Here’s what you get when a journalist with too much disposable income gets his hands on the topic of gasoline taxes;
“Take a Sunday drive and your car emits various gases, including carbon dioxide.”
Driving about on a Sunday for recreation is one of my favourite pastimes. I sometimes start my truck and let it idle after a fill, too – just to burn off the excess.
C. Langmann introduces this helpful response, complete with peer-reviewed sources and diagrams;
The English language is one of connotation, and some words like “stupid” should be applied carefully, but when warranted, applied definitively. What Dan Gardner tries to imply in this recent article is that Stephen Harper is stupid, even though he has a degree in Economics, by flogging him with an interview with the renouned Economist, Dr. Greg Mankiw.
Stupid is defined by Websters as acting in an unintelligent or careless manner, or lacking intelligence or reason.
As the old adage suggests, “While leaving the house to call someone stupid, be sure you don’t bang your head into a mirror along the way.”
Read the whole thing – particulary if your name begins with “Dan” and ends with “Gardner”.
A derogatory adjective is de riguer when talking about the pathetic Canadian media.
Somehow Puffin Poop seems apropos when one discusses this election. Excrement and our media have a symbiotic relationship.
All these liberal columists to is to write a whole lot of poppycock bull poo and their usial lies half truths and other lies and bunk
It’s an old journalism trick. Look for someone, like an economist, to say what you want to hear. If he’s in the enemy camp, like George Bush’s for example, so much the better. It’s a “gotcha” moment in the mind of the reporter. Economists are a dime a dozen, and finding one who can back up your agenda is easy. All it takes is a few phone calls.
Gardener ends his article “After all, a masters degree in economics hasn’t done much for Stephen Harper.”
If Gardner has a degree in journalism, I would have to say the same thing applies to him.
Economics isn’t a real science anyway. Not being particularly good at it is actually a step in the right direction!
For everyone’s benefit, we must define stupid in the minds of a leftarded idiot journalist:
Stupid, says the leftards, is not wholehearteldly advocating and beleiving that a Sociologist prof with zero real-world experience in any subject knows far more about the economy than some stupid conservative whose specialty is economics.
How could you not get it? lol.
Besides, Gardner’s point isn’t that Dion is right and Harper is wrong. His point is that we should all vote for Gardner’s liberal friends cause that’s how the world should work.
Gardiner’s remark about “Economics 101” and “externalities” is telling. If you tax the externality, then you must fund the solution to the social damage it caused.
The Green Shift has two major (deadly) problems: first, the social cost is not being funded through this tax, unless you agree taking from regions where you have no votes, to those where you do, to build day care centres, will reduce emissions and pollution. BTW, there is no way to tax a naturally occuring gas like CO2. A bank of computers running econometric programs cannot achieve this, any more than it can predict climate.
Second, the theory of extenalities is quite elegant, BUT government misapplication (tire tax anyone) means funds are used for political purposes, rather than the goal of taxing the externality.
Other examples of “Economics 101:”
– tire tax (already mentioned)
– gas taxes
– tobacco taxes
In those cases products were taxed, the funds went into general revenues, with no proper allocations made to dealing with social costs.
Revenue neutral is a useless term – there is no way a government can make this happen, because economies and individual behaviour rarely act the way you think they should. Additionally, neutrality is for whom? The taxpayer. Nope. It was truly revenue neutral, then Grits could not argue some people will be better off.
Using tax redistributionist policy to your party constituents, with very little or no money going towards new energy technoligies, reveals the Green Shift as the tax and spend policy it really is.
The rest is, well, a failed first mid term exam in “Economics 101.”
Mr Gardner, it’s lazy journalism, stupid.
Gardner’s problem is that he writes from a position of rigid ideology. He is not interested in learning anything, or analyzing both sides of an argument. He is only interested in selecting out details that on the surface appear to support his view. This would be why he phoned Mankiw in the first place — to get an “authoritative” opinion to support his (Dan Garner’s) preconceived notions. I doubt he asked about any potential downside to a carbon tax (or if he did, he most certainly would have kept this info from readers.) Since there are also many well-documented problems with a carbon tax, and many, many unanswered questions, Garner also needs to address these. This kind of one-sided journalism is unhelpful, to say the least.
