# Dion - Not a Leader - No Idea what he would do



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Mr. Dion is incapable of answering a simple question that is put to him three times and then when he does answer, his plan, is to make a plan within thirty days. NOT A LEADER!

Interview w/ Stephane Dion

Edit: Sorry I inadvertently put this in the wrong section, maybe the moderators could move it. Thanks.


----------



## Amiga2000HD (Jan 23, 2007)

In a way, it isn't news when I consider how many times a day I run into situations where people can't answer simple questions. There's a lot of people like that out there, and not all of them are politicians or used car salesmen.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I saw the same clip last night on The National. He was confused with the focus of the question. This was due to his having English as his second language. I cut him some slack on this point. If I was asked the same question in French, I might have that I was going to use the pen of my aunt to Canadian troops into Florida to free suntanning Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Jack Layton is an old pro at not answering questions - and I doubt that he has answered one in the past five years. Dion just looks more awkward at it, because really, the gears are turning, trying to come up with an answer - whereas Mr. Layton has his foot on the clutch when it comes to such a process.

Of course, they are politicians, and hence, they are required to utter a large number of words with the smallest amount of content possible.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Dion is far too smart. As someone who has met the man and asked him to briefly explain his Green Shift plan I can say he is far more intelligent than he appears to be on TV.

He is/was a professor of Sociology. To get your doctorate in sociology you must be reading academic journals in English. I dare many of you to go pick up a Sociological Review Journal and try and get through a couple articles completely understanding and being able to critically evaluate what they say. Now do that in French. Dion has a much stronger command of the English language than most Anglo-Canadians do. He simply has an accent and has trouble picking words that most of the people can actually understand. 

For anyone who watched the French debate, Harper has absolutely terrible French (May was much worse) and no one has said he is a bad leader. Dion had his plan out there way before the Conservatives released theirs last week! 

Dion has not broken his own laws (Harper has) and Dion has not retracted on his election platform (Harper has). Tell me how he is a bad leader. Because he has a French accent? If so, I call you quite the bigot and rather ignorant, sir.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> Tell me how he is a bad leader. Because he has a French accent? If so, I call you quite the bigot and rather ignorant, sir.


Wow talk about jumping to conclusions. If you would care to look (to the left) I happen to live in Quebec and have done so on and off since 1970, I went to grade school and high school in Quebec so don't think that Dion's first language being French is the issue.  tptptptp 

I think you would do well to keep your name calling and insults in check until you have an answer, otherwise you come across as just being a pompous little twit, which in my experience of your previous posts I wouldn't classify you as.

Dion isn't a leader on so many fronts that I can't get into it here but just to defend my position based on the footage of yesterday, Dion says after the first ask of the question to clarify the question "What would I do today... OK." He understands and is clearly trying to buy time to come up with an answer. And then when he finally answers, his plan is to make a plan in thirty days. This isn't a matter of language or hearing. This is a matter of Dion not having a clue.

Also if his English and hearing are that bad then he is still incompetent because he will be dealing primarily with the English speaking world and Canada and he needs to be able to hear and properly comprehend what is said to him. Dion is a disaster waiting to happen. I would be embarrassed to have this guy as the Prime Minister of Canada.

Oh and incidentally Gilles Duceppe would disagree with you about Harper's French. When Duceppe was asked after the debates about the PM's French he said he thought Harpers French was very good and much improved.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I'm pretty sure he studied (and taught) in French but, agreed, the man is hardly an idiot reacting to the stupid question posed, and the incomplete explanation about *when* the time period in question was supposed to happen, have happened or would have happened... French verb tenses are much more exact, and having fluency with those already sets many people apart from the usual yahoo English intereviewer.



wiki said:


> He studied political science at Université Laval in the department co-founded by his father.[4], and this was also where he met his future wife, Janine Krieber, a fellow-student in the same program. He obtained BA and MA degrees in 1977 and 1979 respectively (his master's thesis presented an analysis of the evolution of Parti Québécois electoral strategies[5]) after which he and Janine departed together for France.
> .
> ..
> 
> ...





Adrian. said:


> Dion is far too smart. As someone who has met the man and asked him to briefly explain his Green Shift plan I can say he is far more intelligent than he appears to be on TV.
> 
> He is/was a professor of Sociology. To get your doctorate in sociology you must be reading academic journals in English. I dare many of you to go pick up a Sociological Review Journal and try and get through a couple articles completely understanding and being able to critically evaluate what they say. Now do that in French. Dion has a much stronger command of the English language than most Anglo-Canadians do. He simply has an accent and has trouble picking words that most of the people can actually understand.
> 
> ...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Just proof that Dion will even try to answer retarded questions with an answer worthy of the ivory towers. Not that that matters too much when it comes to leadership, but can one imagine how the poor interviewer would have been chopped to bits by people like Diefenbaker, Trudeau or Mulroney? Of course, if such things happened in the old days, MacDonald would have just got up and beat the pulp out of the poor sod (something was was expected in the day)...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Moved thread. 

Dion has a hard time hearing or translating a question and asked for clarification. Big deal. Some people can't even post a thread in the right forum.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

HowEver said:


> I'm pretty sure he studied (and taught) in French but, agreed, the man is hardly an idiot reacting to the stupid question posed, and the incomplete explanation about *when* the time period in question was supposed to happen, have happened or would have happened... French verb tenses are much more exact, and having fluency with those already sets many people apart from the usual yahoo English intereviewer.


You cannot escape having to read in English to get to the doctorate level in Canada, especially if he is working with Canadian nationalism and Quebec Sovereignty. 

All I care to say is that he is a highly educated man. He is not stupid, he is well prepared to lead this country and the fact that he has a French accent and gets stumbled by confusing verb tenses does not make him incompetent. 

Screature come talk to me in Spanish or French and I will confuse you as well. 

Smarten up people.

Ps. HowEver, I believe this is the first time we have agreed on something.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The right forum or not... Dion didn't go to town on the interviewer like Trudeau would have. The dude would have been mincemeat - "just watch me". I think with Diefenbaker - they'd have to have some kind of mercy rule; while Mulroney would take the retard and make them head of the CBC, left to rot with a hostile board of commissioners...


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Not quite. He didn't get his doctorate in Canada, and really, there are many universities in Quebec where you do not have to read in English, even at that level, to obtain a doctorate, even if studying Canadian nationalism.

That said, he probably did and does read English at a higher level than most. Speaking the language is another matter.

For my doctorate, I read and translate French (very obscure theorists), but even with practice my French would be Harper-esque; and I don't practice.





Adrian. said:


> You cannot escape having to read in English to get to the doctorate level in Canada, especially if he is working with Canadian nationalism and Quebec Sovereignty.
> 
> All I care to say is that he is a highly educated man. He is not stupid, he is well prepared to lead this country and the fact that he has a French accent and gets stumbled by confusing verb tenses does not make him incompetent.
> 
> ...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I don't see what the problem was with the question, it seemed quite remedial even for someone with English as a second language. If you're going to criticize someone for weeks on what they've done or haven't done, you better be ready to answer how the hell you would have done it better. :lmao: 

The thread is right, Dion is not a leader, he can't make priorities and he can't think on his feet. Would love to see how the dumbfounded deer in headlights look would work on the world stage if he was elected PM! Might be funny to see, could get some gems like we did with G.W. Bush. 

Dion: Um, do over.
Interviewer: Mr Dion, this is live TV, there is no "do overs."
Dion: No, do over?
Interviewer: You're on Mr. Dion.
Dion: OK, do over.
Interviewer: Ugh!


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Think your thread is misleading, he wasn't side stepping the question, I think it genuinely was a misunderstanding. Say what you will about Dion's mastery of the English language but I think it is overreacting to say he's a terrible leader. He won the party leadership fair and square.

I think it's ungracious of the producers to say, "yes, we'll start again" and then air the tapes without warning him.

Seriously, the worst the Tories should be accusing him of is trying to understand a question before he answers it. I have my own opinions about whether Harper does the same.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

cap10subtext said:


> Think your thread is misleading, he wasn't side stepping the question, I think it genuinely was a misunderstanding. Say what you will about Dion's mastery of the English language but I think it is overreacting to say he's a terrible leader. He won the party leadership fair and square.
> 
> I think it's ungracious of the producers to say, "yes, we'll start again" and then air the tapes without warning him.
> 
> Seriously, the worst the Tories should be accusing him of is trying to understand a question before he answers it. I have my own opinions about whether Harper does the same.


I don't think it is a priority for him to understand the questions, especially the english ones.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> Jack Layton is an old pro at not answering questions - and I doubt that he has answered one in the past five years. Dion just looks more awkward at it, because really, the gears are turning, trying to come up with an answer - whereas Mr. Layton has his foot on the clutch when it comes to such a process.
> 
> Of course, they are politicians, and hence, they are required to utter a large number of words with the smallest amount of content possible.


I think this is the truth of the matter. Dion is not a skilled politician. One of the most important abilities that good politicians have is being able to effectively avoid talking about what they don't want to when answering a question and then to turn the discussion to their talking points without anyone realizing that's what they've done. It's essentially the gift of the gab, which Dion clearly doesn't have and probably never will, no matter how good his English gets. I think Dion fumbled the question, maybe partially because of hearing impairment or language issues or even tiredness as Duffy mentioned. 

That doesn't mean that just because another leader can answer most questions smoothly, I think that makes them qualified to be Prime Minister. In my mind Harper's actions and agenda make him far less qualified than any of the others, even those who are less skilled politicians.

What has been surprising to me is that even though the Cons have been so unrelentingly negative in their attempts to attack Dion personally and to fear-monger about carbon taxes without any sort of rational or logical argument to back it up, that Dion has any traction left at all. Yet he seems to be gaining points while Harper is losing them in the polls. More than anything I think this shows that Canadians really mistrust Harper.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> Moved thread.
> 
> Dion has a hard time hearing or translating a question and asked for clarification. Big deal. Some people can't even post a thread in the right forum.


Hey not nice ehMax. I acknowledged my mistake as soon as I made it and requested it be moved. I don't think, even in jest it warrants castigation, especially by the Mayor who should be in my estimation a little more neutral on such matters. I would and did expect some such comment from a fellow member of the peanut gallery but not from our esteemed Mayor. Not cool.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> ^^^
> Just proof that Dion will even try to answer retarded questions with an answer worthy of the ivory towers. Not that that matters too much when it comes to leadership, but can one imagine how the poor interviewer would have been chopped to bits by people like Diefenbaker, Trudeau or Mulroney? Of course, if such things happened in the old days, MacDonald would have just got up and beat the pulp out of the poor sod (something was was expected in the day)...


