Except all the times they are, like almost monthly on the jobs report.
Yet when Ontario’s Doug Ford questions a carbon tax the Laurentian Elites treat them like they have a perfect record.
Except all the times they are, like almost monthly on the jobs report.
Yet when Ontario’s Doug Ford questions a carbon tax the Laurentian Elites treat them like they have a perfect record.
Once again we who are not unaware and part of the Liberal Horde of __Gore-Gullibles __ smile at the overt effort of the Liberal Party of Canada and it’s incredibly frightened Ontario Trolls using Twitter
It must be devestating for even the now non-paid trolls, who have now been made “wanna-be” once again, after squeezing out a minor attachment through the (proven) Liberal Ontario Branch Government of the Liberal Party of Canada’s access to the Ontario Tax-Payer funds.
This alone should defeat the liberal left elitist let alone the global warming lie it’s all based on. We’re heading into another ice age that is the truth just as Doug Ford is telling us. But the media will slant with the lies of the UN Federal Canadian Government because the media were bought off by the corrupt liberals. God I hate being Canadian this is how Political insecurities of the left in Canadahas taken us. The left in Canada are insane people wake up.
Having the PM’s fart-catcher respond is priceless. Someone ask Gerry how the budgets balancing….
Keep up the good work Ford,as far as Butts and his blue cheese comment goes what a class act.
The thing to remember about experts is that they pay no price for being wrong. It’s all upside for an economic expert to be an enthusiastic cheerleader for the current political or economic fad. The media seeks them out. Politicians point to their work. The university gives you a raise or promotion for the great publicity. It’s all personal glory.
If they’re wrong, there’s zero personal cost. For instance, all of the Canadian media go-to economists support the Liberals and the carbon tax and all were absolutely, 100% wrong that the Alberta carbon tax would get a social licence to build pipelines. In fact, they mocked and berated all opposing views. Those go-to economists were absolutely, 100% wrong that the BC carbon would remain revenue neutral. Once again, they mocked and berated all opposing views. They were absolutely, 100% wrong that the BC carbon tax would reduce CO2 emmissions (so they moved the goal posts to it would have been worse without the tax) but they mocked and berated all opposing views.
So, despite repeatedly being 100% wrong about carbon taxes, the media still has those same guys as their go-to economists and those economists continue to mock and berate all opposing views. Unlike most people, their jobs will not be jeopardized if carbon taxes hurt the economy because they work in universities and they’re wealthy enough to not have to worry about energy poverty. If these economists are wrong, again, they’ll quietly retreat back to the ivory tower until the next economic fad.
All personal reward, no personal risk, no consequences for being wrong.
“All personal reward, no personal risk, no consequences for being wrong.”
LC,I whole heartedly agree.
In my opinion, most if not all economists, politicians, and reporters who make predictions have absolutely no skin in the game. Even worse are many (most?) CEOs who get big bonuses even if they are fired.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb who is very critical of economists (refer to his books; Fooled by Randomness, The Black Swan, Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder, and Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life) has even called for cancellation of the Nobel Prize in Economics, saying that the damage from economic theories can be devastating.
Taleb has some interesting ideas, but is a bit full of himself in his writing style.
The following two paragraphs from Wikipedia article on Skin in the Game book.
“If an actor pockets some rewards from a policy they enact or support without accepting any of the risks, economists consider it to be a problem of “missing incentives”. In contrast, Taleb says the problem is fundamentally one of asymmetry: one actor gets the rewards, the other is stuck with the risks.”
“Actors according to Taleb – must bear a cost when they fail the public. A fund manager that gets a percentage on wins, but no penalty for losing is incentivized to gamble with his clients funds. Bearing no downside for one’s actions means that one has no “Skin In The Game”, which is the source of many evils.”
I don’t have a solution to the lack of ‘Skin in the Game’, but like Taleb, and others at this site, I think it is a big problem.
I don’t think there is a good solution to experts not having skin in the game. The best that can be done is to 1) show people how often economists fail as a group and how wrong individual economists have been 2) remind people economists suffer no consequences when they’re wrong, but you the taxpayer will 3) ask if the media’s go-to economists have ulterior motives or self-interest in promoting the newest economic or political fad.
The bias is incredible, a few weeks ago I was working at a friends,CBC radio was on in his shop, the talking head was some Ontario university professor of economics.
His theory …the decline of Ontario’s economy and the spiralling debt bomb..All down to Doug Ford..coming from a guy quoting 2014 statistics to demonstrate his case.
