada’s current context, this practice is common. It allows the government to survive confidence votes without the opposition formally recording their numbers against it, which can be strategic for both sides.

📌 Example
In June 2025, the Liberals’ throne speech motion was carried on division. That meant MPs agreed to let it pass, but some opposed without triggering a recorded vote. Similarly, recent budget-related confidence motions have been approved this way to avoid another nail-biter recorded voteYahoo News Canada.

So, Louise, when you see “confidence motion approved on division”, think of it as: “It passed, but not unanimously — dissent was noted, no roll call taken.” It’s a procedural shortcut that acknowledges opposition without formally counting votes.

Would you like me to show you how this differs from a recorded division (with standing votes and tallies), so you can see the contrast clearly in a side-by-side table?

                                                                           *     *     *

Been on GeoGebra Classic online, learning to reproduce the favourite fruit tutorial.

The latter was done 10 years ago, on an earlier version of the app. I cannot, with this version,

color the bars individually unless i change the input prtocol. All the bars form a single

figure on this one...

                                                                                  



*     *     *

                                                                                       












Friday, December 5, 2025

Clear

 The simple way to use Geogebra for bar graphs. Clear:


Migrations

 Had  bit of a chat about migration patterns, with Copilot, a few  days ago. Or

rather Copilot had a little talk with me...Worth the read:

Copilot: 


What percentage of South Africa is white?

About 7% of South Africa’s population is white in 2025. According to the latest mid-year 

estimates from Statistics South Africa, the white population continues to decline both in 

absolute numbers and as a share of the total population.


📊 Current Demographic Breakdown

Total population (2025): ~63–64.7 million people

White population share: ~7% (around 4.4–4.5 million individuals)

Trend: The white population is the only demographic group in South Africa that is 

shrinking, due to factors such as lower birth rates and emigration.

🔎 Historical Context

In the mid-1990s, whites made up about 10–11% of South Africa’s population.

By 2011 (census data), this had dropped to 8.9%.

Today, it has fallen further to around 7%, reflecting a long-term downward trend.

📉 Why the Decline?

Emigration: Many white South Africans have left for countries like Australia, the UK, 

and Canada.

Lower fertility rates: White families tend to have fewer children compared to other 

demographic groups.

Population growth elsewhere: Black African, Coloured, and Indian/Asian populations 

are growing faster, shifting the overall balance.

🌍 Comparative Note

South Africa remains one of the most diverse countries in Africa, but the demographic 

balance has shifted significantly over the past 30 years. The white population is now 

proportionally smaller than in other multi-ethnic nations like Namibia (where whites 

are ~6%) or Zimbabwe (where whites are <1%).

✅ In summary: Whites make up about 7% of South Africa’s population in 2025, a share 

that has steadily declined from over 10% in the 1990s due to emigration and demographic 

trends.

Louise, since you enjoy comparative modeling, would you like me to build a timeline 

chart of South Africa’s demographic shifts (from 1990 to 2025) so you can visualize how the 

percentages have changed over time?


What percentage of London's population is Black?

Around 13–14% of London’s population identifies as Black (African, Caribbean, or Other Black) according to the 2021 Census.

📊 Breakdown of London’s Ethnic Composition

Total population (2021 Census): ~8.9 million people

Black population share: ~13.5% (about 1.2 million individuals)

Other major groups:

White (all categories): ~54%

Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, Other Asian): ~20%

Mixed/Other ethnic groups: ~12%

🔎 Key Notes

London is the most ethnically diverse region in England and Wales, with the highest 

proportion of Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) residents.

The Black population is concentrated in boroughs such as Lewisham, Lambeth, 

Southwark, Hackney, and Croydon, where percentages are significantly higher than 

the London average.

The proportion of Black Londoners has remained relatively stable since the 2011 Census 

(when it was ~13%), though the African subgroup has grown faster than the Caribbean 

subgroup, reflecting migration and demographic trends.

🌍 Comparative Context

London’s Black population percentage is much higher than the England and Wales average, 

which is only about 4% nationally.

This makes London a cultural hub for Black British communities, with strong influence in 

politics, arts, music, and business.

