155

With respect, unity is probably not your strong suit, Prime Minister


 

“The carbon tax will do more than undermine the economy,” Harper said to a crowd of business leaders. “By undermining the economy and by re-centralizing money and power in Ottawa, it can only undermine the progress we have been making on national unity.”

Harper’s comments appear to step up the Tories’ relentless attacks on Dion’s Green Shift plan, which would balance a carbon tax with income-tax cuts.

An outraged Dion quickly struck back at his rival, calling Harper’s comments “irresponsible,” and citing his record in taking on Lucien Bouchard as intergovernmental affairs minister and succeeding in drafting and passing the Clarity Act into law.

“While he was busy talking about building firewalls in the West, I was fighting to keep my country together,” Dion said in New Brunswick, where he was speaking to the Board of Trade. “I do not need any lessons from Stephen Harper on fighting for the national unity of my country.”

[Dion’s Green Shift threatens national unity: Harper]

MORE: “We must stop elevating every policy difference into a national unity crisis,” he said. “It is completely irresponsible for Stephen Harper to do this.”

Snap and double snap.


 

With respect, unity is probably not your strong suit, Prime Minister

  1. OH SNAP!

  2. Definitely ouch.

  3. Yes you do need lesson Dion and you need some lessons in economics.Pay of your Leadership expenses from 2 years ago.How can you be expected to take care of Canada,s treasury if you cant pay your own bills.And dont say its not easy paying bills.

  4. No I daresay Dion doesn’t need any lessons in national unity however he might want to take a few notes from someone about how to stand up and vote against the government in the house when there is a confidence motion ” Even if it was only once ” 44 times siiting on hands – costs a few political points 1 time actually voting against the gov’t priceless!

  5. Finally! Someone brings up the firewall!

  6. Andrew, really, Harper’s bad at national unity?

    You can’t just put up a subject and Dion quotes.

    Harper has a strong record on national unity and the results show. Seperatism is on the retreat. Harper has found a third way and its working.

    You’re being hysterical.

  7. Fellas, how about something about the um, you know, substance of the issue? Anything at all? Something about glass houses, maybe? Nah? Oh well…

  8. you really do have to wonder what’s got harper so off his game. even those who think little of dion acknowledge that his great triumph in public life was taking on the separatists back when it meant something. and so harper steers the conversation to… national unity?

  9. esp. with Harper endorsing Alberta separation not so long ago.

  10. Fair enough Mac, here’s a Harper quote for you:

    “It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta.”

    And another:
    “Once Alberta’s position is secured, only our imagination will limit the prospects for extending the reform agenda that your government undertook eight years ago.”

  11. Scott F

    I think it’s good politics to take the fight to your opponent’s strengths, not only their weaknesses.

    Dion’s crowning achievement might be taking on the separatists but many of us also think the Liberals and their strong centre beliefs are responsible for the psycho-drama we have been going through for the past 40 years.

  12. The question is, can they swiftboat Dion? In other words, can they get people to question whether or not he really *was* a big contributor to the unity of the country?

    Unfortunately, I think they can.

  13. Sorry jwl, you can lay the psycho-drama squarely at the feet of Mulroney and the myth of the “night of long knives”.

    Talk about lies to achieve a self-serving political end-game.

    Gotta love consistency.

    Austin

  14. I know it is not proper to actually point out his successes (although the Cons are making hard not to), but Dion’s leadership debt is almost paid off. ALthough only Joel-Denis Bellavance article mentions and nothing else, it is surprising and emblematic of what is going on at the grassroots level aaway from the selcetive spotlight of the so-called-liberal-media.
    For anybody up to using their French, here is the link to the article in the pro-Liberal La Presse:
    http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20080819/CPACTUALITES/808190786/-1/CPACTUALITES

  15. interesting point, jwl – but even if you’re right, i hope we can agree that harper hasn’t executed that “fight” very well today. he’s usually much more skillful. his point today appears to be that lowering income taxes while raising taxes on pollution will somehow… what? revive the fortunes of the bloc? reanimate rene levesque? i’m not sure exactly how his apocalyptic vision is supposed to take shape.

    he was pretty lazy in trying to make the case. and in being that way, he gave dion the opportunity to crow about something legit.