It wasn't a stupid question at all. Dion and every other leader has been saying that Harper has been doing a bad job of managing the situation. Ok, if so, what would you do differently. A completely reasonable question and only those who are partisan would think otherwise.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

If you want to judge a person on what is a sound bite, go ahead, I bet there are many "on the record" instances that most politicians would love to re-do. Can you tell what someone is like from such a moment? Reminds me of the disastrous advert making fun of Chretien's palsy. I expect the Conservative ad managers will roll out that clip over the weekend. What they need is not ad hominum attacks but better communication of what they will do to calm the waters. Run Harpers answer to the same question.... (just as long as its not cribbed from John Howard).

As for leadership and what people want in a leader, I think we have some good distinctions in the three primary party leaders.

Harper - confident, arrogant, intelligent, aggressive, stubborn, targetted, scripted (stays on message)

Dion - second guesses, intelligent, listens, consensus builder, inarticulate (in English), empathetic

Layton - rhetorical, passionate, opportunistic, bold, lacks pragmatism, articulate

None of the leaders is "representative" of Canadian values in my view but I'm jaded. I think that the process by which politicians progress essentially strips them of many of the best qualities. In essence, they have to learn to speak out of both sides of their mouth, attack the other point of view regardless of its merit and distance themselves from their actions (except in the run up to an election).

This is why voter turnout is low and why our expectations are low. Politicians are no longer truly accountable. Sure, their constituency can vote them out a few years later, but most voters don't know what their MP really thinks, can't remember their prior promises and only ever see them in the run-up.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> What has been surprising to me is that even though the Cons have been so unrelentingly negative in their attempts to attack Dion personally and to fear-monger about carbon taxes without any sort of rational or logical argument to back it up, that Dion has any traction left at all. Yet he seems to be gaining points while Harper is losing them in the polls. More than anything I think this shows that Canadians really mistrust Harper.


You've got to be joking. 

First the Conservatives have plenty to back up that a carbon tax is going to be anything but being revenue neutral. You can't put a tax on how products are made and delivered without the net result being that *everything* is going to be more expensive. Additionally when everything is more expensive, then the Government brings in more taxes because the sales taxes (PSTs and GST) are applied on the purchase price of goods. This isn't rocket science.

You want to talk about fear mongering, how about the fear mongering that has been going on by the opposition, most notably Layton and Dion. BushHarper.com. The subprime melt down. Canadians are better positioned to weather this economic storm than the US and Europeans. The IMF came out yesterday and said that Canada has the most secure backing system in the world, how much air time did that get?

The reason why Dion has been gaining in the polls is because Layton and Dion (not to mention the media) have been artificially inflating the "Fear Factor" of the economic crisis as to how it will affect Canada.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Backlash.....

Harper played to the choir and it's gonna come back to haunt him where he needs seats......pandering to Alberta's francophobia might have seemed coy but where the swing ridings are there are many many Canadians whose English is weak......and their vote counts more in deciding this election than blue dyed lap puppies.



> *Harper's criticism of Dion interview 'double standard': Duceppe
> Liberal leader 'does his best' in English, Bloc leader says*
> 
> Last Updated: Friday, October 10, 2008 | 2:46 PM ET
> ...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Big Deal. Duceppe as defence. Really? Layton? Really? Harpers opponents. Oooh they are critical, what a surprise.  

This is just spinning it as a language issue, which isn't the issue at all. The issue is that he has was unable to offer an alternative, to say what he would have done differently. "My plan is to make a plan." Good answer, good answer.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> You've got to be joking.
> 
> First the Conservatives have plenty to back up that a carbon tax is going to be anything but being revenue neutral. You can't put a tax on how products are made and delivered without the net result being that *everything* is going to be more expensive. Additionally when everything is more expensive, then the Government brings in more taxes because the sales taxes (PSTs and GST) are applied on the purchase price of goods. This isn't rocket science.
> 
> ...


No I'm not joking. Please send me a link that shows where a Conservative adequately explains exactly how tax shifting will "screw us all" as Harper likes to say. They just keep repeating the FUD but no facts. Have you heard their radio ads? What a pile of fear-mongering BS. There are many economists, including conservative ones, who agree with the idea of a carbon tax shift. Of course the devil is in the details and I don't completely agree with the approach that has been taken in BC. But I'm glad they have taken the first step.

Please note that all the parties, even the Cons, are proposing some form of tax on carbon to combat climate change. The Con plan was designed to do as little as possible though and is no more than transparent greenwashing. 

The difference with the tax shift is that what Canadians pay in carbon taxes will be removed from income and corporate taxes rates. This will be audited by the Auditor General. BC even early in now has the lowest rates in Canada. Those individuals and businesses who want to reduce what they pay in carbon taxes can work on reducing using products and services that are subject to those, and pay less overall taxes. Businesses than can innovate their way to using less carbon and will become more competitive than others that do things the old way.

Opposition to this is based on the fear that we can't innovate or change the way we've always done things. The result of this thinking is that we will be helpless to do anything but increase carbon output. I think we are far more flexible than that. But I will admit that Dion is doing a terrible job of selling the plan and defending it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Any party who would band together with the Bloc, (separatists) to try and form a coalition government would be guilty of treason. Layton has no other option to be PM as his chances of being elected are slim and none.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ...Those individuals and businesses who want to reduce what they pay in carbon taxes can work on reducing using products and services that are subject to those, and pay less overall taxes. Businesses than can innovate their way to using less carbon and will become more competitive than others that do things the old way.
> 
> Opposition to this is based on the fear that we can't innovate or change the way we've always done things. The result of this thinking is that we will be helpless to do anything but increase carbon output. I think we are far more flexible than that. But I will admit that Dion is doing a terrible job of selling the plan and defending it.


Just what non-carbon producing alternatives would you be referring to for getting your products to market... horse and buggy?  Wait no, they fart don't they?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> I saw the same clip last night on The National. He was confused with the focus of the question. This was due to his having English as his second language. I cut him some slack on this point. If I was asked the same question in French, I might have that I was going to use the pen of my aunt to Canadian troops into Florida to free suntanning Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.


Or a hot dog with mustard in the bathroom of my Aunt lol


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Just what non-carbon producing alternatives would you be referring to for getting your products to market... horse and buggy?  Wait no, they fart don't they?


I know you're trying to be funny since in a serious discussion of the issue no one would simply retreat to either/or positions. So far that comment looks just like the same FUD coming from the Cons. It doesn't appeal to intellect, only fear.

Shifting taxes from income to carbon is a market signal that can encourage innovation. Unless you believe that there is no reason to reduce atmospheric carbon, as some do, including Stephen Harper when he doesn't have to go on record, then you should be able to see that moving towards alternatives is necessary. If not, then we don't have much to discuss and I guess spewing FUD will be your argument. If you think that continuing to pump carbon into the atmosphere isn't a problem until all the fossil fuel is burnt up, you should definitely vote Conservative, because that is essentially their POV.

I may not be able to get a Prius tomorrow, but I can use the car I have now less if I want to pay less in carbon tax and reduce my overall taxes, since my income tax rate will be going down. Businesses can find ways to do that too. A company might move to intermodal containers on rail over semis in some cases and reduce. Then that company reduces its tax burden and becomes more competitive. If I buy food products that are grown closer to home over those that travel a long distance, there will be less tax paid on those. It's not like everything changes immediately, a tax shift encourages moving in a direction and encourages innovation.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It's not like everything changes immediately, a tax shift encourages moving in a direction and encourages innovation.


Yeah and everyone suffers in the mean time, no thanks, Communism looks good on paper too, in real world application... not so much. 

Find a viably alternative first and people will be throwing money at you to develop it. The fact is that currently there is no viable freight transportation alternative that is carbon neutral, hell we don't even really have one yet for personal transportation.

So your and your fearless leader's plan is to hog tie the economy in the mean time with the *hopes*, that a viable alternative will "come out in the wash". Nah, I think I will pass.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I may not be able to get a Prius tomorrow, but I can use the car I have now less if I want to pay less in carbon tax and reduce my overall taxes, since my income tax rate will be going down. Businesses can find ways to do that too. A company might move to intermodal containers on rail over semis in some cases and reduce. Then that company reduces its tax burden and becomes more competitive. If I buy food products that are grown closer to home over those that travel a long distance, there will be less tax paid on those. It's not like everything changes immediately, a tax shift encourages moving in a direction and encourages innovation.


And all that time the trucking industry, worth millions to the economy dries up and hundreds of thousands of truckers and their owners go out of business.

Yeah, some friggin' plan all right.

You can't benefit from tax reduction on a business that a carbon tax sentences to death.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

screature said:


> You've got to be joking.
> 
> First the Conservatives have plenty to back up that a carbon tax is going to be anything but being revenue neutral. You can't put a tax on how products are made and delivered without the net result being that *everything* is going to be more expensive. Additionally when everything is more expensive, then the Government brings in more taxes because the sales taxes (PSTs and GST) are applied on the purchase price of goods. This isn't rocket science.
> 
> ...


You trusting the IMF in what they say as economic truth tells the entire story. Name the last time the IMF said something that did not have American interests behind it and I will give you five bucks.

Screature,

HARPER BROKE HIS OWN LAW! He made a LAW that he would not call the election until the end of his term. He did not. He broke it now! Why? He had planned to have the election before the big sh-i-t show in the US and could claim that Canada is fine and everything is hunky dory. That plan messed up and the US soiled itself in an inconvenient time for Harper. 

What does this tell us?

A) The Conservatives are willing to break laws to win elections.

B) The Conservatives have no trouble deceiving Canadians to win elections.

C) Conservatives will probably do it again - to win an election. 

Great leadership Czar Harpo!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

The Bloc voted with the Conservatives for most of the last 2.5 years.




SINC said:


> Any party who would band together with the Bloc, (separatists) to try and form a coalition government would be guilty of treason. Layton has no other option to be PM as his chances of being elected are slim and none.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

HowEver said:


> The Bloc voted with the Conservatives for most of the last 2.5 years.


:clap:

Layton has like 20 something percent! Should I remind you that the Conservatives usually take office with 30 something %. 

Layton just needs the Conservatives to mess up big. Should happen soon.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> The Bloc voted with the Conservatives for most of the last 2.5 years.


I guess you don't understand the term coalition? How the Bloc votes without one is immaterial to the issue.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> I guess you don't understand the term coalition? How the Bloc votes without one is immaterial to the issue.


Immaterial. Big word Sinc.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> Immaterial. Big word Sinc.


And the purpose of your post was?

That is other than demonstrating you have nothing to contribute to the subject at hand.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> I guess you don't understand the term coalition?


A coalition with the "treasonists". How UnCanadian.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ottawaman said:


> A coalition with the "treasonists". How UnCanadian.


Hey if you're fine with a party bent on the destruction of the nation, and figure that's "Canadian" go with it.

Me, not so much.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

HowEver said:


> The Bloc voted with the Conservatives for most of the last 2.5 years.