✅ In summary: About 13–14% of Londoners are Black, making up one of the largest 

minority groups in the city and contributing to its status as one of the most multicultural 

capitals in the world.

Louise, since you enjoy comparative modeling, would you like me to build a side‑by‑side 

table comparing London’s ethnic composition with the rest of England and Wales? It would 

highlight just how distinct London’s demographics are.


What percentage of Paris' population is Arab?

There are no official statistics on the “Arab” population in Paris, but estimates suggest 

that people of North African origin (Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian) make up roughly 

10–15% of the Paris metropolitan area’s population.

📊 Why No Exact Number?

France does not collect ethnic or religious data in its census. The French constitution 

prohibits official statistics based on race or ethnicity.

As a result, there is no “Arab” category in demographic surveys. Instead, researchers 

rely on immigration records, birthplace data, and independent studies to estimate.

🔎 Estimates from Research

The Paris metropolitan area (Île-de-France) has about 11.3 million residents (2025).

Independent studies and fact-checks suggest that Muslims make up 12–15% of the 

Paris region.

Since most Muslims in Paris are of North African descent (Algerian, Moroccan, 

Tunisian), this is often used as a proxy for the “Arab” population.

That translates to about 1.3–1.7 million people of Arab/North African origin in Paris 

and its suburbs.

🌍 Context

France overall has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe, estimated at 

9–10% nationally.

The Paris region has a higher concentration due to historical migration patterns, especially 

from Algeria (a former French colony).

Communities are particularly strong in Seine-Saint-Denis (93) and other northern/eastern 

suburbs, where the share of residents of North African origin is significantly higher 

than the city average.

⚖️ Important Caveat

“Arab” ≠ “Muslim”: not all Arabs are Muslim, and not all Muslims are Arab. Paris also 

has Muslim communities from Turkey, Sub-Saharan Africa, and elsewhere.

The 10–15% figure is therefore an approximation, not a precise census statistic.

✅ In summary: About 10–15% of Paris’s population is of Arab/North African origin, 

but France does not officially record ethnic data, so this figure is based on independent 

estimates using religion and immigration proxies.

Louise, since you enjoy comparative modeling, would you like me to build a side‑by‑side 

table comparing Paris, London, and Berlin’s estimated Arab/Muslim population shares? 

It would highlight how Paris stands out in Western Europe.


So ethnic minorities congregate in very large European cities.,,

You’ve spotted a very real demographic pattern 🌍. Ethnic minorities in Europe are 

disproportionately concentrated in major metropolitan areas rather than smaller towns 

or rural regions.

📊 Why Large Cities Attract Ethnic Minorities

Historical migration routes: Post‑WWII labor migration (e.g., Turkish workers to 

Germany, North Africans to France, South Asians to the UK) was directed toward 

industrial and urban centers.

Economic opportunities: Cities offer more jobs, especially in services, construction, 

transport, and healthcare.

Community networks: New arrivals often settle where existing diaspora communities 

already live, creating cultural hubs.

Accessibility: Large cities are transport hubs, making them easier entry points for migrants.

Education & services: Universities, hospitals, and social services are concentrated in 

metropolitan areas, attracting families.

📍 Examples

London: ~40% of residents are from minority ethnic backgrounds, compared to ~15% 

nationally.

Paris (Île‑de‑France): North African and Sub‑Saharan communities are heavily concentrated 

in suburbs like Seine‑Saint‑Denis, while rural France remains overwhelmingly native‑born.

Berlin: Turkish and Arab communities are prominent in districts like Neukölln and 

Kreuzberg, while eastern rural Germany has very low minority presence.

Amsterdam & Rotterdam: Large Surinamese, Antillean, and Moroccan populations, far 

higher than the Dutch national average.

🔎 Broader Implications

Cultural vibrancy: These cities become centers of multicultural life—food, music, festivals, 

and politics.

Social tensions: Concentration can also fuel debates about integration, housing, and inequality.

Political impact: Urban areas often vote differently than rural ones, partly reflecting 

their diverse populations.

✅ In short: Ethnic minorities in Europe are far more visible in big cities than in rural areas, 

due to migration history, economic opportunities, and community networks.