  16. Scott, more taxes going to Ottawa to fund large centralized programs will cause a unity divide.

    Maybe Ontario won’t care but Alberta and Quebec will.

  17. Hey Mac don’t forget BC! In point of fact there are some seriously aggravated people here in BC who see all too clearly how this mini NEP is going to play out and is precisely why the LPC is well for lack of a better term doomed out west here!

  18. I’m in BC and I’m happy to have my income taxes lowered. Bring it on.

  19. scott f, i think you are looking for the potential disunity at the wrong end of the country. you know, out in the colonies.

  20. I dunno, if you look at various Liberal MPs websites, hardly any of them talk about Greenshift, or even link to it. Not even enviro-critic David McGuinty ! Are they ashamed of their signature policy or what ?

    So if the Liberal MPs won’t talk much about their carbon tax, it makes sense for Harper to do so. And maybe Harper can get Duceppe to weigh in on the merits of a carbon tax transferring more of Quebecer’s money to Ottawa ?

    Duceppe has been not-so-strangely silent about Dion. Let’s get Duceppe on the record re the carbon tax. Maybe about Dion’s history as a seperatist fighter.

    It’s all for the good for Harper.

  21. I love the comebacks on here. “Okay, well, Stephane, let’s pay back your leadership debt.”

    What on earth does that have to do with the substance of the actual posting? Nothing. Can’t answer on the merits? Well change the subject then!

    “I fought the separatists, so please don’t question my national unity credentials.”

    “Oh yeah, well, your mother wears army boots.”

  22. Scott Feschuk: You have to put 2 and 2 together to make the connection.

    Raising taxes on pollution while lowering them on income is equivalent to raising taxes on Alberta, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Saskathchewan while lowering them in BC, Quebec and Ontario.

    So this is unquestionably something that can stir up regional tensions, much like the NEP did in Alberta.

    When you start taxing individual industries differently, you are punishing some regions and rewarding others.

    Secondly, the carbon tax is not revenue neutral by any stretch. As far as Quebec is concerned, any centralizing tendency, like taxes to fund more national programs in provincial jurisdictions, is a threat to unity.

  23. Hey SF they won’t be lowered for us in BC only if you live in Vancouver it might work out to be lower then again that would be dependent on the tax refund ” Promised ” and how Dion is going to grant us an exemption as we already have a carbon tax until the Spring when His Higness Gordon the first will be opening the legislature as he has just conventiently cancelled the fall session .. funny how that worked out … AXE THE TAX!

  24. comment by sf on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 4:43 pm: “…Raising taxes on pollution while lowering them on income is equivalent to raising taxes on Alberta, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Saskathchewan while lowering them in BC, Quebec and Ontario…”

    You ARE aware that its a tax on fuel consumption, not PRODUCTION, no? ‘bertans still haven’t learned to change the filters on their furnaces yet, or what?

  25. sf, believe me, i understand the argument. all i said is that harper didn’t make the argument WELL today, which is uncharacteristic for him. instead of sounding sensible, he sounded hysterical – the green shift will surely devour us all! and because he was sloppy it ended up playing to his rival’s strengths.

  26. So, how to measure whether or not unity is Harper’s strong suit ?

    How about the fact the BLOC is went from the mid-40s to the low 30-s in popular support ?

    Or that the PQ is now the third party in the Province ?

    Those both happened during Harper’s time in office. Surely he gets SOME credit. After all, he gets almost ALL the blame for our economic challenges.

  27. “because he was sloppy”

    What’s so sloppy about comparing Dion’s plan to one that out of the blocks taxes carbon at well over 4 times (almost 5) the Green Shift’s maximum and assumes retention of 30% of the revenues to save its own bacon?

    That couldn’t possibly have been an accident.

  28. I can’t take credit for this line, but the Liberal’s might want to take it up: “Dion was working on the clarity act while Harper was building a wall around Alberta.”