Need a map?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> You trusting the IMF in what they say as economic truth tells the entire story. Name the last time the IMF said something that did not have American interests behind it and I will give you five bucks.
> 
> Screature,
> 
> ...



I trust the IMF more than Dion or Layton when it comes to economics.

Harpers law was clearly intended for majority governments.  

If the Opposition can trigger an election in a minority Government it is obvious that fixed election dates are not applicable under said circumstances. Non-confidence motions by the Opposition would have to be outlawed as well thereby rendering minority Governments meaningless. Duh, it is pretty obvious what the intent of the law was.

Common sense is not so common after all.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Yeah and everyone suffers in the mean time, no thanks, Communism looks good on paper too, in real world application... not so much.
> 
> Find a viably alternative first and people will be throwing money at you to develop it. The fact is that currently there is no viable freight transportation alternative that is carbon neutral, hell we don't even really have one yet for personal transportation.
> 
> So your and your fearless leader's plan is to hog tie the economy in the mean time with the *hopes*, that a viable alternative will "come out in the wash". Nah, I think I will pass.


I'm still not seeing you or the Cons studies that show how a tax shift will "screw us all", only some vague assumptions and a willingness to allow atmospheric carbon to continue to rise.

Here's a viable alternative, wind power. Why are people not throwing money at it like you say? Because it's difficult to compete with cheap fossil fuels, because fossil fuels have the advantage of using the atmosphere as a free dumping ground for carbon and pollution, not reflecting the true costs of using them. They have an eternality that helps them be more competitive where wind does not. A carbon tax helps to level the playing field.

Here's another viable alternative. Transit. It's not a panacea of course, but it can work at least in part for the vast majority of the population that lives in urban areas. Why don't people use it as much as possible? Because there is no upside to them, mainly because there is crappy service in their area.

Now if people see some advantage to using transit like paying less tax, they will want to move towards it. This will create greater demand for better and more extensive service. Increases in gas prices in the last 2 years have already stoked massive surges in demand. Adding a carbon tax would only increase this.

So if my income tax goes down and total taxes go down if I use the car less and transit more why wouldn't I do it? Or I could choose to use my car the same and pay the same in tax. And why does this hog-tie the economy? This is never, ever explained by the FUD throwers, only screamed at by using exaggeration and either/or examples, such as SINC's post above.

Now the Conservative plan will put hidden regulatory costs and cap and trade taxes onto carbon use by industry also, to reduce carbon output by a pathetic 20% from 2006 levels by 2020, — low enough levels that those with money won't feel the pinch. The rest of us will pay more as this cost gets passed on to the consumer. No shift here, except from my pocket to the government. If I'm still around I'll be an old man in 2020 and in all likelihood a long-distant memory in 2050, but that'll be when children and young folks will be really paying the costs, both fiscally and in a damaged environment, of all that carbon we pumped into the atmosphere. The useless Con plans aren't conservative in any way, they're just loading the costs onto people who are too young to have a say.

As the Stern Report says (paraphrased), you can pay $5 now or $100 later trying to fix the damage from climate change. Maybe we'll be the generation that will be known through history as too damned selfish and cheap to do anything about climate change.

Funny, I looked up the Conservative environmental policy on their web site. It was only about 200 words with no background or detail and then spent another 200 words attacking the opposition plans, with vague threats about "the worst recession in 60 years" (obviously written before recent events) and "killing 275,000 jobs". No references to where they get their "facts". That says it all.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Harpers law was clearly intended for majority governments.


Hey, don't get all "rolleyes" on us. That's not true, Harper's own words from May 26, 2006:



> *"Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage," Harper said. "They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody."*
> 
> Because the government could be defeated in the Commons before the end of a four-year term, "the will of a majority in Parliament will always prevail," he said.
> 
> ...


Steve broke his word, unequivocally. His excuses in September were just weasel words.

Maybe I should just repeat that last line because his weasel excuse seems to just get repeated over and over on this board.



> *So unless we're defeated or prevented from governing we want to keep moving forward to make this minority parliament work over the next 3½ years.*


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

screature said:


> I trust the IMF more than Dion or Layton when it comes to economics.
> 
> Harpers law was clearly intended for majority governments.
> 
> ...


Common sense seems to induce reductionist tendencies I suppose. You have deviated from what I prodded you with. The IMF is probably one of the most impartial financial institutions in the world. It has some grand scheme to get the US back on its feet by what it does. They do run it! Bretton Woods System. 

Please refrain from deviating from the argument at hand. 

Harper's law was explicit: He would not call an election until his term ended. He called an election. He broke the law. Modus Ponens anyone!

If you break the logic in that argument I will nominate you for a nobel prize. Until then concede your failure.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As the Stern Report says (paraphrased), you can pay $5 now or $100 later trying to fix the damage from climate change. Maybe we'll be the generation that will be known through history as too damned selfish and cheap to do anything about climate change.


'
The Stern Report has already been roundly criticized for playing up eventual costs of trumped up scenaria and downplaying upfront costs. And his gabbling meant something only if his projections were true, based as they were on the computer models that provide scenaria, not predictions of actual events.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm still not seeing you or the Cons studies that show how a tax shift will "screw us all", only some vague assumptions and a willingness to allow atmospheric carbon to continue to rise.


There are many ways the tax will screw us all.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Here's a viable alternative, wind power. Why are people not throwing money at it like you say? Because it's difficult to compete with cheap fossil fuels, because fossil fuels have the advantage of using the atmosphere as a free dumping ground for carbon and pollution, not reflecting the true costs of using them. They have an eternality that helps them be more competitive where wind does not. A carbon tax helps to level the playing field.


Not in your lifetime. It will hurt far more people than it will help.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Here's another viable alternative. Transit. It's not a panacea of course, but it can work at least in part for the vast majority of the population that lives in urban areas. Why don't people use it as much as possible? Because there is no upside to them, mainly because there is crappy service in their area.


Yeah you're right. The transit service between Fort McMurray and Edmonton sucks. Just like it sucks from point A to B in oh, say Edson, or Vegreville or Rosetown, or Nipawin, or oh say . . . well by now you must get the idea.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Now if people see some advantage to using transit like paying less tax, they will want to move towards it. This will create greater demand for better and more extensive service. Increases in gas prices in the last 2 years have already stoked massive surges in demand. Adding a carbon tax would only increase this.


Yep, you're right, the demand will increase and transit will be a miraculous conception in 90% of rural Canada. Good thinking.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So if my income tax goes down and total taxes go down if I use the car less and transit more why wouldn't I do it? Or I could choose to use my car the same and pay the same in tax. And why does this hog-tie the economy? This is never, ever explained by the FUD throwers, only screamed at by using exaggeration and either/or examples, such as SINC's post above.


Yeah, my examples have no truth to them at all. Ask anyone in oh, say Edson, or Nipawin or oh, say . . . well by now you get the idea.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Now the Conservative plan will put hidden regulatory costs and cap and trade taxes onto carbon use by industry also, to reduce carbon output by a pathetic 20% from 2006 levels by 2020, — low enough levels that those with money won't feel the pinch. The rest of us will pay more as this cost gets passed on to the consumer. No shift here, except from my pocket to the government. If I'm still around I'll be an old man in 2020 and in all likelihood a long-distant memory in 2050, but that'll be when children and young folks will be really paying the costs, both fiscally and in a damaged environment, of all that carbon we pumped into the atmosphere. The useless Con plans aren't conservative in any way, they're just loading the costs onto people who are too young to have a say.
> 
> As the Stern Report says (paraphrased), you can pay $5 now or $100 later trying to fix the damage from climate change. Maybe we'll be the generation that will be known through history as too damned selfish and cheap to do anything about climate change.


There is no proof that what you claim will be the future will be as you describe.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Funny, I looked up the Conservative environmental policy on their web site. It was only about 200 words with no background or detail and then spent another 200 words attacking the opposition plans, with vague threats about "the worst recession in 60 years" (obviously written before recent events) and "killing 275,000 jobs". No references to where they get their "facts". That says it all.


It doesn't even take 200 words to tell the truth about climate change scare tactics by fanatics.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> There are many ways the tax will screw us all.


The most critical question he asked you failed to answer. Why did you even bother with the other obvious ones. Give us ten minutes of your time and further enlighten us as to how the carbon tax will "screw us all". 

Conservatives are so good at deviating away from the question at hand.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Oh my SINC, quite the stinging rebuttal. 

Let's see, ... I say to screature, "all you give is FUD with no details and ask repeatedly how it will "screw us all" as Harper claims." You say:



SINC said:


> There are many ways the tax will screw us all.


and


SINC said:


> Not in your lifetime. It will hurt far more people than it will help.


Spectacular ol' buddy.  OK, here's a little chart for you.

DEBATE HIERARCHY​






You'll notice that if you look at the chart, all you've done is contradict me. Is not - is so - is not - is so, while occasionally entertaining, gets boring fast.



SINC said:


> Yeah you're right. The transit service between Fort McMurray and Edmonton sucks. Just like it sucks from point A to B in oh, say Edson, or Vegreville or Rosetown, or Nipawin, or oh say . . . well by now you must get the idea.


Now you're involved in setting up a classic "Straw man" argument. Google it. You'll remember that when I mentioned transit I said:



Me said:


> Here's another viable alternative. Transit. It's not a panacea of course, but it can work at least in part for the vast majority of the population that lives in urban areas.


You're arguing against points I never made, that you're trying to imply that I made. Whatever.



SINC said:


> Yep, you're right, the demand will increase and transit will be a miraculous conception in 90% of rural Canada. Good thinking.


Again with the straw man. I never said anything about rural Canada.



SINC said:


> Yeah, my examples have no truth to them at all. Ask anyone in oh, say Edson, or Nipawin or oh, say . . . well by now you get the idea.


And again. This time you refer to my mention of your name in my reply to screature. I was saying that your arguments in post #29 were examples of exaggeration. Of course they were. But as evidenced from your reply to my post you're not interested in actually debating anything. Contradiction, fallacious arguments and exaggeration aren't debating.



SINC said:


> There is no proof that what you claim will be the future will be as you describe.
> 
> - - -
> It doesn't even take 200 words to tell the truth about climate change scare tactics by fanatics.


OK, you end with a little ad hominem attack on me. Nice. You see this is why I didn't even respond directly to your post. I've found through experience on this board that's it's somewhat pointless, because you never back up your arguments. When challenged you often go back to "it's my opinion". That's fine. And now you've read mine. Anything else to discuss?

Furthermore it is pointless to discuss whether there is a need for a carbon tax with someone who doesn't think that pumping carbon into the atmosphere is a problem to begin with. Of course you're not in favour of such a policy. Please go ahead and vote Conservative and be happy with your faith.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> '
> The Stern Report has already been roundly criticized for playing up eventual costs of trumped up scenaria and downplaying upfront costs. And his gabbling meant something only if his projections were true, based as they were on the computer models that provide scenaria, not predictions of actual events.


