There's a fellow named Richard Florida who has some interesting ideas. Namely that U.S. economic dominance is threatened due to, among other things, it's unwieldy size and "unlivability."

On the latter point, I recall a press conference conversation between President Clinton and Prime Minister Chretein. The latter commented that Canada was "objectively" a better place to live than the United States and that various studies or polls had said so. Clinton, as one would expect of even a Democratic president, disagrees.

It wasn't long after that when I took a trip to Canada. Lovely country. Nice people. There was an article in the Toronto Star about the "brain drain"... the tendency of the most qualified Canadians to emigrate to the US.

Canada may have been an "objectively better" nation in which to leave, but we were attracting their best talent.

Florida suggests that the opposite is about to occur (or is occuring):

"The labour market for creative people is global," he insists. "Quality of place matters. It's not just about low taxes and cheap goods. The message is that we need to invest in people and places. That means schools and the urban realm, not giant projects. We must emphasize what's unique about a place, not what's generic.

"We're moving to a multi-polar world," Florida continues. "Countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand, these are the real competitors now. The U.S. lead is not invincible. There is a general sense that the U.S. is a far less tolerant place than it used to be. It's not just a product of the Bush administration. Historically, the U.S. was able to attract the brightest and the best, but we no longer hold that position."

Though Florida has yet to set his sights directly on Canada, he anticipates that will happen within six months. So far, he is impressed with what he sees.

"I expect Canada would do rather well," he says. "At the forefront of countries that have the ability to attract immigrants is Canada. You have the mosaic instead of the melting pot. That means you can keep your identity and still be a Canadian. Europe is as tolerant as Canada in its attitudes to immigrants, but bad at assimilation."

Other major indicators, he adds, are tolerance of gays and minorities. Canada, Florida feels, scores well in both those categories.

I'd be very interested to hear immigration rates to the US vis-a-vis Canada. If, in fact, they are attracting more of the talent then it could indeed pose a problem. Attracting the best and the brightest is something that contributes heavily to my argument.

Florida offers no statistics to this effect, however. Maybe that's what I'm supposed to buy his book for. Regardless, something else he said casts suspicion over the rest:

Though the U.S. and, to a lesser extent, Canada have put their faith in tax cuts as an economic stimulus, Florida claims they are wrong. "The highest tax locations in the U.S. have the fastest growth," he notes. "Low tax rates and deregulation don't attract people. They're looking for economic opportunities and lifestyle opportunities.

How so? With the big exception of California, the fastest growing states are predominantly conservative/libertarian ones. In fact, the 2000 census shifted electoral votes (which are, of course, based on population) away from Blue states and towards Red ones.

People are still trending away from (cheap) towns and towards (expensive) big cities, but that can't be the crux of an article titled "small is beautiful", can it?