'A $36-billion car tax' - Macleans.ca

‘A $36-billion car tax’


NDP MP Glenn Thibeault’s statement in the House before Question Period this afternoon.

This is probably Stephen Gordon’s fault.


‘A $36-billion car tax’

  1. Yeah, this is something I’d be proud of if I was an academic (currently on a sabbatical, no?). But then again, as a union member, with a permanent job for life, feeding talking points to the NDP would seem second nature.

    Not surprised to see Slippery the Seal joining in later on the twitter debate. A carp from the Thames River sounds like a just reward.

    My twitter response last night: http://twitter.com/JvfM1/status/273629220180209664

    • Any attention is good, it seems. The beast must be fed.

      • Here’s some irony, to keep with the mood of this blog.

        Paul Boothe was a former DM who is now hanging his hat at Ivey School of Business (say, did MM ever mention he taught there part time? no?)

        Stephen Gordon blogged in June 2008 about a report PB co-authored. The blog was titled: It’s time we started worrying about productivity again.


        Paul Boothe started a blog of his own in Sept 2012. I looked him up after both SG and MM tweeted that he was on twitter and came highly recommended as having a good combination of academic training and real world experience (something at least one of them lacks).

        He attended a MM-like Ivey case study and discussion on emissions trading etc. Note his observations/conclusions after the class in this blog

        Comparing theoretical policies to practical ones

        In thinking about it afterwards, the class caused me to reflect a little on the current policy (not political) debate regarding different approaches to reducing emissions. It struck me that real world regulation suffered unfairly in comparison to theoretical (and thus viewed under ideal conditions) economic instruments. In reality, taxes are rarely uniformly applied and always require a tax collection mechanism that can be more or less cumbersome and costly. Likewise, cap and trade systems are almost always reserved for large emitters and permits are rarely auctioned as theoretical efficiency demands. Again, running the system and auditing emissions is rarely considered.

        This led me to realize that I am not sure if I would recommend an economic instrument over regulation without seeing the actual implementation of both approaches. In the second best world of real policy making, theoretical rankings go out the window and there is no substitute for a case-by-case comparison of actual policy alternatives.

        I guess this is why academic policy research, as important as it is, can never fully replace the practical policy analysis done by technically expert public servants.

        That’s what I learned in school today…


  2. I think the term is ‘sauce for the goose’?

  3. It’s a shame our national government has set the bar for performance in the HoC so low. Obviously, members of the other parties are eagerly striving to get under it.

  4. At least the NDP managed not to misquote him.

  5. Where’s my credit? I’ve been pushing this regulatory versus price on carbon theme change on the NDP since…oh i don’t know, i got the idea… from someone else…on SG’s blog…i think.

    Yay! Chalk one up for rational politics. Couldn’t look better on the CPC brain trust.