You know MF, a few internet ranters on some fringe blogs who type with the caps lock key on does not equal "roundly criticized".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Foolish Dutchmen 



> Dutch to draft 200-year plan against warming
> Cabinet says commission will study ways to avoid floods
> 
> 
> ...


Climate change deniers are verging on the hysterically pathetic at this point in time...a couple of classic examples here come to mind.

Get over it... a carbon tax is coming
Polluter pays.

If you think your Alberta firewall idea is going to prevent a reckoning.....that's another equally foolish notion.


_ *the country's government sees the risk of rising seas caused by global warming as a matter of life and death.*_

but you know better Sinc?????

Rampant ignorance....just astounding WILLFUL blindness


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Dutch ARE fools, it appears--thanks for demonstrating it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You know MF, a few internet ranters on some fringe blogs who type with the caps lock key on does not equal "roundly criticized".


I hope you're joking. Stern is already a largely forgotten figure, but even a quick look at the wikipedia includes economists at Yale, Cambridge, who--among other things--called the paper "absurd."

From Wikipedia:



> Richard Tol, an environmental economist at the Economic and Social Research Institute and lead author (amongst a total of over 450 lead authors) for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said that "If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a 'D' for diligence; but more likely I would give him an 'F' for fail. There is a whole range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor of Economics simply should not make. (...) Stern consistently picks the most pessimistic for every choice that one can make. He overestimates through cherry-picking, he double counts particularly the risks and he underestimates what development and adaptation will do to impacts."


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Hey, don't get all "rolleyes" on us. That's not true, Harper's own words from May 26, 2006:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can highlight everything in red all you like and say things like weasel words, but until you have had the "pleasure" of dealing with the obstructionist goings on in the Committees of the House of Commons, you are not in the position be a judge as to what constitutes being "prevented from governing".

I have been witness to them first hand and many committees were dysfunctional in the last Parliament, I'm not saying that the game playing was all one sided, because it wasn't, but it certainly could be very easily argued by any leader that under the conditions of the previous Parliament, they were being "prevented from governing."


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm still not seeing you or the Cons studies that show how a tax shift will "screw us all", only some vague assumptions and a willingness to allow atmospheric carbon to continue to rise.
> 
> Here's a viable alternative, wind power. Why are people not throwing money at it like you say? Because it's difficult to compete with cheap fossil fuels, because fossil fuels have the advantage of using the atmosphere as a free dumping ground for carbon and pollution, not reflecting the true costs of using them. They have an eternality that helps them be more competitive where wind does not. A carbon tax helps to level the playing field.
> 
> ...


Wind Power and Transit are alternatives for freight transportation????!!!! :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

screature said:


> Wind Power and Transit are alternatives for freight transportation????!!!! :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


No but electric is. 100% torque at 0 RPM. Scania and Hino (Toyota) are in development of them.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> No but electric is. 100% torque at 0 RPM. Scania and Hino (Toyota) are in development of them.


For long haul? If so, the sooner they are available for real world implementation the better.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> Mr. Dion is incapable of answering a simple question that is put to him three times and then when he does answer, his plan, is to make a plan within thirty days. NOT A LEADER!
> 
> Interview w/ Stephane Dion
> 
> Edit: Sorry I inadvertently put this in the wrong section, maybe the moderators could move it. Thanks.


The questions was a pretty stupid question, to be fair. I can't blame Mr. Dion for misunderstanding the interviewer's intention, since I found the question rather ambiguous myself. Essentially, he was asking if Dion had been prime minister for the last two years and a half instead of president Harper, what would he (Dion) have done that Harper didn't do? That's a stupid question, since the interviewer's focus seems to be on the economic woes gripping Canada, The US and the world right now. 

Harper certainly didn't predict the need for a bailout of Canadian banks YESTERDAY, let alone two years and a half ago, so why suppose Dion would have predicted it? The question is completely hypothetical and based on an alternate reality that didn't happen. Everyone has 20-20 hindsight. I'm impressed Dion has managed to stay this long, considering all of the slagging he's received. He's brave and intelligent, two qualities president Harper lacks.

What the politicians plan to do now and in the future is what matters, not what they would have done had they had the opportunity, such as implementing a fixed-election-date law that you yourself create so that the prime minister cannot call an election at his whim when he senses the political climate to be advantageous for his party's purposes. Disobeying your own law because it is inconvenient to would be the height of hypocrisy and an abuse of power.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> You can highlight everything in red all you like and say things like weasel words, but until you have had the "pleasure" of dealing with the obstructionist goings on in the Committees of the House of Commons, you are not in the position be a judge as to what constitutes being "prevented from governing".
> 
> I have been witness to them first hand and many committees were dysfunctional in the last Parliament, I'm not saying that the game playing was all one sided, because it wasn't, but it certainly could be very easily argued by any leader that under the conditions of the previous Parliament, they were being "prevented from governing."


Boo hoo. No vote of non-confidence, no dissolution of parliament. Unless what you are saying is that you have no confidence in your OWN government.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

With oil at $80 a barrel, all this green transportation talk will evaporate for the next year or so.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Electric rail.


Actually today's diesel-electric train locomotives use electricity from on board generators, in turn powered by the diesel engines:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
A number of vehicles use a diesel-electric powertrain for providing locomotion. A diesel-electric powerplant includes a diesel engine connected to an electrical generator, creating electricity that powers electric traction motors. Before diesel engines came into widespread use a similar system, using a petrol engine and called petrol-electric, was sometimes used.

This kind of power transmission is used by locomotives (see that article for details), used for pulling or pushing trains. Diesel-electric powerplants have also been used in submarines and surface ships and some land vehicles. In some high-efficiency applications, electrical energy may be stored in rechargeable batteries, in which case these vehicles can be considered as a class of hybrid electric vehicle.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Does Dion still have a 14% approval rating in Quebec?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> OK, you end with a little ad hominem attack on me. Nice.


I in no way attacked you or your character. I made a simple statement that your predictions of what the future holds are unproven. It is conjecture, based on what you believe and nothing more. If you believe your predictions are true, I guess your crystal ball is far superior to mine.

That certainly does not constitute an ad hominem attack.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Electric rail.


Sure with what rail infrastructure? Unfortunately North America isn't set up to properly accommodate the sophisticated rail system needed to replace transport. And unless we do it the old fashion way with pick axe and horses, I could only imagine the environmental impact from construction and clear cutting over the years needed to accomplish this feat.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> With oil at $80 a barrel, all this green transportation talk will evaporate for the next year or so.


Oh MF so little you know!

The price of oil closed at a little over $70 and change last night. Also, OPEC is having an emergency meeting today to "regulate market volatility". Essentially, the Saudis will be closing the taps tomorrow. The price will surge back above $100/barrel within the next month or two.

So no, you are incorrect.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

I must reiterate, Conservatives are both ignorant and rather weak arguers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> I must reiterate, Conservatives are both ignorant and rather weak arguers.


Try looking in a mirror. Only an ignorant person would make a generalization like that. tptptptp


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> I must reiterate, Conservatives are both ignorant and rather weak arguers.


Yet you're trumpeting a man that doesn't know how to make priorities and can't come up with an answer to a remedial question.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> Oh MF so little you know!
> 
> The price of oil closed at a little over $70 and change last night. Also, OPEC is having an emergency meeting today to "regulate market volatility". Essentially, the Saudis will be closing the taps tomorrow. The price will surge back above $100/barrel within the next month or two.
> 
> So no, you are incorrect.


No, I said that with oil at $80 per barrel the impetus for green transportation efforts would fizzle, not that the price was $80 at this minute. The price will certainly fluctuate, but not enough to get people excited about alternative transport over the next year or so. 

Your personal predictions of where oil will be priced two months from now are, however, not to be confused with fact. You may be correct, but even at a steady $100 per barrel, the price is hardly punitive.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Price of oil wont go up to prices we saw this summer until next years driving season begins.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Let’s get this thread re-railed. Geez you folks in the rest of Canada missed the whole point of this story, in the Merrytymes *WE Have* to put up with Steve Murphy (or as I like to call him Mr. Potato Head) on a continual bases.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

This was a manufactured election, triggered by a politician who wants more power, who actively suppresses dissent, is a control-freak, sub-fractionates voters, looks as far in the future as tomorrow and seems to bear personal grudges on his rented sweater sleeve. His leaping on the CTV interview by calling a press meeting was just low class, simple as that. More damage might have been done to Dion if he'd just let the media do their usual chattering. But, he HAD to rub salt into the wound further reinforcing the perception that he is an insensitive bully. The blue sweater unravelled.

If every there was a case for proportional representation, it is now. We are a mixed bunch. We have differing opinions and it seems no one in Ottawa has our overall confidence or merits it from their performance over the past few years.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> I in no way attacked you or your character. I made a simple statement that your predictions of what the future holds are unproven. It is conjecture, based on what you believe and nothing more. If you believe your predictions are true, I guess your crystal ball is far superior to mine.
> 
> That certainly does not constitute an ad hominem attack.





SINC said:


> It doesn't even take 200 words to tell the truth about climate change scare tactics by fanatics.


SINC's definition of Ad Hominem: Attacks the character or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument — unless you put a winky smiley at the end.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> You can highlight everything in red all you like and say things like weasel words, but until you have had the "pleasure" of dealing with the obstructionist goings on in the Committees of the House of Commons, you are not in the position be a judge as to what constitutes being "prevented from governing".
> 
> I have been witness to them first hand and many committees were dysfunctional in the last Parliament, I'm not saying that the game playing was all one sided, because it wasn't, but it certainly could be very easily argued by any leader that under the conditions of the previous Parliament, they were being "prevented from governing."


The obstructionist goings on in Parliament are business as usual. Aided and abetted in the last Parliament most notably by Harper's handbook on how to obstruct committee work.

CTV.ca | Tories blasted for handbook on paralyzing Parliament



> OTTAWA -- The Harper government is being accused of a machiavellian plot to wreak parliamentary havoc after a secret Tory handbook on obstructing and manipulating Commons committees was leaked to the press.
> 
> Opposition parties pounced on news reports Friday about the 200-page handbook as proof that the Conservatives are to blame for the toxic atmosphere that has paralyzed Parliament this week.


But none of this prevented Harper from governing, since he passed a pile of legislation while the House was in. Nor are there any explicit statements made at the time of Harper's fixed election date bill that it was intended for majority government only. His justifications last month were less than lame.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Wind Power and Transit are alternatives for freight transportation????!!!! :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


No, I never said these were alternatives to freight transportation. But I should have made that clearer in previous posts. Originally I was speaking about general alternatives to fossil fuels for different applications. You and SINC were the ones who seized on freight transportation.

