Because a market of 38M people has fewer and smaller opportunities than a market of 334M people, assuming same relative levels of wealth.
Also, the US and Canada do not have the same level of wealth...the only country in the world that is close to the US in wealth is Switzerland and Australia (the latter is a bit unclear but is probably true once superannuation is included). Canada is definitely up there but is more similar to Europe than the US, again there is nowhere that really compares to the US.
What?! I have no idea where you got that idea from, but looking at https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/ you can see the USA is 13th in the world when its wealth is divided by its population.
If you were trying to say that the USA is the wealthiest nation in absolute terms, I would understand, but when you place Australia and Switzerland as the only nations that "come close" you're clearly implying per capita wealth, meaning that's nonsense.
And measuring wealth is very, very complex. Do you include pensions? How do you value a state pension? Do you include housing? How do you value housing? But if you look at relative net financial wealth (inc. pensions, you are likely going to Google and find something that doesn't include pensions) then the statement is true...the US and Switzerland are way out ahead on net financial assets, and in datasets that include pension wealth then you have Australia up there too (which has one of the most successful pension systems in the world, very strong economy too but they punch above that weight when looking at wealth).
Again though, measuring these kind of things is complex so you have to not only be able to Google a ranking system but understand exactly how the pension system is structured in that country, how is the financial sector structured, how is the tax system structured, etc. The US is consistently at the top by any measure though.
GDP may not be a perfect measure of wealth but it's the best we've got IMO.
I've lived for a short while in Canada, for many years in Australia, and visited the USA many times... I really don't see much difference in wealth in general. I'm sure there's a lot more extremely rich people in the USA, but those are a small portion of the population so I wouldn't consider that an important indication of the wealth of a country, at least not as much as the wealth of the majority of its citizens (and the USA notoriously also has a lot more very poor people than either Australia or Canada). If you do that, perhaps the Arab Emirates would be wealthier? Or even China, home to more bilionaires than the USA IIRC?!
Also, if you include healthcare access and pension as you seem to be doing, again, the USA is probably the worst as you're pretty much on your own with those things, while in nearly any other developed country, people get decent healthcare and pension even without having had high paying jobs their whole life.
Table 2-1 in [1] lists mean wealth per adult per country, with Monaco first ($324,721), Switzerland second ($231,354) and the US third ($215,146) as far as I can tell. Median wealth figures are of course worse.
[1] https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/ab...
You can also see Australia punches well above it's weight in that survey. The stuff CS produces on UHNWIs is also very interesting.
The US is a true single market because English is the dominant language and because everyone from the Deep South to Alaska consumes the cultural products of Hollywood and New York and the technology of Silicon Valley.
But I didn't compare it with the US at all, all I said was: the EU was formed, in part, because people in the 60s believed that US growth was stronger because the domestic market was larger (and that scale advantages were critically important to business success). This was a very common view in the 60s in the UK too (and held by the govt which embarked on a huge investment/forced merger program to boost domestic production that ended in disaster). And it was totally wrong, as subsequent economic performance demonstrated (the reason why the EU's single market is incomplete is nothing to do with language and everything to do with politics).
And how do you explain those products being dominant in the rest of the world? The UK went through this, tried to create globally competitive firms with scale by forcing companies to merge, almost all of them went bankrupt (have you heard of British Leyland? No?) because they were mismanaged, and produced bad products no-one wanted. It was like trying to add one to one and make twenty.
Mining is 10% of GDP in Aus. For comparison, oil and gas is 8% of GDP in US.
Basically, the US 1% is much richer than other countries, but the typical American is probably less wealthy than someone in other developed countries.
Technically, especially with the internet, there is no reason a Canadian show made in Canada could not be a hit in both countries. It is just the likelihoods that change.
The inverse is not true however -- the article is correct that Canadians are exposed to (almost too) much American content from an early age, leading to the Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)[1] to adopt (read: mandate) minimum ratios for Canadian-specific content to be aired.[2]