Louise, since you enjoy comparative modeling, would you like me to build a layered 

map or table showing minority population shares in Europe’s largest cities vs their 

national averages? It would make the contrast very clear.


What are the dominant ethnic minorities in Montreal, Toronto and Vanvouver?

In Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, the dominant ethnic minority groups differ, reflecting 

each city’s unique immigration history and cultural networks.

📊 Montreal (Québec)

Visible minorities: ~31% of the population

Dominant groups:

Black (Caribbean & African origin) – Montreal has one of the largest Black communities in 

Canada.

Arab/North African (Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian) – Strong presence due to 

Francophone migration links.

Latin American – Growing community, especially in central boroughs.

South Asian & Chinese – Smaller but significant populations.

Context: Montreal’s diversity is shaped by French-language immigration policies, so 

Francophone countries (North Africa, Haiti) are especially represented.


📊 Toronto (Ontario)

Visible minorities: ~57% of the population

Dominant groups:

South Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan) – The largest minority group.

Chinese – Long-established, with multiple Chinatowns.

Black (Caribbean & African origin) – Prominent in neighborhoods like Scarborough and 

Etobicoke.

Filipino – Rapidly growing community.

Arab & West Asian – Smaller but notable presence.

Context: Toronto is Canada’s most multicultural city, with nearly half of residents 

foreign-born. Ethnic enclaves (Little India, Greektown, Little Jamaica, Koreatown) 

highlight its diversity.


📊 Vancouver (British Columbia)

Visible minorities: ~54% of Metro Vancouver residents

Dominant groups:

Chinese – The largest minority, with deep historical roots.

South Asian (Punjabi, Indian) – Concentrated in Surrey and Richmond.

Filipino – Growing rapidly in recent decades.

Indigenous peoples – ~6% of BC’s population, with strong cultural presence.

Korean & Japanese – Smaller but visible communities.

Context: Vancouver’s Pacific Rim location makes it a hub for Asian immigration, 

shaping its cultural and economic identity.

                                                                                


✅ In summary:


Montreal → Black and Arab/North African communities dominate.

Toronto → South Asian and Chinese are the largest groups.

Vancouver → Chinese and South Asian are the most prominent.

Louise, since you enjoy layered comparisons, would you like me to build a timeline 

chart showing how these minority shares have grown from 1981 to 2021? It would 

highlight the different immigration waves shaping each city.


So what is the ethnic make-up of London?

London’s ethnic make‑up (2021 Census): About 54% White, 21% Asian, 14% Black, 

6% Mixed, and 6% Other.


📊 Detailed Breakdown (Greater London, 2021 Census)

Total population: ~8.9 million

White: 4.73 million (53.7%)

White British: ~36%

Other White (Irish, European, etc.): ~18%

Asian: 1.82 million (20.7%)

Indian: ~7%

Pakistani: ~3%

Bangladeshi: ~3%

Chinese: ~2%

Other Asian: ~6%

Black: 1.19 million (13.5%)

African: ~7%

Caribbean: ~4%

Other Black: ~2%

Mixed/Multiple ethnicities: 0.51 million (5.8%)

Other ethnic group: 0.56 million (6.3%)

🔎 Key Insights

London is the most ethnically diverse region in England and Wales.

The White British share has declined from ~42% in 2011 to ~36% in 2021.

Asian groups have grown, especially Indian and Bangladeshi communities.

The Black population remains stable at ~14%, but with growth in African 

groups and decline in Caribbean share.

Mixed and Other categories are rising, reflecting newer migration patterns and 

inter‑ethnic families.

🌍 Comparative Context

Nationally (England & Wales), 81.7% identify as White, compared to only 53.7% in London.

London has the highest proportion of ethnic minorities in the UK, with boroughs like 

Newham, Brent, and Tower Hamlets showing majority‑minority populations.

Over 300 languages are spoken in London, and ~41% of residents were born outside 

the UK.

✅ In summary: London’s population is majority‑minority, with White British now 

a minority at ~36%, and large Asian (21%) and Black (14%) communities making 

it one of the most multicultural cities in the world.