I like Langmann’s take on this green thingy.
If I may comment on eliminating income tax and only use consumption taxes …
Benefit … maybe, more people would have more money to take home and use to buy what they want. Perhaps the high consumption tax will prompt them to buy less or buy more carefully … or not. That may or may not be good for the economy.
Problem, the opportunity for underground economy will grow right along with the level of consumption tax … unless it’s well hidden. Even then, who knows? We don’t keep stats on black market transactions.
Frustration, the poor will continue to make poor economic choices (that is why they are poor) they will continue to not get the education or skills to improve their lot (another reason they are poor) and will continue to panhandle government with guilt trips as required to get other peoples money. That actually works for them, but there will never be enough to shut them up. A FREE BEER attracts a continually growing line until the beer runs out. Then there are fights.
Conclusion, no matter what we do, we are dealing with crazy human nature and somehow there will always be unintended consequences and a lot of unpredictability.
Common sense dictates, The world’s climate will continue to do what the sun, ocean currents and cloud formations dictate and no amount of taxation will change that.
RE the external guilt trip, Bangladesh is a flood plane with millions of people who have zero prospects for prosperity. They should not be there in the first place.
I myself, can predict anything but the future.
Gardner says: “After all, a masters degree in economics hasn’t done much for Stephen Harper.”
Last I looked, it helped make Harper the Prime Minister. I’d say that is a far better result than what Gardner has achieved.
Some challenges to Gardner’s piece (though the writer graciously does Garner the courtesy of calling the piece “thoughtful”): http://tinyurl.com/4q6fxu
Dan might also want to fact check a bit before using the old “flooding bangladesh” chestnut. In another fine example of “The Gore effect” Bangladesh has seen its landmass increase by about 20 sq. km per year for the past 30+years, rather than shrink.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7532949.stm
http://www.nationalpost.com/arts/story.html?id=690845
The “externalities” seems like a common sense theory. To gauge its true value though it must be put into practice to be observed and judged. Both green taxes and carbon trading have been tried in Europe/UK and at best have had mixed results and at worst have caused economic damage with no corresponding environmental benefits.
The European and British citizens have seen jobs and industries move out to non-Kyoto bound countries, costs go up for individuals, exemptions for business, electricity supply become a concern and few ways to meaningfully reduce energy consumption.
In Canada these negatives would be amplified. Our weather and distances are more extreme, our industries are energy intensive and we have fewer transportation options (both for people and products). Again there is no meaningful way to really curb consumption of heating, shelter and eating requirements in a land that is this cold for up to 6 months of the year.
If viewed objectively, the carbon reduction strategies like taxes and trading have not been successful. Why copy failure. Give technology and ingenuity a chance with reasonable deadlines to develop and implement alternatives.
Just once I would like to see one of these journalists do the math and “discover” that government in this country consumes more than half of everyone’s income.
Increase the tax on gas? Yeah. Good luck with that.
How about reduce the tax on -everything-? On gas, on smokes, on beer, on candy bars, crude oil (hell yeah there’s a tax on that!) on income, on capital gain, on death(!), ALL of it. Tax. Cut. Now.
Although I suspect the idea of man-made global warming is bunk, we still have compelling reasons to reduce our use of oil. It is insane to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to hostile regimes year after year, and oil consumption does impose environmental costs that should not be ignored.
I would support taxing oil consumption provided the taxes were offset by tax reductions elsewhere. The effect would be to make the improvement and development of alternative energy sources more attractive to investors. Of course, investors would have to be convinced that the oil tax was permanent, not an easy assumption given the fickle nature of democratic government. Assuming that the increased cost of oil consumption were indeed perceived as permanent, the attractiveness of alternative energy sources would be enhanced. This would be so even if, as Langmann implies, oil consumption were unaffected in the short run due to inelastic demand.
