Bailout is actually more than $700bn

[Kidlicious]

I suppose not. I'm just acting madder than I actually am about you jacking my thread.

[notyoueither]

There are far too many bailout/new depression threads, Kid.

Sorry, but I still think it was fun.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by notyoueither
There are far too many bailout/new depression threads, Kid.

Sorry, but I still think it was fun.

Eh, no not really. You really still should have started your own thread. That would have been the respectfull and proper thing to do. But it doesn't really matter to me if you want to act like an ass. I suppose I can start a new thread.

[KrazyHorse]

Don't worry, NYE. I'll let you out of the box in a couple of days.

I'm just not going to bother discussing anything on an adult level with you any more since instead of showing interest in learning you're more interested in sticking your fingers in your ears and claiming that up is down, the sky is yellow, and the most fundamental idea of tax incidence theory is vastly wrong.

[notyoueither]

Canadian threads just happen, dude.

I can say sorry, but I won't mean it. Seriously, did we need one more the world is forming a toilet around our heads thread?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Don't worry, NYE. I'll let you out of the box in a couple of days.

I'm just not going to bother discussing anything on an adult level with you any more since instead of showing interest in learning you're more interested in sticking your fingers in your ears and claiming that up is down, the sky is yellow, and the most fundamental idea of tax incidence theory is vastly wrong.

Go **** yourself.

You have zero desire to discuss an issue.

You are not the same person I came into contact with several years ago. I'm not either, so I guess we're even.

But you are a ginormous pr1ck now, and to be quite frank, you are no fun anymore. You're too hard after getting respect, or gaining domination, or something.

Keep me in the box. I'd rather that than have to suffer your insufferableness.

[notyoueither]

Oh, and aside from taking yourself way too seriously, your mother was a hampster and your father smells of elderberries.

Take me off ignore and I shall taunt you mercilessly, or at least a second time.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Your answer is not acceptable.

This is from a couple of pages ago. This is the real argument. The fancy economics stuff... meh. The key question is whether Canada should absorb the carbon cost of its oil sands extraction (thus killing the industry, at least for the time being) even though:

a) few other countries are doing anything of the sort; and
b) Canada apparently would not suffer much direct harm from climate change (indirect harm is also an issue, though).

I figure why argue about the economic details if you don't agree on the answer to the above question?

KH, you are over-using the ignore function. Your choice, obviously, but it's starting to look ridiculous.

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Arrian


This is from a couple of pages ago. This is the real argument. The fancy economics stuff... meh. The key question is whether Canada should absorb the carbon cost of its oil sands extraction (thus killing the industry, at least for the time being)

It's pretty amazing that you've managed to, from first principles, without any knowledge of the scale of the tax or of the margins that the oil industry operates on, decided what the effect of a tax on the oil sands industry would be. Don't accept hypotheticals as statements of fact.

a) few other countries are doing anything of the sort; and
b) Canada apparently would not suffer much direct harm from climate change (indirect harm is also an issue, though).

I figure why argue about the economic details if you don't agree on the answer to the above question?

Because there is a real danger that a truly bad plan will be enacted. The costs of such a plan can be significant multiples of the cost of a good plan.

KH, you are over-using the ignore function. Your choice, obviously, but it's starting to look ridiculous.

No.

I spent a good 2-3 hours of my day yesterday explaining some fairly basic ideas and facts about tax structure to NYE. I did this because I like him and have a history with him. But when people show preference for ignorance over learning by repeating a point which was dealt with multiple times then I don't see why I should bother with the discussion any more. I honestly do have better uses of my time than to teach a stubborn old man basic economics.

If somebody else wants to hold his hand then they are welcome to. When I began thinking about this issue I went to the trouble of reading about things like tax incidence theory, substitution etc. Why should I respect somebody who doesn't learn even when presented with a summary of the relevant material?

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You have zero desire to discuss an issue.

You are not the same person I came into contact with several years ago. I'm not either, so I guess we're even.

But you are a ginormous pr1ck now, and to be quite frank, you are no fun anymore. You're too hard after getting respect, or gaining domination, or something.

Keep me in the box. I'd rather that than have to suffer your insufferableness.

otoh, for unnecessary forum drama

[KrazyHorse]

Forum drama

[Arrian]

Don't accept hypotheticals as statements of fact.

Fair enough. It's not going to cost nothing, though, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this whole thing is about forcing the internalization of a negative externality, right? Does that not by its very nature mean that it's going to cost (someone) more $$?

Because there is a real danger that a truly bad plan will be enacted. The costs of such a plan can be significant multiples of the cost of a good plan.

Ok.

No.

Suit yourself.

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Arrian


Fair enough. It's not going to cost nothing, though, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this whole thing is about forcing the internalization of a negative externality, right? Does that not by its very nature mean that it's going to cost (someone) more $$?

Of course it will cost something. Stated earlier, deadweight cost > 0. But to claim that it will destroy the oil sands industry without some hardy numbers to back it up is irresponsible.

Suit yourself.

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

I'm still waiting for somebody to point out that the Harper plan could easily lead to an INCREASE in emissions relative to no-plan baseline.

[Naked Gents Rut]

You know, after looking at it in more detail, I think the Harper plan could easily lead to an increase in emissions relative to the no-plan baseline.