I'm not advocating that things can change overnight or that all the alternatives are complete, up and running and ready. Some are ready, some can be made to be and some innovations can move forward if the market is signalling a demand.

Look screature, I'm getting the impression that you don't see the need to do anything about carbon output, but correct me if I'm wrong. If not then there is really nothing for us to discuss. We could go back and forth on the issue all day, just like MacDoc, SINC and MF do and nobody will learn anything. I'm not too interested in that game, or getting into simplistic tit-for-tat. Harper's plan is designed to do nothing, other than make people think the Cons are concerned about the issue. If you are happy with that, great. 

My initial point was that the Cons were presenting FUD when they claimed that a carbon tax would destroy the economy. The Europeans have paid double what we do for gas for decades and their economies weren't destroyed. I'm sure the taxes weren't brought in overnight and they adapted in many ways and built alternative infrastructures. I think what happened is that they took the oil shocks of the '70s as a serious signal that working towards alternatives was a sensible way to go. In North America we briefly started to and then stopped when oil became inexpensive in the '80s. Now that climate change has become a major concern they are starting much farther ahead than we are. On average, Europeans produce half the carbon of the average North American.

Again please note that all parties are advocating a tax on carbon of some kind. There will be costs to any action we take to work on reducing carbon output, even with the Cons plan. There is no reason to believe that carbon tax shifting is any worse than cap and trade, or can't be made to be complementary. I'm in disagreement with the NDP's focus on "making the polluters pay", because their focus seems to make people think that the only polluters are industry. We are all polluters, and a carbon tax shift allows more flexibility in how we can choose to reduce and lets the market make decisions about how it will respond to the new price signals on carbon. This is why it is favoured by even right-leaning economists. Being a lefty, my addition would be to have strong protections and incentives for those at the bottom of the wealth scale and I think there are many ways to accomplish this.

BTW, to correct something from way back in the thread, Dion isn't "my fearless leader" as you asserted. He's advocating a tax shift which I agree with. It's also advocated by the Green Party and even some NDPers, although not as official policy unfortunately for political reasons.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MF said:


> I hope you're joking. Stern is already a largely forgotten figure, but even a quick look at the wikipedia includes economists at Yale, Cambridge, who--among other things--called the paper "absurd."
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> 
> ...


Like I said earlier, anonymous bloggers, if you're quoting Wiki. Speaking of cherry-picking, the same page lists some who think Stern was too conservative and many who agree with him. I'll take your Wiki and raise you 4 Nobel Prize winning economists who support Stern: James Mirrlees 1996, Amartya Sen 1998, Joseph Stiglitz 2001 and Robert M. Solow 1987.

The Economics of Climate Change - Cambridge University Press

If you want to get into a link war, we could, but I suspect we both have better things to do with our time. I don't have the training to evaluate an argument between economists. But they don't disagree on the base issue of climate change, like almost every government in the world, scientific body and even many of the oil companies, just on the details of mitigation research.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

used to be jwoodget said:


> This was a manufactured election, triggered by a politician who wants more power, who actively suppresses dissent, is a control-freak, sub-fractionates voters, looks as far in the future as tomorrow and seems to bear personal grudges on his rented sweater sleeve. His leaping on the CTV interview by calling a press meeting was just low class, simple as that. More damage might have been done to Dion if he'd just let the media do their usual chattering. But, he HAD to rub salt into the wound further reinforcing the perception that he is an insensitive bully. The blue sweater unravelled.
> 
> If every there was a case for proportional representation, it is now. We are a mixed bunch. We have differing opinions and it seems no one in Ottawa has our overall confidence or merits it from their performance over the past few years.


Very well said, UTBJW! :clap:

I think Harper is so arrogant that he can't even see this failing and confuses it with strength. His nonstop hammering of Dion since he became Liberal leader directed at his accent is loathsome. That Not a Leader website with the frat boy puffin humour wasn't an aberration, it was strategy approved at the top.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But they don't disagree on the base issue of climate change, like almost every government in the world, scientific body and even many of the oil companies, just on the details of mitigation research.


No, they disagree on both counts of poor economics *and* the notion of climate change itself--or agree. What I'm suggesting is that Stern is no slam dunk, except in certain circles of people already on the GHG bandwagon. You can't just quotes Stern and get a free pass.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Look screature, I'm getting the impression that you don't see the need to do anything about carbon output, but correct me if I'm wrong. If not then there is really nothing for us to discuss. .


No, but what I am suggesting is that the Green Shift is the wrong idea at the wrong time. Dion has said that regardless of the current economic environment it is full steam ahead with the Green Shift.

There is no doubt that a carbon tax at least in the short term would be inflationary at a time when inflation is the last thing we need.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

JumboJones said:


> Yet you're trumpeting a man that doesn't know how to make priorities and can't come up with an answer to a remedial question.


That's not fair! Do you think it's easy to make priorities?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> That's not fair! Do you think it's easy to make priorities?


If it was easy, Harper wouldn't have waited until 6 days before the election to release his 'platform.'


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

used to be jwoodget said:


> ...
> 
> The blue sweater unravelled.
> 
> ...


There's the title for a book about this election. (thanks for the imagery utbj!)

We'll know precisely how far it has unravelled (or not) on the 14th.


*In the meantime - remember everyone!!
*


> Keep all body parts (hands, arms, legs, long hair, etc.) inside the ride at all times.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> No, but what I am suggesting is that the Green Shift is the wrong idea at the wrong time. Dion has said that regardless of the current economic environment it is full steam ahead with the Green Shift.
> 
> There is no doubt that a carbon tax at least in the short term would be inflationary at a time when inflation is the last thing we need.


The assumption that it would be inflationary in either the short or long term is not necessarily a given. But Harper has gone well beyond that in his exaggerated rhetoric, without really giving any direct criticism of the plan or any evidence or economic analysis of Dion's plan or tax shifting in general. He and Baird have rejected tax-shifting from day one, even when suggested by their own advisors and right-leaning economists, with only hyperbole as their excuse. That's the reason for my charge of the Cons being engaged in fear-mongering about carbon taxes. What he doesn't say is that his caps and penalties will have costs also, which will be passed on to the end users.

If we are going to deal with carbon output, then we have to put a price on pumping carbon into the atmosphere, no one who has seriously proposed even a tepid plan, such as the Harper plan, has denied this. The question is what is the best way to do that but the heated exaggeration of tax shifting coming from the Cons doesn't allow for debate on the issue.

Stephen Harper studied economics back when he was a student, although he has never worked in the field. Against his claims with no evidence that a carbon tax shift would destroy the economy and screw us all, we have a letter signed recently by 230 Canadian economists that enthusiastically supports the idea of carbon tax shifting.

An Open Letter to the Leaders of Canada's Federal Political Parties


> One of the few issues on which most economists agree is the need for public policy to protect the environment. Why so much agreement? Because in the absence of policy, individuals generally don’t take the environmental consequences of their actions into account, and the result is “market failure” and excessive levels of pollution. Environmental degradation diminishes the quality of life for all of us. And without a healthy environment, we can’t sustain a healthy economy. We, the undersigned, have therefore joined together to express our shared views on effective policies to address climate change.
> 
> We are non-partisan and will undoubtedly be supporting different parties in this election. Our goal is not to criticize or praise one party or another, but rather to offer our collective views, as economists, to help inform public debate on these matters at a critical time – during a federal election campaign.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It's hard to imagine that there are actually people out there who, in the midst of an economic meltdown, have their heads buried so far in the sand that they would still applaud the imposition of a carbon tax at this point.

The economic damage in terms of inflation in the short term, would surely help to further scuttle the economy, and if you can't grasp that simple fact, my sympathies.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> If it was easy, Harper wouldn't have waited until 6 days before the election to release his 'platform.'


Good thing too or else we would have another half assed platform that not even the party leader can explain.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Noted economist SINC says:



SINC said:


> It's hard to imagine that there are actually people out there who, in the midst of an economic meltdown, have their heads buried so far in the sand that they would still applaud the imposition of a carbon tax at this point.
> 
> The economic damage in terms of inflation, in the short term would surely help to further scuttle the economy, and if you can't grasp that simple fact, my sympathies.


Meanwhile 230 Canadian economists have another viewpoint.

Please Professor SINC, explain how tax shifting causes inflation.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Noted economist SINC says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Be glad to GA.

There are no balancing refunds of the tax to make it revenue neutral, (which incidentally is impossible anyway), until you file your next income tax return after the carbon tax is instituted.

That inflates the price of everything we use and buy until the 2009 tax year when a refund could be requested, and then CRS could take 3 to 6 months to respond.

That amounts to a year and a half of inflation in an already fragile economy.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> Be glad to GA.
> 
> There are no balancing refunds of the tax to make it revenue neutral, (which incidentally is impossible anyway), until you file your next income tax return after the carbon tax is instituted.
> 
> ...


Ok, ok, ok, ok I cannot resist using Sinc's own medecine on him!


So then, you would rather sit on your porch with a filtered mask because the air is far too toxic to breathe while counting your cash you saved by not supporting any environmental plan, and the money you saved is worth nothing because the world market has collapsed because South East Asia, Japan, New York, Sao Paolo and Western Europe are under water?

But you still have an SUV and you saved 800 bucks over 2 years right?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> Ok, ok, ok, ok I cannot resist using Sinc's own medecine on him!
> 
> 
> So then, you would rather sit on your porch with a filtered mask because the air is far too toxic to breathe while counting your cash you saved by not supporting any environmental plan, and the money you saved is worth nothing because the world market has collapsed because South East Asia, Japan, New York, Sao Paolo and Western Europe are under water?
> ...


It is blatantly obvious you have no idea of my position, so much so that you would demonstrate it by posting such a convoluted collection of drivel.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Be glad to GA.
> 
> There are no balancing refunds of the tax to make it revenue neutral, (which incidentally is impossible anyway), until you file your next income tax return after the carbon tax is instituted.
> 
> ...


Thanks SINC.

I don't know if that is how Dion's plan works, or the Greens plan for that matter, but it's likely something they've considered and taken into account. It is certainly something that could be adjusted for. There's no reason that any inflation based on your scenario needs to occur.

In BC that problem was solved by offering an initial tax credit up front and also starting the carbon tax at a low level, to give the market and individuals time to adjust. It hasn't added any inflation in BC to the best of my knowledge. BTW, provincial income taxes in BC on our next returns will be at the lowest level of any province in Canada because of carbon taxes collected in 2008 offsetting income and corporate taxes.