You and I could not make this kind of BS up,but no problem for A Credential Laden Idiot and CBC.
From the link, “they (economists) pointed to real-life examples like British Columbia and Alberta, which both have carbon taxes but are not in a recession”
Feels like a recession in most of Alberta (not sure about in Edmonton).
Nutley’s NDP are borrowing and spending like crazy. The provincial deficit was projected at approx. 9 billion in March 2018 for a population of 4.3 million. Contrast this with Turdeau’s projected deficit of 18 billion for Canada (population of 36.7 million). If Turdeau spent like Nutley, Canada’s 2018 deficit would be 77 billion! (this is not an endorsement of Turdeau).
All that borrowing may technically keep Alberta out of a “recession” but I suggest that level of spending is not healthy.
And regarding the carbon tax;
For British Columbia (source = https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=2310006601)
gross sales of gasoline in 2007 (before the tax) = 4.7 billion litres
gross sales of gasoline in 2017 = 5.2 billion litres.
Looks like it is working! sarcasm.
And for Alberta
gross sales of gasoline in 2014 (before Nutley) = 6.57 billion litres
gross sales of gasoline in 2017 = 6.55 billion litres
now if you were a NDPer you’d say “see its lower, its working”, but to me the number is essentially the same.
Clearly the carbon tax is not working to reduce consumption of gasoline. In my opinion it is in effect a disguised sales tax.
B.C. was supposed to reduce their CO2 emissions by 30% from 2007 to 2017. The latest numbers show emissions have dropped by 2.2% (2016 versus 2007) and will jump dramatically when the LNG plants are online. Clearly the carbon tax is not working and will have to be increased significantly to have any effect. A case of be careful what you wish for…
No one should take the word of an “expert” on anything without thoroughly researching the expert’s resume. The expert may be simply a shill for whatever organization, mouthing the theme that keeps him employed.
Most economic experts are ivory tower types,so as LCB pointed out, economic policies have little or no effect on their lives.
One of my favorite economic genius statements was from an economist at the Mises Institute who stated that even if jobs were shipped overseas due to a free trade agreement, the laid off workers were still better off because they paid less for those products. The fact that as now unemployed persons they no longer had money to buy those products seems to have completely escaped the expert.
The other thing that annoys me is that the media never asks these expert economists about cost vs. benefit. I assume this is because the costs are extremely high (in dollars) and benefits are so miniscule (change degrees Celsius). Imagine if it was the obesity crisis instead of the climate change crisis. Economists (E) , taxpayer (T)
E- there’s a severe obesity crisis. If we don’t do something, the costs will be enormous. The world as we know it will end. 97% of scientists agree. Premature deaths. Enormous social cost. We need to put a price on gluttony.
T- ok. So what’s the solution?
E- a food tax. If we raise the price of food, you’ll eat less and lose weight.
T- how much will it cost?
E- $1200 per year, increasing every year.
T- how much weight will I lose?
E- all economists agree this is the most efficient tax.
T- ok, but how much weight will I lose?
E-regulations are much more costly.
T- ok, but how much weight will I lose?
E-we need to show leadership in the world.
T- ok, but how much weight will I lose?
E-are you an obesity denier?
T. No, I just want to know how that food tax will affect obesity rates in canada?
E- if you don’t want a food tax, what’s your plan? Just let people overeat and die.
T- I just want to know how much weight I will lose.
E- you are a POS, obesity denier. STFU. We need to put a price on gluttony.
LC nice example!
I will use it with some of my climate change loving friends. It won’t change their minds, but it will be fun to provoke them!
death reduces one’s carbon footprint.
Ford warns that the carbon tax could lead to a recession. Economists say GDP would only be negatively affected by $3 billion, not enough to cause a recession. They go on to say the tax collected is not being stuffed under a mattress but will be returned to the economy (and isn’t that a good thing).
It’s really hard to fight the logic of an economist. In my world a hit to GDP of $3 billion due to a useless tax is a bad thing as is the government taking my money and then (theoretically) returning it to the economy. But hey, I’m not an economist.
Q: why do economists wear crappy suits?
A: because they can’t afford good ones.
I think what we are witnessing is the death of the Global Liberal Order. The Great Agreements such as all arrangements and alliances of Le Grande Design.
Put in place at the end of the ww2 are rapidly falling apart.
The Jig is up, and the Piper must be paid.
We are witnessing history and very stormy weather, rig for rough weather.
Avery, very interesting read on the Great Convergence of Calamities.
https://usawatchdog.com/president-trump-surrounded-by-traitors-daniel-estulin/