Louise, since you enjoy comparative modeling, would you like me to build a 

side‑by‑side table comparing London’s ethnic composition with Toronto and 

Vancouver? It would highlight how Canada’s big cities stack up against 

London’s diversity.




What about Brussels?

Brussels is one of Europe’s most diverse capitals: only about 25–30% of residents 

are of Belgian origin, while the majority are foreign-born or of immigrant 

descent, with large Moroccan, Turkish, and Sub-Saharan African communities.

📊 Ethnic Composition of Brussels (2025 estimates)

Total population: ~2.14 million in the wider urban agglomeration.

Belgian nationals: Roughly 25–30% of residents are native Belgians.

Foreign-born / immigrant origin: ~70–75% of the population.

Moroccan origin: The largest single minority group, estimated at 200,000–300,000 people.

Turkish origin: Significant community, especially in communes like Schaerbeek 

and Saint-Josse.

Sub-Saharan African origin: Congolese, Rwandan, and Burundian communities 

are prominent, reflecting Belgium’s colonial history.

EU migrants: Large numbers of French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Eastern 

Europeans, many working in EU institutions.


Other groups: Increasing presence of Middle Eastern and Asian migrants.

🔎 Key Insights

Youth demographics: Only ~12% of people under 18 in Brussels are of Belgian origin, 

showing how strongly immigrant families shape the city’s future.

Multilingualism: French dominates, but Arabic, Turkish, Lingala, Portuguese, and 

English are widely spoken alongside Dutch.

Religious diversity: Islam is the second-largest religion after Catholicism, with 

Muslims making up ~20–25% of Brussels’ population.

Urban concentration: Minority communities are especially concentrated in 

communes like Molenbeek, Schaerbeek, Anderlecht, and Saint-Josse.

🌍 Comparative Context

Brussels is more immigrant-heavy than Paris or London, where native-born populations 

are still the majority.

Its role as the EU capital attracts thousands of expatriates, making it not only ethnically 

diverse but also highly international.

The city’s diversity is both a cultural strength and a political challenge, with debates 

around integration, housing, and social cohesion.

✅ In summary: Brussels is majority-minority, with Moroccan, Turkish, 

Sub-Saharan African, and EU expatriate communities dominating the city’s 

demographic landscape. Native Belgians are now a minority, especially among 

younger generations.

Louise, since you enjoy comparative modeling, would you like me to build a 

side‑by‑side table comparing Brussels, Paris, and London’s minority shares? 

It would highlight how Brussels is uniquely international compared to its peers.


What are African cities like; are there many Europeans?

African cities are overwhelmingly African in population, with Europeans forming only 

small expatriate or business communities. The continent’s urban centers are growing 

rapidly, but they are not “Europeanized” in demographic terms.

📊 Urban Growth in Africa

Fastest urbanizing continent: Africa’s urban population is projected to double from

 ~700 million today to 1.4 billion by 2050.

Megacities: Cairo (~23 million), Kinshasa (~18 million), Lagos (~17 million), 

Luanda (~10 million), and Dar es Salaam (~8.5 million) are among the largest.

Urban challenges: Infrastructure, housing, transport, and governance are under 

pressure due to rapid growth.

🌍 Ethnic Composition

Predominantly African: The vast majority of residents are local populations—

Black Africans, Arabs, Berbers, and other indigenous groups depending on the region.

European presence:

Concentrated in South Africa (Johannesburg, Cape Town), where whites of European 

descent make up ~7% nationally.

Smaller expatriate communities exist in North African cities (Casablanca, Tunis, 

Cairo) and in capitals with international institutions (Addis Ababa, Nairobi, Dakar).

In most Sub-Saharan cities (Kinshasa, Lagos, Dar es Salaam), Europeans are a tiny 

fraction, often limited to diplomats, aid workers, or business executives.

Colonial legacy: Some cities retain European architectural and cultural influences 

(e.g., French in Dakar, Portuguese in Luanda, British in Nairobi), but demographically 

they are overwhelmingly African.

🔎 Examples

Johannesburg & Cape Town (South Africa): The largest European-descended 

populations in Africa, though still a minority.

Casablanca & Rabat (Morocco): Small French and Spanish expatriate communities, 

but Arabs and Berbers dominate.

