Bailout is actually more than $700bn

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I have already explained to you that the fact that other producers would not be taxed doesn't make any difference because of the import/export treatment. In Canada imported foreign oil would be subjected to a tariff equivalent to the carbon tax the oil would have been subject to if extracted in Canada using their techniques. Outside Canada neither would be subjected to any carbon tax because exported oil would be granted an export subsidy equivalent to the carbon tax paid in the process of extracting that oil. Inside Canada foreign oil would still enjoy an advantage because conventional oil is less carbon-intensive than oil sands oil. There's nothing to be done about that, NYE. Whining about this is just whining about wanting to extract rents as an established industry. I have no patience for that type of complaint.

You assume all of this. There is no basis for your assumption.

Do you care to explain how we will impose tariffs on goods from our largest trading partner without starting a trade war with the US?

Your idea could have merit with foreign oil, since most of that is non-US, but what about gasoline, electricity, etc that comes from the US?

Your ideas sound good until exposed to reality, and the fact that the Liberals have never spelled out how they plan to implement import/export elements of their plan, or even breathed that they planned on them.

It's hooey, KH. It's silly to base your arguments on plans that did not exist.

a) Because anything like a carbon tax is a hard sell
b) Because they don't understand tax incidence any better than you do

I understand it completely. You happen to be blind to the fact that Dion's plan was a tax grab/redistribution and not a real attempt at reductions of GHGs.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles

Originally posted by snoopy369
Nope, progressive. The US has never been a Monarchy, so . . .

The United States is the successor to the English colonies in North America, which was a monarchy.

The US is a breakaway state from the English goverment; there was no prior US government (no government of the colonies as a whole, by the colonies). You could argue that Massachusetts was a monarchy, I suppose, but not the country as a whole.

Otherwise you could argue that republic-ats (not the party but those supporting the republic that is the US) are reactionaries, because Rome was a republic originally, and England was a Roman colony at one point...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Incidentally, here's Harper's idea.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/doc/virage-corner/2008-03/541_eng.htm

It might be good to at least be familiar with the subjects under discussion.

Thanks for linking to something which actually told me something this time.

This is a far inferior solution for a number of reasons:

a) It does not encourage movement from more carbon-intensive industries to less carbon-intensive industries because the emissions targets are based on current carbon intensity of each industry. There is therefore more of a deadweight loss associated with X tons of cuts under this plan compared to equivalent cuts under a carbon tax plan (which is easily provable to be the most efficient incentive scheme under the efficient markets hypothesis).

b) Whatever money is collected under this scheme goes to a "Technology Fund". Why is this better than simply handing out cheques/instituting a tax cut? (Answer: it's not)

c) I note that there is no mention of treatment of imports/exports in this document either.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Thanks for linking to something which actually told me something this time.

This is a far inferior solution for a number of reasons:

a) It does not encourage movement from more carbon-intensive industries to less carbon-intensive industries because the emissions targets are based on current carbon intensity of each industry. There is therefore more of a deadweight loss associated with X tons of cuts under this plan compared to equivalent cuts under a carbon tax plan (which is easily provable to be the most efficient incentive scheme under the efficient markets hypothesis).

b) Whatever money is collected under this scheme goes to a "Technology Fund". Why is this better than simply handing out cheques/instituting a tax cut? (Answer: it's not)

c) I note that there is no mention of treatment of imports/exports in this document either.

I believe Harper's assumption is that regulation and taxation policy will encourage technology development and deployment to clean up dirty industries.

Incentives. You know. You seem to be fond of them. Only this plan actually gives the incentives to the industries that have a stake in using them to make a difference.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You assume all of this. There is no basis for your assumption.

Do you care to explain how we will impose tariffs on goods from our largest trading partner without starting a trade war with the US?

I didn't realize that the GST was against NAFTA.

AFAIK, as long as we charge the same taxes on domestic goods as we do on imported goods there's no trade issue. Feel free to prove me wrong, as I am not a trade law expert.

I understand it completely. You happen to be blind to the fact that Dion's plan was a tax grab/redistribution and not a real attempt at reductions of GHGs.

This is just silly. While some of the effect would have been redistribution it was at least an approximation of the optimal policy solution. Which, as I've already stated is easily provable to be a carbon tax. Not a rent-granting cap system. If you want to argue for an offsetting redistribution argue for a reduction in transfer payments, not for a retarded piece of crap like the conservative plan you linked to.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I didn't realize that the GST was against NAFTA.

AFAIK, as long as we charge the same taxes on domestic goods as we do on imported goods there's no trade issue. Feel free to prove me wrong, as I am not a trade law expert.

The US has sales taxes. They do not have tariffs on our products coming across the border.

I do not think you are being genuine, given your familiarity with US politics, when you assert there would be no problem with Canadian tariffs on US goods at the border.

This is just silly. While some of the effect would have been redistribution it was at least an approximation of the optimal policy solution. Which, as I've already stated is easily provable to be a carbon tax. Not a rent-granting cap system. If you want to argue for an offsetting redistribution argue for a reduction in transfer payments, not for a retarded piece of crap like the conservative plan you linked to.

You haven't proved anything, especially why a system that is ideal for a country like Sweden is the best route for Canada, and especially not the way that Dion was trying to implement it.

Speaking of retarded pieces of crap, anyone who was an attractive target for Liberal election prospects got exemptions. Anywhere in the country the Liberals didn't give a **** about got the bill.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I believe Harper's assumption is that regulation and taxation policy will encourage technology development and deployment to clean up dirty industries.

This is a failure to understand something as basic as the concept of elasticity of substitution.

If widgets are less carbon intense than sprockets, then the efficient means to reduce carbon emissions will involve the production of less sprockets and more widgets. The industry rent-granting solution proposed in the document you linked to does not provide the incentive to move from producing sprockets to producing widgets because taxes are assessed based on movements from the current level of carbon intensity of widget production and the current level of carbon intensity of sprocket production.

This is therefore a very suboptimal solution. It involves higher deadweight costs for a given reduction in carbon emission than a solution which properly incentivizes movement from sprocket to widget production.

[notyoueither]

What a load of horse hockey.

We are talking about natural resource extraction, not manufacturing.

Are you for real?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


The US has sales taxes. They do not have tariffs on our products coming across the border.

A tax charged at the point of sale is the same as a tax (i.e. tariff) charged at the border plus a tax on domestic production plus an export credit.

It's clear you've never thought about this issue in any depth at all.

[Elok]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What a load of horse hockey.

Is horse hockey at all similar to polo?

[Asher]

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
We are talking about natural resource extraction, not manufacturing.

Why is there a fundamental difference between the two insofar as it impacts elasticities of substitution, NYE?

[notyoueither]

KH. There is $100 trillion worth of oil in the oil sands of Alberta (maybe a bit more). There's more in Saskatchewan.

What do you propose we do with them?

[Arrian]

It would appear that he proposes doing nothing with them, unless/until they can be extracted profitably with their carbon cost factored in.

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
KH. There is $100 trillion worth of oil in the oil sands of Alberta (maybe a bit more). There's more in Saskatchewan.

What do you propose we do with them?

If they can be extracted profitably when the full costs are accounted for then they should be extracted. If they cannot then we should leave them there. They'll still be around later.