Bailout is actually more than $700bn

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


From your lips to Harper's ear.

Why should we be seriously discussing severely maiming an industry that is currently allowing for Ontario to collect transfer payments?

Central Canadian bull**** aside, there is zero reason Canada would consider serious handicaps to the oil industry. Unless, of course, the people of Ontario and Quebec got their **** together.

In that case we could substitute an Alberta left for a Quebec threatening to leave.

NYE, if this is your argument then that is fine with me. But do not claim that Harper's plan makes more sense from an economic perspective than Dion's plan does. If we want to reduce carbon emissions then a carbon tax is the optimal solution from an efficiency perspective. If we do not want to reduce carbon emissions then we should stop proposing plans.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


DID YOU JUST CITE THE GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC ON A TAX POLICY ISSUE?



The fact that politicians often make claims which are retarded from a tax incidence perspective is a commonplace.

Yes. What's so funny?

You are going many extra miles to credit Dion with rational thought and policy that he never claimed for himself.

Why one and not the other?

I have actually lived through a Liberal regime that used taxation that crippled the economy where I live, and they refused to let up even after the implosion and the bankruptcies.

What makes you think Dion is any different?

[KrazyHorse]

You are going many extra miles to credit Dion with rational thought and policy that he never claimed for himself.

That is because politicians are much more sensitive to the idea that they need to keep canadian producers competitive than they are to tax incidence theory.

This is not a question of rationality; it is a question of previous behaviour. Politicians do not handicap domestic producers to the benefit of foreign producers. Period.

[KrazyHorse]

If you're going to claim that Dion would have done something as horribly unpopular ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY as handicapping domestic producers/exporters relative to their foreign competition then I'm going to believe that you are as divorced from political reality as you are from economic reality.

[Ramo]

The major issue with a carbon tax is that figuring out the right level of taxation might be problematic. The appropriate level of carbon production is also hazy, but significantly less so than the proper tax rate. I think combining the two might be the best option: cap and trade with a 100% auction, supplemented by a carbon tax (to damp the amplitude of oscillations in the total tax).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

You say dead weight a lot.

That's because it's the important idea here. Deadweight loss is the loss incurred by changing behaviour. The more distortionary a tax or regulatory policy the more deadweight loss there is. There will be a certain amount of deadweight loss associated with any reduction in carbon emissions since by definition we are changing behaviour. The question is what policy minimizes the deadweight loss for a given amount of reduction of carbon emission. Carbon taxes accomplish this.

But you were saying they could shut down the oil sands for all you cared, or I understood you to be doing so.

This does not jive.

Shutting down Alberta's just means the technology and expertise will move to South America sooner. Exxon has already spent a great deal of cash and attention to the development of oil sands at the invitation of the Governments of Alberta and Canada. You think they will say, 'oh well?'

The world will not be better off by a jot. Canada will be a lot poorer.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

You are going many extra miles to credit Dion with rational thought and policy that he never claimed for himself.

That is because politicians are much more sensitive to the idea that they need to keep canadian producers competitive than they are to tax incidence theory.

This is not a question of rationality; it is a question of previous behaviour. Politicians do not handicap domestic producers to the benefit of foreign producers. Period.

NEP.

And a genius in Trudeau who did it.

Thank you for playing.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ramo
The major issue with a carbon tax is that figuring out the right level of taxation might be problematic. The appropriate level of carbon production is also hazy, but significantly less so than the proper tax rate. I think combining the two might be the best option: cap and trade with a 100% auction, supplemented by a carbon tax (to damp the amplitude of oscillations in the total tax).

No. It is easier to find the proper tax rate (should be set to the marginal harm of carbon) than it is to find to proper carbon level (since you need to find both the harm curve AND the cost curve)

It is always easier to find the proper Pigovian tax rate than it is to find the proper cap level.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


But you were saying they could shut down the oil sands for all you cared, or I understood you to be doing so.

No. You posed a hypothetical situation and I described the optimal solution IN THAT SITUATION.

If we could magically reduce carbon emissions without changing our behaviour then I would want to do that. Of course. But I am not smart enough to figure out what the most efficient way of reducing our carbon emissions is. Neither are you. Neither is anybody else. The way to figure it out is to provide a uniform price of carbon across the economy and let the magic of market calculation do the work for us.

And THAT argument is why I am no longer a socialist.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


NYE, if this is your argument then that is fine with me. But do not claim that Harper's plan makes more sense from an economic perspective than Dion's plan does. If we want to reduce carbon emissions then a carbon tax is the optimal solution from an efficiency perspective. If we do not want to reduce carbon emissions then we should stop proposing plans.

How does cutting cheques to soccer moms in Toronto help reduce emissions while sucking cash out of the region that is already investing billions in technology to reduce those same emissions?

Riddle me that.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


NEP.

And a genius in Trudeau who did it.

Thank you for playing.

No, thank you for mentioning the watershed moment in Canadian history which put to bed that type of policy. 25 years ago.

Politicians do everything they can to favour Canadian producers and exporters. They do not handicap them.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


How does cutting cheques to soccer moms in Toronto help reduce emissions while sucking cash out of the region that is already investing billions in technology to reduce those same emissions?

Riddle me that.

All right, '****. Regress to your little shell.

[Ramo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No. It is easier to find the proper tax rate (should be set to the marginal harm of carbon) than it is to find to proper carbon level (since you need to find both the harm curve AND the cost curve)

It is always easier to find the proper Pigovian tax rate than it is to find the proper cap level.

We might be able to ballpark the carbon level. We can pick some conservative value from the average of the climate models and go with it. An attempt at quantifying something like the marginal harm of carbon would be total bull****.

[Seeker]

I think Carbon is an issue that should be dealt with using binding, tooth-ed international agreements, not domestic tax issues.

Now, when global regulatory regimes are 'in the air' so to speak with potential Bretton Woods II and global derivative trading regulation (finally) being discussed, is the prefect time for world leaders to do what they should've done years ago.

But then, I like gold...so don't listen to me.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ramo


We might be able to ballpark the carbon level. We can pick some conservative value from the average of the climate models

???????

Assume we know the EXACT climatological effects of any given level of carbon. Now explain how we find the ideal level of carbon emission.