To Adrian — there's no need to exaggerate to make your point, that's Harper's gambit.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Thanks SINC.
> 
> I don't know if that is how Dion's plan works, or the Greens plan for that matter, but it's likely something they've considered and taken into account. It is certainly something that could be adjusted for. There's no reason that any inflation based on your scenario needs to occur.
> 
> To Adrian — there's no need to exaggerate to make your point, that's Harper's gambit.


GA, that is the unknown, but even if there is a formal plan, which I seriously doubt, it will IMHO be inflationary if instituted. I cannot see the feds and especially the Liberals not holding on to taxpayers money for as long as possible, hence my scenario as to the recovery via the income tax filing method.

From past experience, the more complicated they can make it, the more tax dollars they will capture from ordinary Canadians.

Sad, but true if history repeats itself. IE: never make it simple to get a CRS refund.

And for the record, Adrian. might be beyond help.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> So then, you would rather sit on your porch with a filtered mask because the air is far too toxic to breathe while counting your cash you saved


Incremental release of carbon dioxide does not require a mask to assist breathing. The largest source of true pollutants come from industry, not privately-owned vehicles and homes. Better to regulate the industries than to tax individuals.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Incremental release of carbon dioxide does not require a mask to assist breathing. The largest source of true pollutants come from industry, not privately-owned vehicles and homes. Better to regulate the industries than to tax individuals.


You almost have it...........come on....say it....


Dion's plan: Tax industry! Let us take a minute and read the wise words of Smith:

"Capitalism works itself pure"

Sounds like Dworkin ripped off Adam, oh well. Industry will become more efficient if it is too expensive to be dumping megatonnes of pollution into the atmosphere!

I was not so much going after the personal vehicle deal. More that Sinc is in complete denial of any environmental problem and refuses to give any latitude to the notion of environmental protection policy.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> It is blatantly obvious you have no idea of my position, so much so that you would demonstrate it by posting such a convoluted collection of drivel.


I am happy with any reaction really.

Thanks though.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> I was not so much going after the personal vehicle deal. More that Sinc is in complete denial of any environmental problem and refuses to give any latitude to the notion of environmental protection policy.


That is complete bullsh!t and you would know it had you followed my postings in entirety.

I have made it known hundreds of times here that I have done my part to reduce my carbon footprint in perhaps more ways that even you, you sage, have done.

He who lives in glass houses and all.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> GA, that is the unknown, but even if there is a formal plan, which I seriously doubt, it will IMHO be inflationary if instituted. I cannot see the feds and especially the Liberals not holding on to taxpayers money for as long as possible, hence my scenario as to the recovery via the income tax filing method.
> 
> From past experience, the more complicated they can make it, the more tax dollars they will capture from ordinary Canadians.
> 
> ...


Mistrust of bureaucratic administration is well-founded, but there are adjustments made by the CRA almost every year in how they collect tax. There's no evidence that collecting taxes this way should be any more problematic than the old way. 

If someone is employed their tax is withheld from their paycheque and any difference is refunded the next year after their return is filed. This wouldn't be any different. Starting the carbon tax at a low level would make sure that any bugs get ironed out initially. Again, in BC there's no evidence that shifting taxes to carbon from income, by the initial small amounts, have added to inflation. You pay it one way or the other, except that you can choose to pay less overall tax by using less carbon. I don't see what the concern is, or reason to suspect there will be inflation coming from it.

Harper is again repeating his fear-mongering today:



> “Do the people of London really, beginning Oct. 14th, do they want to pay a carbon tax on top of all the prices they’re already paying, and do they really think that will do anything other than hurt investments and jobs as well?"
> 
> ******
> Harper said that while Liberal Leader Stephane Dion may be a professor, he “hasn’t had any luck teaching Canadians how a new tax would do anything other than raise prices, scare away investment, threaten earnings and savings and kill jobs.”


 Link

Harper makes an assertion which isn't true, that a carbon tax is "on top of all the prices they're already paying". This would be more the case of his cap and regulation system which will come on top of everything and be passed on to the public, with no compensatory income or corporate tax reduction. Then he goes on without citing any studies or research that a carbon tax would be a disaster to the economy, even though he has studies his own government commissioned sitting in his office that come to the opposite conclusion. 

He chides Dion on not doing a very good job of explaining it, which I agree with. But even if Dion was a master of communication it would be difficult with the Prime Minister's non-stop distortions and lies being played in the media daily.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Fact of the matter GA, is that ordinary Canadians will fear Dion's plan as costing them out-of-pocket more than they will fear anything the Conservatives might do.

That's why an immediate carbon tax agenda will lose Dion the election.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Fact of the matter GA, is that ordinary Canadians will fear Dion's plan as costing them out-of-pocket more than they will fear anything the Conservatives might do.
> 
> That's why an immediate carbon tax agenda will lose Dion the election.


I don't think there is much chance that Dion will win. Not that there ever was. As I've said many times, Dion is not a skilled politician. And it is a fact that Harper and the Conservatives are generating a lot of misplaced fear around a the idea of a carbon tax shift.

Right now I'm simply hoping that the gods of riding vote splitting (blessed be their names) don't magically deliver a majority of seats to Harper with 35% of the popular vote.

Vote Anyone But Conservative.


----------



## Stagerat (Jun 18, 2008)

*My Two Cents (Sense?) worth...*

I like to swing both ways. Sometimes, I vote Lib, others, NDP. It really depends on my mood, and amazingly, on the local candidate. It's something I think we have unfortunately lost sight of in an age of Americanized politics. That being said...

I was SO ridiculously excited when Dion won the Leadership in a Machiavellian move that would have made Trudeau proud. See, I'm bilingual so I get the benefit of hearing him in French when he's at his best. Dion *is* brilliant, but as an earlier poster posted, he's a bit too smart for his own good. Or more precisely, smart without any charisma. In English. Unlike Harper, who has no charisma in ANY language. 

I heard an interesting rumination today (forgot where, it's been a loooong day - maybe the Toronto Star?) that suggested that even though we're likely heading for another minority government, maybe - just maybe - Dion and Layton would take their self-interested heads out of their asses and realise that while Harper will likely end up with a minority government, together they *could* form a Coalition government that would bring a bit of caring, compassion and green back to the country. I'm surprisingly all for it. Although these minority governments have been less than successful, they do bring a sense of cooperation to Parliament. Having worked on the Hill, I also happen to know that while some politicians hate each other, most backbenchers eat lunch together in the caf and get along. 

A thought, perhaps?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

' sauce, I believe you're right that Harper and co. are busy spreading FUD about carbon tax plans but you also have to recognize that under tough economic times this country historically votes right. I think that _that_ fear - the fear of a deep recession, or even the big 'D' - is now a dominant, driving force in this election. The last week has been all about a steady trend down in the stock market... it could all continue come Monday in the world markets. I hope not, but at this point no one knows where the bottom is and that uncertainty is being keenly felt around the globe.

I'm with you on hoping that Harper doesn't secure the majority he so clearly craves.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> I'm with you on hoping that Harper doesn't secure the majority he so clearly craves.


Captain Kirk would give Harper the majority he craves--even more than that--so he would greedily absorb all of the voter support and explode. 

Worth a shot...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Canada's housing situation after Dion's Green Shaft Plan has had some time to work:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Max said:


> ' sauce, I believe you're right that Harper and co. are busy spreading FUD about carbon tax plans but you also have to recognize that under tough economic times this country historically votes right. I think that _that_ fear - the fear of a deep recession, or even the big 'D' - is now a dominant, driving force in this election. The last week has been all about a steady trend down in the stock market... it could all continue come Monday in the world markets. I hope not, but at this point no one knows where the bottom is and that uncertainty is being keenly felt around the globe.
> 
> I'm with you on hoping that Harper doesn't secure the majority he so clearly craves.


I recognize that fear and not reason is what propels many voters. People can be led around by the nose if they don't use their critical faculties. So Harper says something vague about carbon tax shifting "screwing us all", runs advertising predicting economic chaos and the fearful just accept that without any shred of evidence. Look at the Republicans in the US to see fear-based politics at work.

I haven't seen this theory that Canadians vote right during tough economic times. Is this based on some analysis? It seems that the Cons drop in the polls have occurred since the current situation has become worse. If the Libs had their crap together and a somewhat competent politician at the helm I suspect they would be grabbing a majority on Tuesday.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Green Shift would bring about economic chaos because:

* it would make our exports more expensive, by shifting the cost of the plan to goods.
* it would create unnecessary inefficiencies in the economy, forcing people and companies artificially to purchase goods and services that essentially don't help them at the moment, particularly in the face of declining oil prices.
* after the easy transitions to some sort of renewable energy systems had been made, those who have the least to gain from the shift are punished to a greater and greater degree, with the final burden resting on those who will either have to go out of business because they can't expensively re-tool to suit the government's whim, but also can't afford to carry the burden of escalating carbon taxes.
* businesses would leave or choose not locate here because of this sort of aggressive nonsense.
* the final cost would be borne by the end consumer, and clumsy government assistance to try to bail victims out of the coming chaos would arrive late and without real regard to who was most harmed. A crap shoot.
* the carbon tax is a first attempt to set up a UN global carbon tax intended to flow to so-called "victim countries"--more income redistribution schemes. As "Friends of the Earth" so eloquently states: "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources."
* regulatory regimes such as those suggested by a carbon tax are themselves hopelessly wasteful of economic resources--as in "Gun Registry."
* the cost of the tax will by far exceed any benefit Canadians will perceive or receive, especially as the Earth continues its cooling trend.
* government is incompetent to run such programs--look at the insane ethanol subsidy that's not particularly good for the Earth, and terrible for the economy.
* industry would extract the lion's share of subsidies to rescue it from the government's carbon tax mess, while it jacked up the price of its goods to make up what it couldn't get from government.
* if global cooling continues, the tax regime would have to be completely re-shifted once again.
* the money and effort would be better spent on ways to generate wealth.
* the incremental climate change we're seeing--cooling--is entirely manageable.

If the government really believed carbon--or any side-effect of civilization for that matter--was the main problem faced by the Earth, it would tax childbirth, because new consumers are likely to generate more greenhouse gases--and all other unpleasantries--per capita than any carbon production tax might mitigate.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> The Green Shift would bring about economic chaos because:
> 
> * it would make our exports more expensive, by shifting the cost of the plan to goods.
> * it would create unnecessary inefficiencies in the economy, forcing people and companies artificially to purchase goods and services that essentially don't help them at the moment, particularly in the face of declining oil prices.
> ...


Ok, now tell me what the conservatives would do. We are getting somewhere here.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I think gov't competancy is the big issue here, lest we all forget the dismal failure that was the gun registry program that the Libs dreamed up? Wasn't that supposed to cost 1 million? So forgive me for not believing this revenue nutral bs.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> Ok, now tell me what the conservatives would do. We are getting somewhere here.


