Bailout is actually more than $700bn

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by 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

There we go.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


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.

Your answer is not acceptable.

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


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.

Thank You. For more info on ressource economics go check Perman, NYE. It will become profitable one day, probably. Save it for your kids.

[Aeson]

If only we had accurate taxes based on the overall impact of financial acts so as they would only be enacted when "profitable" to the whole rather than just the parties directly involved...

[notyoueither]

Uni, no other major oil producer is taxing their petroleum production for GHG reductions.

Canada's major trading partner and the destination of 90% (at a guess) of Alberta's oil sands output is a country that so far has not bought into climate change policies.

Perhaps you should get a clue about the situation before you propose that Canada go it alone on environmental policy. I don't see Euros or Asians lined up to pay a surcharge over the world price for our oil.

Maybe once the US actually does something, a carbon tax in Canada would make more sense. until then it is retarded.

[Unimatrix11]

Well, our gas price is at 1.30 Euro per liter (thats like 8 USD per gallon) - about 3/4 of which is taxes.

As for the industries we got kind of a crooked deal: Emission trade. You can buy and sell the right to emit CO2 on a market. If you emit less, you save money. The croocketness is, that they originally wanted to pass out only 80% of some index polluting level (based on some year, i dont remember) as emission right, but eventually passed out the full 100% and now, the state will buy them back bit by bit (in order to fullfill its international commitment as in Kyoto et al.)... as we all know, nothing may be paid for by the companies, ever. The costs always gets socialized while profits gets privatized. Hooray. I admire your gov to at least try it the other way.

But KH is right - social and enviromental costs should always be accounted for. ´Stakeholder value´ - and when it comes to GHGs everyone is stakeholder. That the trading partner of Alberta has not yet ´bought into climate change policies´ just makes it worse, cause you know they wont do anything to account for the cost - not even socializing them. The damage will just occur - to all of us.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Your answer is not acceptable.

I don't particularly care. For somebody who moans about the East soaking your province it's interesting that you're engaging in blind regionalism in the face of a superior economic plan.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Uni, no other major oil producer is taxing their petroleum production for GHG reductions.

Canada's major trading partner and the destination of 90% (at a guess) of Alberta's oil sands output is a country that so far has not bought into climate change policies.

Shouldn't be a problem then. As I said:

point of sale tax = producer tax + import tax + export subsidy

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I don't particularly care. For somebody who moans about the East soaking your province it's interesting that you're engaging in blind regionalism in the face of a superior economic plan.

It is not a superior economic plan.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Shouldn't be a problem then. As I said:

point of sale tax = producer tax + import tax + export subsidy

You keep repeating this bull**** as if it is a fact.

[KrazyHorse]

You keep acting as though deliberately ignoring basic facts is an acceptable reasoning technique.

The Harper plan is a far inferior plan. It causes a much higher deadweight loss compared to a carbon tax which leads to equivalent carbon emissions reduction. That fact is basic economics. I have already stated my opposition to the pieces of the Liberal plan which deviate from the optimal policy solution. It's apparent that you're not interested in discussing any of the much more serious flaws of the Conservative plan, nor in admitting the fact that reasonably efficient means of cutting emissions may lead to lower oil production in Alberta. You've also shown woeful ignorance of simple economic principles, a refusal to admit that the GST involves a tariff (in fact, if you're interested in the mechanics of its collection, Customs Canada collects the wholesale value of the tax at the border) and general asshattery.

Sorry, NYE, but you're nothing more than a partisan hack in this thread.

[Kidlicious]

You guys really should have started your own thread.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You keep acting as though deliberately ignoring basic facts is an acceptable reasoning technique.

The Harper plan is a far inferior plan. It causes a much higher deadweight loss compared to a carbon tax which leads to equivalent carbon emissions reduction. That fact is basic economics. I have already stated my opposition to the pieces of the Liberal plan which deviate from the optimal policy solution. It's apparent that you're not interested in discussing any of the much more serious flaws of the Conservative plan, nor in admitting the fact that reasonably efficient means of cutting emissions may lead to lower oil production in Alberta. You've also shown woeful ignorance of simple economic principles, a refusal to admit that the GST involves a tariff (in fact, if you're interested in the mechanics of its collection, Customs Canada collects the wholesale value of the tax at the border) and general asshattery.

Sorry, NYE, but you're nothing more than a partisan hack in this thread.

You are increasingly full of ****.

I have not said that Harper's plan is great, other than to say that I appreciate direct effort to help dirty industries to clean up.

I have gone on at length with why I feel Dion's plan was terrible, and I have added to the good reasons you have already given.

As far as woeful ignorance of simple economic principles, I admit I am not a trained economist. However, all you have done with your more advanced knowledge is come off as the asshat of the discussion.

Your response to actual plans for how to change the oil industry (and others) is to say they are bad plans and that we should produce widgets.

And then there's your interesting contortions that you apparently think explain how a sales tax and an import tariff are the same thing.

You're full of ****. It's clear you know it (to me at least) yet you press on. I am imagining it has something to do with the score you appear to be keeping. It used to say x down, 13 to go, or something.

[KrazyHorse]

Your response to actual plans for how to change the oil industry (and others) is to say they are bad plans and that we should produce widgets.

No, it's to explain that in addition to figuring out more efficient ways to produce sprockets there must also be a move toward producing more widgets at the expense of producing less sprockets.

And then there's your interesting contortions that you apparently think explain how a sales tax and an import tariff are the same thing.

Are you honestly denying the relationship:

consumption tax = production tax + export subsidy + import tariff

Seriously?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Your response to actual plans for how to change the oil industry (and others) is to say they are bad plans and that we should produce widgets.

No, it's to explain that in addition to figuring out more efficient ways to produce sprockets there must also be a move toward producing more widgets at the expense of producing less sprockets.

Why? You read it in a textbook?

There's hundred(s) of trillions of dollars in the ground.

Can you explain why efforts should not be made to extract that wealth? I'm not sorry to tell you that 'leave it in the ground' is not an acceptable response to Albertans.

And then there's your interesting contortions that you apparently think explain how a sales tax and an import tariff are the same thing.

Are you honestly denying the relationship:

consumption tax = production tax + export subsidy + import tariff

Seriously?

Sure, because I'm pretty sure Congress will not view any tariffs the way you do.

They'll probably view them the way we viewed lumber tariffs. Who won that fight in the tribunals, btw?

Of course, if it were clear that Dion's plan would work the way you think it would have I would have been more positive about it. I think though that there is reason to believe export credits for the oil industry were not in the cards, and in fact that reduced consumption of energy was not something Dion even banked on.

http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2008/06/27/dion-carbon-revenues/

The jist of it is that Dion's number of $15.3 billion in tax revenue can be arrived at by taking his tax numbers for various fuels and plugging in usage numbers from 2006. I don't think that allows for 90% of the emissions from the oil sands being forgiven due to 90% of the oil being exported to the US. Do you?

BTW, it doesn't seem to assume any decrease in fuel use at all.

So what was the point of the plan again?

I would say tax grab/ wealth transfer.

Your turn. Sources or discussion, and not just language from a text book, would be appreciated.