I do agree with Langmann that changes in tax policy should be applied cautiously and that the effects should be carefully noted. But something needs to be done.
I am not an economist; nor do I devote a great deal of thought to these matters. So if the above comments, delivered off the cuff, are misguided, by all means enlighten me.
I am not responsible for other peoples stupidity,so don’t try to make me feel guilty or tax me for it.
Shamrock: Well stated. Taxing externalities makes sense in theory but in practice is susceptible to political manipulations or dogma having little to do with the true cost (if such a thing can even be calculated). That said, I do support efforts to reduce the use of petroleum if for no other reason than to cut the economic legs out from underneath the likes of the Saudis, Hugo Chavez or Putin’s Russia.
lynnh:
Your point that businesses might respond to a tax on oil by simply moving to another country is, I think, a good one. I hadn’t though of that. But how would you impose a “reasonable deadline” for the development of alternative energy sources? Where are the incentives for such development?
It is insane to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to hostile regimes year after year, and oil consumption does impose environmental costs that should not be ignored.
Posted by: RSP at September 19, 2008 11:49 AM
There’s a solution to the problem of wealth transfer. Once America reaches a point where the Saudis et al own too big a chunk of America, they simply designate them as terrorist states, and confiscate all their holdings. What are they going to do about it? It’s a very simple economics policy. It’s called KABOOM.
America is simply bribing a few tyrants into selling out their countries for personal fortunes. How many Saudi citizens are getting rich off the wealth transfer? It’s very easy to track most of the wealth that’s being transferred. Most of it stays with one or two families. How hard do you think it would be to drain their accounts?
All energy sources impose environmental costs. Oil is one of the cleanest, unless you buy into the CO2=greenhouse gas=global warming religion. I just wish these “scientists” would spend half as much energy coming up with solutions, instead of harping about the problem.
I think the main problem we have is too many scientists. They’re having a hard time finding work, and creating a fake problem is one way to create job security.
Hello.
I’m here from the government, and I’m here to help you.
(you can pay me later)
RSP, by reasonable deadlines I mean to allow for long term planning to build and develop alternative energy.
For instance electricity. There are already viable alternatives like nuclear and clean coal that provide baseload electricity and minimize environmental impacts. But these are capital and regulation heavy projects. The timeline is about a decade from proposal to completion. So in this case a reasonable deadline is about 10 years. Therefore any penalties should be phased in after this period.
Oil is another area. It is essential and a domestic supply is far better than importing from unstable countries in the M.E.. Allow time to develop and build alternative ways to extract from places like the oil sands. Industry has already been moving in this direction and require far less energy and fresh water per barrel than 10 years ago. I believe that our engineers and scientist will continue to advance in these areas. Again government could provide a carrot and stick approach over 10 year time increments.
Other ares for long term planning include mass transportation, fuel efficiency, home renovation etc.
There is also room for governments to “reward” new technology successes. I think the McCain campaign talks about prizes for new energy breakthroughs. It is better to reward success than to fund grants that in the end produce nothing of value.
In contrast a punitive tax like greenshift just takes money away from companies. They then have less money to work with so instead of development they focus on capital conservation or go to friendlier jurisdictions. A realistic government that actually cares the environment would encourage innovative development because it provides both jobs and an essential product. The Liberal greenshift is no more than a tax grab and redistribution scheme which does little to stimulate this needed innovation.
Even more radical is the Green agenda that simply wants to shut down development without regard to people. These highly vocal people need to be ignored but instead the left leaning politicians seem to be catering to the radical fringe.
Looking over my comment reminds me of a gardening quote.
Q-When is the best time to plant a tree?
A- 20 years ago.
Q-When is the next best time?
A-Now.
It will take time to re-engineer energy systems to be more environmentally friendly. A policy that does not patiently nurture its growth is doomed to failure.
Sorry folks. Gotta Go Green. No More Sunday Drives For You. It is flooding Bangladesh. However, the rest of the week will remain open for very SHORT (in Canada that is tough, unless we cut ourselves off at the knees) and/or EXPENSIVE driving. sheesh.