The answer to that question is dead easy:



Macfury said:


> The Green Shift would bring about economic chaos because:
> 
> * it would make our exports more expensive, by shifting the cost of the plan to goods.
> * it would create unnecessary inefficiencies in the economy, forcing people and companies artificially to purchase goods and services that essentially don't help them at the moment, particularly in the face of declining oil prices.
> ...


None of the above.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> The answer to that question is dead easy:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the above.


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: YES! :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Some people will do anything to take advantage of the carbon scare:


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

SINC said:


> Some people will do anything to take advantage of the carbon scare:


Glad to see that Harper and co. have a plan SINC - I just wish I'd seen it sooner - kinda strange waiting until this point in the electoral process. Slick brochure format too! It takes a load of my mind to know that they'll tax the heck out of a bunch of elitist yachtspersons!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Especially the elitist yachtspersons who attend galas... the scum.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> I think gov't competancy is the big issue here, lest we all forget the dismal failure that was the gun registry program that the Libs dreamed up? Wasn't that supposed to cost 1 million? So forgive me for not believing this revenue nutral bs.


And the sad thing is that we already had a gun registry, and have had one for about a hundred years. The "Gun Registry" was nothing more than payola. Bids were tendered to those companies that had connections, equipment was overpriced, and then they changed the OS mid way, meaning that all of the computers had to be scrapped and replaced (because adding a larger hard drive and extra RAM would be far too expensive, and who in their right mind would write software for a government contract that could run across platforms).

And it was not just like it was ssome kind of software that could be used on a government intranet - no, privacy of information, so a whole new network would have to be tendered out for bids from those with connections. Then factor in cost overruns, and one ends up with a 3 Billion Dollar boondoggle that doesn't work, because when all is said and done, to get it to work, all of the machines have to be replaced once again so they can run Fi$ta. And that means new networks, new servers, new infrastructure, and a team to rebuild the product. They can milk that junk for years and years.

And the whole point is - it is absolutely useless because criminals that smuggle semi-automatic assualt rifles do not register their guns! If they want to get tough on gun crimes, then they had better get tough with the people that use the guns. Use a gun, even threatening someone with a gun should be punishable by public execution. Only then will gun crimes disappear.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> And the sad thing is that we already had a gun registry, and have had one for about a hundred years. The "Gun Registry" was nothing more than payola. Bids were tendered to those companies that had connections, equipment was overpriced, and then they changed the OS mid way, meaning that all of the computers had to be scrapped and replaced (because adding a larger hard drive and extra RAM would be far too expensive, and who in their right mind would write software for a government contract that could run across platforms).
> 
> And it was not just like it was ssome kind of software that could be used on a government intranet - no, privacy of information, so a whole new network would have to be tendered out for bids from those with connections. Then factor in cost overruns, and one ends up with a 3 Billion Dollar boondoggle that doesn't work, because when all is said and done, to get it to work, all of the machines have to be replaced once again so they can run Fi$ta. And that means new networks, new servers, new infrastructure, and a team to rebuild the product. They can milk that junk for years and years.
> 
> And the whole point is - it is absolutely useless because criminals that smuggle semi-automatic assualt rifles do not register their guns! If they want to get tough on gun crimes, then they had better get tough with the people that use the guns. Use a gun, even threatening someone with a gun should be punishable by public execution. Only then will gun crimes disappear.



Canada should build a 12 foot sheet metal wall across the border to keep the American filth out...right?


Regulation will never do anything to gun crime rates, nor will building walls or putting more police at the borders. Last year they found a nuclear submarine off the coast of France loaded with cocaine. If the money is there, someone will find a way to do it.

The government just wants to avoid the real problem: Poverty and poor immigrant integration systems!


Oh by the way Sinc,

I applaud your rigidity in remaining in form with Harpo and all the great conservatives: Avoid answering questions and revealing your hidden plans at all costs!

"My plan is to do exactly what you are not doing!"


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> Canada should build a 12 foot sheet metal wall across the border to keep the American filth out...right?


Walls don't work too well - just ask the Chinese after Genghis Khan showed up for dinner...



> Regulation will never do anything to gun crime rates, nor will building walls or putting more police at the borders. Last year they found a nuclear submarine off the coast of France loaded with cocaine. If the money is there, someone will find a way to do it.


All of the crime that is caused by lenient sentences. If the sentencing is strict and brutal, then people really will not get into such things.



> The government just wants to avoid the real problem: Poverty and poor immigrant integration systems!


Of course you are of the belief that most crimes are committed by immigrants. This is not true. Most crime, value wise, takes place in offices right on Bay Street. More people are conned and ripped off in an office than at an ATM. But we do not punish the white collar criminals...

We have a very real problem with poverty, but the vast majority of poor people do not go out and steal. Most petty theft is performed by people who are looking to score drug money, and that is the real problem. Drugs make a cyclical environment, where users engage in crime in order to shoot up; and their suppliers engage in crime, in order to import or manufacture the product, as well as to stake out their turfs.

We have 940 violent gangs in Canada - and no gun registry or sappy regulations will solve that. The Government needs to crack down on these disgraceful groups, and I would say mass executions of the criminal filth is probably the most effective way. Until we show criminals that we mean business, they will continue to play us. And all criminals, not only the dope peddler in the alleyway, but the man in a suit that steals funds from financial institutions...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The Green Shift would bring about economic chaos because:
> 
> * it would make our exports more expensive, by shifting the cost of the plan to goods.


That's based on the assumption that shifting tax from income or corporate tax to carbon would add an additional cost. That's not necessarily true.



Macfury said:


> * it would create unnecessary inefficiencies in the economy, forcing people and companies artificially to purchase goods and services that essentially don't help them at the moment, particularly in the face of declining oil prices.


Please detail these inefficiencies that you assert.



Macfury said:


> * after the easy transitions to some sort of renewable energy systems had been made, those who have the least to gain from the shift are punished to a greater and greater degree, with the final burden resting on those who will either have to go out of business because they can't expensively re-tool to suit the government's whim, but also can't afford to carry the burden of escalating carbon taxes.


Those who can quickly and easily make the transitions will be farther ahead than others and will be more competitive. Strange for a free marketeer to be overly concerned with businesses that can't remain competitive through lack of innovation. But even they will have options that will increase as green tech grows. You assume a static economy and static technology.



Macfury said:


> * businesses would leave or choose not locate here because of this sort of aggressive nonsense.


Businesses and individuals that would benefit from lower overall taxes might find this environment attractive. We might be less attractive to businesses that need to have the ability to pollute for free as part of their business plan.



Macfury said:


> * the final cost would be borne by the end consumer, and clumsy government assistance to try to bail victims out of the coming chaos would arrive late and without real regard to who was most harmed. A crap shoot.


As it will under all plans including the Cons plan. Again you're are assuming additional costs beyond any other plan. You're also assuming that there are no solutions other than fossil fuel usage at the same rates as today.



Macfury said:


> * the carbon tax is a first attempt to set up a UN global carbon tax intended to flow to so-called "victim countries"--more income redistribution schemes. As "Friends of the Earth" so eloquently states: "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources."


This reflects Mr. Harper's 2002 contention that attempts to do anything about climate change is no more than a 'socialist scheme". He doesn't say that in public today of course since to do so would make him look like the denier fringe theorists on the internet. He also has his own socialist-lite carbon cap plan on display that will also add a carbon cost to industry and end users.



Macfury said:


> * regulatory regimes such as those suggested by a carbon tax are themselves hopelessly wasteful of economic resources--as in "Gun Registry."


This would be no more than CRA and other agencies shifting their focus from one area to another. This isn't something extra as in the Gun Registry.




Macfury said:


> * the cost of the tax will by far exceed any benefit Canadians will perceive or receive, especially as the Earth continues its cooling trend.


OK, if you believe that global warming is a hoax, as you do, then you won't see any use in a reducing carbon. If you don't believe that there is greater economic harm in doing nothing, of course your opposition to carbon pricing makes sense to you. Thankfully, almost all governments, scientific organizations, many economists and even some oil companies don't agree with you.



Macfury said:


> * government is incompetent to run such programs--look at the insane ethanol subsidy that's not particularly good for the Earth, and terrible for the economy.


You may believe that government is incompetent to run its own tax programs, but as a libertarian I guess you believe tax is unnecessary anyway. Maybe you would advocate the CRA to be privatized?



Macfury said:


> * industry would extract the lion's share of subsidies to rescue it from the government's carbon tax mess, while it jacked up the price of its goods to make up what it couldn't get from government.


Adding a small, stable and predictable annual increase to the price of fossil fuels while also adding a stable and predictable decrease to income and corporate taxes by the same amount, wouldn't necessarily add extra costs to all businesses and products. Some things will of course increase, as they will under the Con plan and in every jurisdiction around the world where carbon will be priced, but there is much room for adaption and innovation by business and individuals. It's price volatility that really causes economic chaos not predictable increases. Business likes certainty.



Macfury said:


> * if global cooling continues, the tax regime would have to be completely re-shifted once again.


This is a fringe idea, that almost all governments and scientific organizations do not endorse.



Macfury said:


> * the money and effort would be better spent on ways to generate wealth.


Who is talking about spending extra money?



Macfury said:


> * the incremental climate change we're seeing--cooling--is entirely manageable.


You've made this point and it's a fringe idea.



Macfury said:


> If the government really believed carbon--or any side-effect of civilization for that matter--was the main problem faced by the Earth, it would tax childbirth, because new consumers are likely to generate more greenhouse gases--and all other unpleasantries--per capita than any carbon production tax might mitigate.


Well skyrocketing global population is certainly the root problem. The Earth cannot sustain or adapt to the numbers that are coming. The population bomb theorized in the '60s arrived slower than some thought at the time, but carrying capacity of resources is being reached. Governments believe that global warming causing climate changes will impact those resources, especially around agriculture and freshwater. I believe that we have to look to solutions to curbing population increases at the same time as reducing our rates of consumption of resources and rates of pollution. It's not a one or the other proposition.

Thanks MF for at least attempting to make some arguments rather than repeating the "tax shifting = boogeyman" chant while never answering why, ad naseum. That's better than any other person who has criticized tax shifting on ehMac has done, to date.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Yes, and thank you GA for the excellent rebuttal... I await the *cough** rational and well thought out answers... 

I believe the crux of this whole Green Shift program is that the majority of Canadians simply do not grasp the concept of "shifting" tax... they naturally assume this will be an added tax, full stop.
They also have a problem grasping the concept of refundable tax credits whether you make enough to pay no income tax or a significant amount. Myself, I get the GST tax rebate so I'm acquainted with how it works. Perhaps my strong European background also makes me realize it would be a GOOD thing for Canada to seriously address the environment. 

