It seems that yesterday, old Gerry was “Reviewing the Liberal Ad” and had this to say of it: “OK this Liberal TV ad has got to be one of the weirdest political spots I have ever seen.”
Only thing is that the “ad” in question isn’t a “political spot” at all, it’s the promotional video that the Liberals put out to accompany the launch of the Green Shift policy back in the summer.
Has he never seen it before? It was released last June, but he actually seems to think that it’s one of the Libs’ current election ads. Oy.
Be nice; the man is borderline retarded.
And he’ll be on TV with Michael Coren!
Oh well…keeps him off the streets.
Seriously, it can’t be fun given the audience he attracts over at his blog…I noticed Alberta Girl over there and Joan Tintor trying her very best to undumb the discussion. Sad….so very, very sad.
Let’s not forget that he’s “one of the top five political minds in the country” (if only in his own mind).
More strange, but true.
But seriously, if I may…
How does this not get seriously mentioned on television, where I would venture to say that many, if not most, voters get their politico info (esp. during an election)???
Hell, these television reporters could just print off a few of the relevant pages about carbon pricing from even the Wikipedia site, and expose the whole Harper/Layton charade!
How difficult is that?
I’m f***ing e-mailing this Ottawa Citizen article to CBC, etc.
I’m on a mission.
——————————————–
Dan Gardner . Harper economics
Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Stephen Harper has a masters degree in economics. He is conservative. He says he understands how markets function and he prefers market solutions to public policy problems.
Gregory Mankiw is a professor at Harvard University and a world-renowned economist. He was chairman of U.S. President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers and adviser to Mitt Romney’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. Mankiw definitely understands how markets function and he, too, prefers market solutions to public policy problems.
One might think Stephen Harper and Gregory Mankiw would agree on energy taxes. But one would be wrong.
Stephen Harper says the Liberal “green shift” proposal — a carbon tax on most forms of energy with matching cuts to income, corporate and other taxes — could do “catastrophic” damage to the economy. He is proposing instead to cut the federal tax on diesel, which will, he says, reduce shipping costs and the costs of goods in stores.
That sort of sounds like the kind of advice an economist would offer. Don’t add taxes. Reduce them. Get government out of the way. Let the market provide.
But Gregory Mankiw suggested something considerably different when I called him at his Harvard office. Gas should be taxed much more, he said. So should lots of other energy-related products. But be sure to off-set those taxes with cuts to income and other taxes.
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? But let’s not wander back into politics just yet because Mr. Mankiw knows little about Canadian politics and, quite sensibly, cares less.
His reasoning is straight out of Economics 101. It starts with “externalities.”
Take a Sunday drive and your car emits various gases, including carbon dioxide. This adds to the rising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide that are the principal cause of climate change. But do you pay for having contributed to the flooding of Bangladesh? No, you don’t. That is an externality: A cost suffered by someone other than the responsible party.
Taxing people to ensure they pay for the external costs they impose on others is fair, but fairness is more the bailiwick of philosophers than economists. What economists care about is the efficient allocation of resources, which markets do wonderfully — except when there are externalities involved. So making people pay for externalities improves market efficiency.
Of course, energy taxes mean higher energy costs. That hurts people and damages economies. The solution? For every dollar of increased energy tax, there must be a dollar cut from the burden of income or other taxes.
OK, some may say. I get the theory but I think climate change is bunk. So the whole thing falls down.
But it doesn’t. Aside from climate change, energy use inflicts all sorts of external costs. “One might debate the science behind climate change,” Mankiw notes, “but I don’t think you can doubt that having more cars on the road, congestion get worse and accidents get worse.” (It’s worth noting the Liberal plan would not increase the existing tax on gasoline. Only other energy sources would be hit. Why is that? Politics. Only gasoline prices are advertised on large signs at the side of the road.)
Now, the Conservatives will protest that they’ve already introduced a plan for American-style fuel efficiency standards, which will ultimately reduce carbon dioxide emissions. But what they don’t mention is that this will increase the cost of producing cars, which will be reflected in the price tag. So consumers will pay just as they would with a carbon tax — except the government will raise no revenue and there will be no off-setting tax cuts.