This is NEP stupidity magnified. Wish it were contained but it is everywhere…from The Western Standard…
No Oil for Blood
Thanks to three American senators, China will be pumping Iraqi oil.
by Frederick W. Kagan
09/16/2008
3w…weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/574iglgp.asp
I got to paragraph 3 in which he referred to carbon taxes being offset by cuts in personal income, corporate, and other taxes — and stopped.
As you age, there are fewer and fewer certainties. One of those is that there is NO possibility of +taxes in one area being offset by -taxes in another. Governments, no matter what their ideological shading, don’t do zero sum. And we see this certainty too in the realm of user fees. In Canada user fees are added to taxes, not in lieu of.
I emailed Gardner and asked him why he supports destroying scientific credibility.
If he wants to tax fossil fuels to conserve it, just come out and say it. Why do it through a scam like Kyoto ?
Danny tries to make us feel guilty with our Sunday afternoons drives because it emits CO2 that global warming blah blah. Does he ever consider;
[Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.] An ESSENTIAL effect — otherwise we would be sitting at -18C !!
Keep it up Journos – you will go down the tubes also. Just like the Gore, Hansen loving investors at Lehman Bros !!
I attempted to post this comment to Dan Gardener’s article…we’ll see if the editors approve it…
Hmm…I think I’m getting it…externalities…we should pay for ALL the problems that we create for others.
So it would be reasonable to assume that Dan Gardener, Al Gore, Elizabeth May, and all the people in the media should have to write a pretty large check to the government when the world wakes up and realizes that global warming is simply science that has been hijacked by environmentalists?
After all, due to their “emissions”, governments are wasting billions of dollars on programs, meetings, junkets, announcements, and studies, that would not have come out of my taxes if these activists had kept their mouths shut and not “emitted” all this hysterical speech about global warming. Perhaps Dan Gardener should restrict his speech to topics in which he is educated.
Externalities indeed…
From the comments on the Gardner piece ‘I still celebrate the day I left journalism and got a career’
*
green shift?!!? what green shift?
*
The thing about the Green Shift is that even Dion has no idea what the cost per ton for CO2 should be. He can’t tell you how much CO2 production will be reduced from his tax, he can’t tell what “externalities” will be averted as a result of his tax. All it is is a tax that will raise money to offset income tax reductions, and will result in a significant readjustment of wealth in this country. It won’t do anything to improve the environment.
Tax. Cut. Now.
Posted by: The Phantom
Half my income, to pay for the puffin party’s past perfidy.
Start the cuts with federal trespassing on provincial responsibilities, health care and education.
come on guy
economic courses in university
I took 5 courses piece a cake to get A mark
tell Mr. Harper take one of those engineering courses his brain will soote sometimes to fine the solution for it sometimes it take a month and days of project with unknow unpredicted questoion for exams
only people in engineering degree are good
problems solvers look at those politican and all those phoney funy course for get A mark easy
just read a day before exam or two then go to bed and sleep easy
IF brain need to exercise like body for sportmen
we do not see real good job in past 100 years really from their courses tehy took so far
because politicina today are not seat and think to use their brain to solve the problmes they eihter hide and not talk or lie easy and cheap over our head and change it next day with or without sorry or just ignore the problems with no ethics
I am sorry I lost my trust in politician and tehy must alot to take it back at least in my case
ha ha economic course
it depend on what GPA or what university and what project or courses and what experience and did he ever work doing that in any big company I doubt it
politian in North America is not take job for doing A to Z they o nly know serious people are busy doing more importantjob n
and big company are nothire them
one of my freind even made fun of most of profssor in Canda said if tehy were smart enough tehy must had more salary and notcome here to teach Anyway
probably Harper has better look and speak English than degree of his education picked him
taht was not me get impresed who never elect him yet we will see future who is the best PM?!
law degree? engineering degree? or economic!
Harper start this since 2006 as PM in Canada
after war in Afgan already was started
Harper is not lawyer nor his wife but he must know busiess and economic beter than Dion or we guess while politic may stop ecomonic growth sometimes by adding war spice or all nonsense of power and tehir interest formoney first coutry is second sometimes who knows!!
harper must keep some distance from USA and step back from Afgan war before it is too late.