Nitey-nite now... :yawn: 



> Thanks MF for at least attempting to make some arguments rather than repeating the "tax shifting = boogeyman" chant while never answering why, ad naseum. That's better than any other person who has criticized tax shifting on ehMac has done, to date.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dreambird said:


> I believe the crux of this whole Green Shift program is that the majority of Canadians simply do not grasp the concept of "shifting" tax... they naturally assume this will be an added tax, full stop.


I assume nothing of the kind.

What "Green Shaft" supporters apparently cannot grasp is that it will never be revenue neutral. The business world will find ways to pass the cost on to consumers and pocket the tax. This I can guarantee.

Then of course there is the little matter of trusting the Liberals to administer the program fairly and competently. Gun control and Adscam come to mind immediately here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: I agree that the Green Shift would have a piddling effect at improving the environment while asking Canadians to march in line to a series of unproven claims about climate. Asking them to re-tool the economy and to create chaos with a massive tax shift while the economy is already facing challenges is simply asking too much. Our faith in government has been shaken badly enough without citizens being asked to take an even larger leap of faith with an unproven leader of a fractured party.

Some of the changes Dion wants to force are already occurring at a pace that many Canadians are choosing, or that will make sense to them based on real market forces, not a bizarre simulation created by Dion and overseen by that fiscal genius, Bob Rae.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Strong, thorough response there, GA. Well done. 

MF: you speak of "real market forces" as if that was akin to real levitation. I think there ought to be a radiant halo around that term... or at least a soft blue glow. One preferably clad in a sweater, pristine in its purity. But enough with the sweaters already - are you wearing a monk's garb when you speak of the hallowed market, MF? Very deep in you, the market force is. Certainly you must at least chant your mantras daily; echoes of your devotion reverberate in here.

Good thing there's an election tomorrow. Then we can get on with our respective lives and stop talking politics... and start again.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Market forces aren't hallowed. They just are. You can try to work with the inclination of people and businesses and how they choose to allcoate their financial and personal resources, or you can try to bend the market around your own philosophy. 

The U.S. government philosophy that homes should be made affordable to all who want them, for example, achieved its goals of having many people purchase homes. It may plunge the world into a recession as well.

Market forces based on supply and demand instead of philosophy are much more predictable, self-correcting and elastic. Incremental changes in U.S. government policy since 1977 created a slowly inflating bubble that would have burst a long time ago sans special nursing. Tulip-o-mania for modern times.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

A good response, and one I'd expect from you. Still... the fact that you felt the need to pump up the notion by attaching "real" to it... it's peculiar, no? It's not as if you go on about fraudulent market forces or non-authentic market forces. So why bolster it if it's so iron-clad?

But hey: bonus points for the blissful zen answer "they just are." You _are_ wearing a monk's robes, dagnabbit!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

"Real" market forces although an abstract term, refers to those involving unfettered choices based on actual and perceived notions of supply and demand. The Tulip-o-mania phenomenon was based on the notion that tulip bulbs could not decline in value but was quickly pricked because supply had been filled as expectations of profit and demand dropped.

Government intervention is "real" as well, but limits choices and creates unexpected consequences. By nursing the housing bubble, government prevented it from bursting years ago as it would otherwise have done. 

The market doesn't care whether the bubble bursts with a reedy exhalation or a massive explosion--it's for human to decide which they like better.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Indeed. My guess is that the people, in the main, prefer some regulation over none - even many of those who loudly profess a great love and admiration for 'market forces.' I don't mean you, of course - no, for you there can be nothing but the protean power of the market and to fetter it in any way amounts to cruel and unusual treatment of said market (even though, by your own admission, the market is not human, thereby having no feelings to be carelessly trammelled - and quite simply 'is'). I mean the little people, the common people. Can you not think of us from time to time while you sit astride your lofty peak, thinking the Great And Eternal Things?

But you said something interesting about unexpected consequences. Intervention of any sort, whether it's by the government or any other entity, be it a teacher, parent or police officer - all entail unexpected, often unintended consequences. Surely you're not trying to stopper _that_ up, too? That would amount to quite a Herculean campaign on your part. Life is stuffed full of moments containing deviations from what we expect or otherwise hope for.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Max has brought so much reasonableness to this conversation. Good job. I gave a long time ago and have just been trying to **** off MF.:lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: The intervention is often an effort to declare that the prevailing tides of supply and demand don't exist or can be overwhelmed. I'm certainly not offended by Lilliputian efforts to make the market obey their commands. 

On an individual level, the choices people make often end in individual consequences, but are averaged over the market. When those in authority attempt to change the market broadly and fundamentally, unintended consequences can cause profound pain for all. They won't do so necessarily, but often do. 

In many cases, the costs aren't counted--reduced wealth and freedom are often taken in stride by those who believe that they have improved their position, and feeling that they have won "security." They will feel no sense of loss or missed opportunity.

I have no desire to "stopper up" market choices, but note that our greateest economic crises were the result of government mismanagement and miscalculation, rather than the decisions of individuals reacting to market forces.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> When those in authority attempt to change the market broadly and fundamentally, unintended consequences can cause profound pain for all. They won't do so necessarily, but often do.


And in your view, that's sufficient reason to _never_ permit government to implement broad, fundamental changes? Seems entirely too cautious.



Macfury said:


> I have no desire to "stopper up" market choices, but note that our greateest economic crises were the result of government mismanagement and miscalculation, rather than the decisions of individuals reacting to market forces.


But of course; mere individuals cannot on their own fundamentally alter the marketplace. There's a massive difference of scale involved - why compare the two at all?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> And in your view, that's sufficient reason to _never_ permit government to implement broad, fundamental changes? Seems entirely too cautious.


Once the bullies have staked out their turf, there's no concept of "can't be permitted." I can only state my own preference, which is, at its heart, a philosophical one.

Often, only government is powerful enough to compensate for the colossal messes only government is powerful enough to create.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> But of course; mere individuals cannot on their own fundamentally alter the marketplace. There's a massive difference of scale involved - why compare the two at all?


Because you. my dear fellow, invoked the concept:



> ...be it a teacher, parent or police officer - all entail unexpected, often unintended consequences.


I was pointing out why they should not really be compared.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> Oh by the way Sinc,
> 
> I applaud your rigidity in remaining in form with Harpo and all the great conservatives: Avoid answering questions and revealing your hidden plans at all costs!


Any time a government does the opposite of a Liberal, it is always better for the country.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sinc... you're sounding as doctrinaire as your alleged enemies. Rather unthinkingly reactionary, not to mention uncannily in tone like "Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia." You know, the rigid authoritarianism of Big Brother's helpful prescriptive nostrums for the masses. What next, reminding us to take our sedatives and shaddup?

MF, you can't slink away that easily. You, the very champion of the individual. In the immortal words of Fred Flintsone, "it is to laugh."

_Meh._ Off to paint for the rest of the afternoon.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> MF, you can't slink away that easily. You, the very champion of the individual. In the immortal words of Fred Flintsone, "it is to laugh."


You're the one who has announced he's decided to slink off "to paint for the rest of the afternoon." I'm still here.

To paraphrase Barney Rubble: "Max's get up and go, just got up and went."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> What next, reminding us to take our sedatives and shaddup?
> 
> _Meh._ Off to paint for the rest of the afternoon.


Max, certainly not, _most_ Liberals have every right to be wrong. (Not to paint every Liberal with the same brush.)


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> I assume nothing of the kind.
> 
> What "Green Shaft" supporters apparently cannot grasp is that it will never be revenue neutral. The business world will find ways to pass the cost on to consumers and pocket the tax. This I can guarantee.
> 
> Then of course there is the little matter of trusting the Liberals to administer the program fairly and competently. Gun control and Adscam come to mind immediately here.


What the "Tax Shift will screw us all" distortion-istas apparently cannot grasp is that those who are supporting the idea of a tax shift know full well that businesses pass their costs on to consumers. Always have, always will. What the distortion-istas insist is that tax shifting will cost more than other methods of putting a cost on carbon, which is not necessarily true. Without a doubt having a cost on carbon output is coming everywhere in the world. 

What the distortion-istas also either fail to grasp or seek to keep hidden is that their own hero, Stevie Harper, has his own carbon cap scheme that will also tax carbon. This will also create costs that will get passed on.

Those who support carbon taxation, like the 230 Canadian economists linked a few posts back, understand how market systems and relationships work and believe that carbon tax shifting, with some component of a carbon cap and other programs to protect those at the bottom of the wealth scale have the best chance of affecting carbon output while allowing individuals and businesses to choose solutions that work for them and also providing an incentive to innovate.

The distortion-istas and the Conservatives have a plan this is designed to be ineffective while not really doing anything. This is because they want to pretend for vote-garnering purposes, that they will do something about climate change while making sure they protect their oil-patch buddies profits. But their plan's costs will still be passed on to consumers, while doing squat about climate change. This is exactly what Harper has in mind.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MF, your zen-like market fundamentalism, while admirable in its purity is well outside the mainstream of economic theory as are your views on climate change.

The "Real Market" cannot be grasped, cannot be spoken of, it is a finger pointing to the moon.

If you see the "Real Market" on the road, kill it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> What the distortion-istas also either fail to grasp or seek to keep hidden is that their own hero, Stevie Harper, has his own carbon cap scheme that will also tax carbon. This will also create costs that will get passed on.


He is placating the kooks and the Craven Green. I certainly wouldn't.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> He is placating the kooks and the Craven Green. I certainly wouldn't.


Yes I agree that Harper's climate change policies are disingenuous vote-harvesting schemes, no different than dressing the man up in a fuzzy blue sweater-vest.

I'd be willing to bet that is an actual quote from one of their policy meetings.

*Baird:* How do we placate the kooks and greens? We can't win if we tell them we think global warming is BS straight up anymore. We'll look like nutbars.

*Harper:* Yeah, it's a friggin' socialist scheme. OK, tell the boys to work up something with some carbon caps that'll look real enough, but that the oil guys won't get too upset over. When we get the majority we'll just shelve it anyway.

(Hollering after Baird as he leaves the room ) ... And tell those ad guys to not cut the tags off those friggin' sweater-vests. I want them to return them to Sears for a refund when this crap is over.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It is disingenuous. Such, sadly, is politics.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> You're the one who has announced he's decided to slink off "to paint for the rest of the afternoon." I'm still here.


MF, I can't help it if you have dependency issues with this board and I do not. You best dispense with the fringe ideas, good sir. The mystical zen thing suits you much better - leaves you much more convenient wriggle room.

"Droll, Barney... very droll."


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

... and then there was God, "Real Market".
First Disciple MacFury gazed upon It and declared It to be Good. :greedy:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dreambird: I explicity said the Free Market was neither good nor bad--but the idea that I might have created it is appealing!


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

No, no, no... you misunderstand me... I said you are "First Disciple" not "Creator"... I don't know who did that...


----------