Nairobi (Kenya): International hub with UN offices, so expatriates are visible, 

but still a small minority.

Kinshasa (DR Congo): Nearly 18 million residents, overwhelmingly Congolese, 

with Europeans limited to diplomatic/business enclaves.

⚖️ Key Takeaway

African cities are not like European cities demographically. They are majority African, 

with Europeans present mainly as expatriates, tourists, or in South Africa’s

 settler-descended population. The defining feature of African cities today is 

rapid urban growth and diversity within African populations themselves, not 

large-scale European communities.

✅ In summary: African cities are booming, diverse, and overwhelmingly 

African in population. Europeans are present mainly in South Africa and as small 

expatriate enclaves elsewhere, but they do not form a significant demographic share.

Louise, since you enjoy comparative modeling, would you like me to build a table 

contrasting African megacities (like Lagos, Kinshasa, Cairo) with European capitals 

(like Paris, London, Brussels) in terms of population size and minority composition? 

It would highlight how Africa’s urban growth is unique.


So it is inverse colonialism from a demographic standpoint?

That’s a sharp way of framing it, Louise. Let’s unpack the idea carefully.

⚖️ Colonialism vs. Today’s Demographic Shifts

Colonial era (19th–20th centuries):

European powers settled in Africa, Asia, and the Americas.

In some places (South Africa, Algeria, Kenya), Europeans formed sizable settler 

populations.

Colonies were governed by small European minorities ruling over large local 

majorities.

Post‑colonial era (late 20th–21st centuries):

Migration flows reversed: people from former colonies moved to Europe’s metropoles 

(London, Paris, Brussels).

Today, ethnic minorities from Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean are concentrated 

in Europe’s largest cities, sometimes forming 40–60% of the urban population.

Meanwhile, in African and Asian cities, Europeans are now tiny expatriate enclaves.

🔎 Why It Looks Like “Inverse Colonialism”

Demographic presence: Instead of Europeans dominating African cities, Africans and 

Asians are now highly visible in European capitals.

Cultural influence: Diaspora communities shape food, music, politics, 

and urban identity in Europe, much as Europeans once imposed their culture abroad.

Power asymmetry: The difference is that minorities in Europe don’t hold colonial 

power—they are citizens, migrants, or refugees within democratic states.

🌍 Key Distinction

Calling it inverse colonialism is metaphorical rather than literal:

Colonialism was about conquest, domination, and resource extraction.

Today’s migration is about labor demand, globalization, and post‑colonial ties.

Demographically, yes—Europe’s capitals now host large populations from former 

colonies, flipping the visibility pattern. But politically and economically, it’s not 

colonialism in reverse, because minorities don’t exercise imperial control.

✅ In summary: From a demographic standpoint, Europe’s big cities do show a 

kind of mirror image of colonialism—large African and Asian communities in 

European metropoles, while Europeans are now marginal in African cities. But 

it’s not true “colonialism” in reverse, since the power dynamics are fundamentally 

different.

Would you like me to build a comparative chart showing colonial‑era European 

settler shares in African cities vs. today’s minority shares in European capitals? 

That would make the “inverse” pattern visually clear.

Thursday, December 4, 2025

The_Battle

 It's something of a battle, and I haven't said my last word: getting

GeoGebra Classic (online) to allow annotation on a bar graph.


The trick is to copy the graph to Graphics View, and erase the graphic

background. One then has access to a text function on the tools bar!!


                                                                    




Now if I could get rid of that green...

*     *     *

Pantone just released the Color of the year for 2026, and it is a white called

Cloud Dancer:

                                                                                   

Umph! I deal with white all day on the computer. This better be good when the products

start showing up...




Wednesday, December 3, 2025

Bar_Chart

 In point of fact, yesterday's exercise with the costs of utility figure was not the

required output. in reality, the cost increase is an annual event, on the anniversary date. 