Liberal party Chretein and his wife and we can say UN by force entered more than 40 countires into the field.
Harper is not a lawyer and he maried the woman who married once before and marry Harper as his second husband as she divorced first one 8 years elarier.
Mr. Balir only help for any wher was his food for hunger program and evne helepd Afgansten to this regard later liberla again folow foof for hunger from his view pack teh lunch in school!!
Chreatein has too much follow his wife order and in his time women was more boss there and may be that was theprobems taht afgan war and matter of women abuse in afgan caused pitty of Chreten’s wife in taht matter made her to this stage to spport hte war and be freind with Mr. Bush and his wife.
Harper then enrolled at the University of Toronto but after two months he dropped out, then moved to Edmonton, Alberta, where he found work at Imperial Oil, in the mail room.[3] Later, he would advance to work on the company’s computer systems. Harper married Laureen Teskey in 1993.He is an avid fan of ice hockey.He is a member of the evangelical Christian and Missionary Alliance. He took up post-secondary studies again at the University of Calgary, where he completed a Bachelor’s degree in economics. He later returned there to earn a Master’s degree in economics, completed in 1993. Harper has kept strong links to the University of Calgary, and often guest-lectured there. Harper married Laureen Teskey in 1993.( from age 22 to 25 she was married some one else named Neil Fenton.!! and was single again 8 years was single until maried Harper again)
Laureen Teskey Harper (born 1963) is the wife of Stephen Harper, who is leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and Prime Minister of Canada since February 6, 2006.she studied journalism and photography. She was first married to New Zealander Neil Fenton from 1985 to 1988.
Aline Chrétien Fluent in Italian, Spanish, English, and French.Madame Chrétien took piano courses. Jean Chrétien has publicly stated that she is his key advisor. He once joked that Canada is run exclusively by women: the monarch, the Governor General and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court were all women, and Madame Chrétien was pulling the strings of the Prime Minister. He made similar jokes often, once telling a reporter that he did not know when the next election would be because he had not yet asked Aline. The Prime Minister also joked about this when he met with U.S. President George W. Bush for a border summit two days before the first ever America Remembers, meaning the first anniversary of 9/11.(In the United States, Patriot Day occurs on September 11 of each year, designated in memory of the nearly three thousand who died in the September 11, 2001, attacks. Most Americans refer to the day as “Nine-Eleven (9/11),” “September 11th,” “Nine-one-one,” or some variation thereof.)
———
probably Chretien’s fault was talk to his wife too much let US get advantage of him get enter to War .
next as you can see Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Pakstin was with USA who know may be drug dealer in USA not recived tehir shipment of drug from Afganstan on TIME and they ask more money to let their country go richer and US drug dealer stop it and plus
look those woman freedom in USA if
afgan is too extemist dress too much to women
Vs.
USA woman are too righty and take it off and bikini
both are using women as lack freedom and misused and abused them
if you look women in USA they pay them to talk like Palin and CLinton by who fund them for lipstick!! ha ha!
if you pay woman to take dress of and put photo is kind of corrput them woman
verses Taliban did abuse to cover and do not go to university
as you can see Pakstan told US talebin was not involve in that sep 11 attack
what was get foloed
was UN and right of US to Nato and do anything he want while BUSH was not presient of all world to do anything he want to defame Muslim
Muslim must sue USA for defamtion of Muslim and ISLMA in world for take land new land in Afganistan and land in Iraq and land in Isreal
I think realy Catholic are real mess in world
with Jewish in Isreal with Muslim in arab Middle east and now tehy are prepare for Iran is next by Sarah and Clinton now!!
while all gun and durge and abuse of woman there in diff shape there
but in real shape was defamtion of Islam was mater that fincaly truth was clear that behind of sep 11 was USA was sitting not Muslim
—
Why dont those gren freaks go and ride their sissy pink bicycles down the side of a cliff while munching granola bars and kissing a rabbits fanny