The same problem vexes cap-and-trade, which is an alternative to carbon taxes supported in principle by everyone from the NDP to the Conservatives and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. If emission credits were auctioned off by the government, a cap-and-trade system would be almost identical to a carbon tax. But for various political and practical reasons, cap-and-trade systems seldom auction credits. Instead, credits are given out to existing polluters based on current emissions and so, in the end, the costs of a cap-and-trade system are passed along to consumers but the government raises no revenue and there are no off-setting cuts to income and other taxes.
So why is the cap-and-trade option preferred by almost all politicians? As usual, it’s politics. Under cap-and-trade, politicians can claim they are hitting “big polluters” while leaving the ordinary person unscathed. That’s nonsense, of course. Costs borne by big polluters will be passed on, so the ordinary person pays either way. But with cap-and-trade, unlike a carbon tax, the cost to the ordinary person is hidden.
This is all orthodox economics, Mankiw insists — a 2006 survey of American Economic Association members found two-thirds agreed that “the U.S. should increase energy taxes” — and so the issue shouldn’t be cast as left versus right. It’s more like “experts versus laypeople. There is a big gap between what economists view as very sensible and non-controversial policy and what the public is willing to swallow.” Closing that gap is “fundamentally an issue of education.”
I wouldn’t be so sure about that last point. After all, a masters degree in economics hasn’t done much for Stephen Harper.
Dan Gardner writes Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. E-mail: dgardner@thecitizen.canwest.com
© The Ottawa Citizen 2008
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/views/story.html?id=244d2749-4441-4150-aeb2-8a1d8208b037
Thank God for the wingnut welfare, or he’d be a genuine social welfare burden. I’ve yet to find out if that man has ever had a real job in his life.
What is it with these hard-working, pay-their-taxes types who have little or no employment history? It’s all rather suspicious.
Seems to be a pattern, doesn’t it?
Poli-sci wonks with no real working experience to speak of that morph into champions of free-enterprise, laissez-faire, neo-liberal economics and the elimination of government services. The cognitive dissonance is lost on them apparently.
Poli-sci wonks are dangerous…to whichever brand they attach themselves to. Mr. Mao would put them into the fields for a while…get some dirt on their hands.
Poli-sci wonks are dangerous.
Well, they do need to be properly supervised, or they tend to go feral.
Dion is a poli-sci wonk.
‘Dion is a poli-sci wonk.’
Yep. So it would seem to me that what we have underway right now is: The Battle of the Wonks.
Yet another byline…yet another invoice in the mail.
When Dion was first made leader of the Libs I seem to recall more than a few people naively thinking that it would be good for that precise reason because now we’d be able to look forward to substantive debates over policy issues in parliament. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Substantive, indeed! So few, if any, of these buggers have any street smarts…mainly due to the fact that they’ve never put in any time on the street. Those who can, do. Those who can’t do, teach. Those who can’t teach, teach gym. Those who can’t teach gym, (fill in your own blank).
Dion is a poli-sci wonk.
No, a poli-sci wonk is someone with a BA in Political Sciences who then spends the rest of his or her life shopping off that skill to the lowest bidder.
There’s a difference between that type of work and serious scholarship.
Don’t make me go all elitist on you, Red.
“No, a poli-sci wonk is someone with a BA in Political Sciences who then spends the rest of his or her life shopping off that skill to the lowest bidder.”
That’s not counting the ones who are putting in time in a call center somewhere. Now if they happened to pick up a minor in Psych to compliment, then we’re talking serious danger.
“When Dion was first made leader of the Libs I seem to recall more than a few people naively thinking that it would be good for that precise reason because now we’d be able to look forward to substantive debates over policy issues”
That was Paul Well’s reasoning.
Gerry Nicholls is the guy the pay to attack Harper from the right …. so we can perceive how truly centrist Harper is.
“When Dion was first made leader of the Libs I seem to recall more than a few people naively thinking that it would be good for that precise reason because now we’d be able to look forward to substantive debates over policy issues”
Whoa there buddy , are you trying to imply that’s what we’re supposed to paying these knuckleheads for ?
Did you miss the “Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!” part?
Told you a while back this would be the weirdest election ever .