So a bar graph is required. Below, one generated by Copilot:

                                                                      


The python code:

# Creating bar graph of annual utility cost with 3% yearly increase

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

# Data
years = list(range(1, 11))
costs = [103.00, 106.09, 109.27, 112.55, 115.93, 119.41, 123.00, 126.69, 130.49, 134.39]

# Create bar chart
plt.style.use('seaborn-v0_8')
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(10, 6))
bars = ax.bar(years, costs, color='skyblue')

# Add labels on top of each bar
for bar, cost in zip(bars, costs):
height = bar.get_height()
ax.text(bar.get_x() + bar.get_width()/2, height + 1, f"${cost:.2f}", ha='center', va='bottom', fontsize=9)

# Customize chart
ax.set_title('Annual Utility Cost with 3% Yearly Increase', fontsize=14)
ax.set_xlabel('Year', fontsize=12)
ax.set_ylabel('Cost ($)', fontsize=12)
ax.set_xticks(years)
ax.set_ylim(0, max(costs) + 10)
plt.tight_layout()

# Save figure
output_path = "/mnt/data/annual_utility_cost_bar_chart.png"
plt.savefig(output_path)
plt.show()

print("Bar chart of annual utility costs saved as annual_utility_cost_bar_chart.png")

I also had a try at producing a bar chart from Geogebra:

                                                                          


*     *     *

So now we know where big city highrise design is going: big-framed. JP Morgan,

the largest bank in the world, has a new new York headquarters. Houses 10,000 

employees...

                                                                           


Planned for Canary Wharf, London:

                                                                                  







Tuesday, December 2, 2025

Winter_Light

 For once, we are escaping a Winter wallop lightly:

                                                                                 


*     *     *

Hydro-Quebec is currently stopped from charging more that 3% more for a given year,
no matter how bad inflation might get. But for someone with a fixed income, there are still
challenges. It is the same with rent; every year the baseline is the current rent which is then
inflated). Chatted with Copilot about getting clear on the math in all this. Below:

The situation is, and I am using 100$ to illustrate, that I am getting an increase of 3% every year, including year 1. So year to year, what costs me 100$ in year 1 is now costing me more. And there is an increase of 3% on that amount...

Perfect — thanks for clarifying. You’re saying the increase applies starting in year 1 itself, so the $100 is not a fixed baseline, but already subject to the 3% growth each year. Let’s lay this out carefully.

                                                                                     






✅ So the difference is subtle:

If you treat year 1 as $100 flat, the total was $309.09.

If you treat year 1 as already increased by 3%, the total is $318.36.

Would you like me to also show you a side-by-side table for 10 years so you can see how quickly the compounding adds up?

Yes...

Great — let’s build that 10‑year side‑by‑side table so you can see the compounding clearly when the 3% increase applies starting in year 1.

                                                                                              




✅ Key takeaway:

Each year’s bill grows by 3% on the previous year.

After 10 years, the annual bill is $134.39.

The total across 10 years is about $1,181.70.

Would you like me to also plot this as a graph (year vs. cost) so you can visually see the curve of compounding growth?


Here’s the visual you asked for: the line chart shows how your utility bill grows over 10 years with a 3% annual increase starting in year 1.

                                                                                      


                                                                            

🔎 What the chart shows
Year 1: $103 (already includes the 3% increase)

Year 5: $115.93

Year 10: $134.39

The curve rises smoothly because each year’s bill compounds on the previous year. It’s not a straight line — it’s exponential growth.

💵 Total over 10 years
Adding all yearly costs together gives about $1,181.70 spent in total. That’s nearly 18% more than if the bill had stayed flat at $100 per year.

📌 Key takeaway
This chart makes clear how even a modest 3% annual increase steadily compounds into a significant difference over time. By year 10, your bill is more than 34% higher than the original baseline.


Could you define this curve as a pure exponential, so I can see it in online... 

Yes — the curve you’re describing is pure exponential growth. Let’s define it cleanly so you can plug it into any online graphing tool (like Desmos, GeoGebra, or WolframAlpha).

                                                                               


...



Asked Copilot to give me a version of the graph on base-e. Below:

                                                                                    


                                                                                             


They appear identical; are they?

Excellent observation — yes, they appear identical, and here’s why:

                                                                                                  







✅ Bottom line: They are mathematically identical at integer years, but the base‑𝑒

 form is more flexible because it extends naturally to fractional years and calculus 

operations.