    If it was me, I’d say “Steve-o, you want to take me on on national unity? Bring it on!” It would bring the fire out in Dion and he would eviscerate the notaleader label, regardless of what you think about the issue.

    But Dion instead shows class and leadership and wisdom and advises Little Steve to debate policy with policy instead of apocolyptic fearmongering. When did Stephen Harper Boy Genius morph Paul Martin and Brian Mulroney?

  29. comment by Geiseric the Lame on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 4:49 pm:

    “You ARE aware that its a tax on fuel consumption, not PRODUCTION, no? ‘bertans still haven’t learned to change the filters on their furnaces yet, or what?”

    And you are aware that the oilsands development consumes a huge amount of fossil fuels to produce oil, so yes, the Green Shift plan will break the back of Alberta to buy votes in Ontario. That is a surefire way to ressurect the ghosts of the NEP.

  30. RM: Ressurect? You say that as if that ghost ever left. Hell, Stelmach was using it in his provincial campaign. It’s going to take the die-off of the boomers for that myth to go away.

  31. “And you are aware that the oilsands development consumes a huge amount of fossil fuels to produce oil, so yes, the Green Shift plan will break the back of Alberta to buy votes in Ontario.”

    umm

    Alberta DOES export its product to other provinces. Their cost accountants too lame to roll the expense into sales?

  32. It’s no myth out here. I’ve only lived in Alberta for 8 years and I’ve gotten the full NEP immersion program. The legacy of the NEP will never die out here as long as successive federal governments keep proposing new schemes that look a lot like NEP II.

  33. Do my eyes deceive did Ted actually post that Dion is showing class and leadership yeah right after begging and pleading for soemone to vote for him Quebec and reverting to the Harper is and I quote Liar Liar etc etc major lack of any class and mark of desperation and the real reason Dion will not argue unity with harper is becuase he has had the rug pulled out from beneath him in Quebec and this was accomplished by none other than Harper himself – right now Dion’s only hope of making it to the end of the debate is letting May do the fighting for him – imagine how that is going to look.

  34. “Harper’s comments appear to step up the Tories’ relentless attacks on Dion’s Green Shift plan, which would balance a carbon tax with income-tax cuts.”

    And new spending in areas of provincial responsibility – unless that’s been eliminated since the pamphlet first came out. Sadly, to understand Harper’s criticism of the Green Plan, a journalist would need to read the entire Liberal pamphlet (and remember it!).

    “Alberta DOES export its product to other provinces. Their cost accountants too lame to roll the expense into sales?”

    Actually, Alberta only exports a tiny fraction of its oil to BC. The rest goes direct to the US.

  35. Oh, that wicked old NEP, imagine Albertans putting country first! The gall.

  36. Geiseric, oil companies don’t get to decide how much oil costs, world markets do. Oilsands development is much more expensive than conventional oil. The profit margins are smaller, while the startup costs are much higher. As the taxation burden increases, development funds dry up. Rising unemployment and bankruptcies are sure to follow. So Albertans, who of course, don’t vote Liberal, get to bear the burden so Eastern (and BC) voters can feel green without actually having to feel much of the pain.

  37. Jack Mitchell, every time an Albertan pays his taxes, he puts the country first. It’s called equalization.

  38. RM, the wealthy Albertans do, of course, and more power to them. But there’s more than one way to be patriotic, and whining about the NEP 25 years later is not one of them.

  39. RM sed: “Rising unemployment and bankruptcies are sure to follow. So Albertans, who of course, don’t vote Liberal, get to bear the burden so Eastern (and BC) voters can feel green without actually having to feel much of the pain.”

    Hmm, we’ve already had two and a half years of CON heaven. Don’t you realize the bankruptcies and burden has already begun? If only some Albertans realized just what other albertans are paying interms of health and lifestyle for the price of quick oil profits, then maybe you’d also see that putting money into smarter extraction technologies, instead of near 1890s hot water methods, would bring even bigger profits to Albertans in the future, plus a better environment for all.
    But hey, it’s all about having the right to do what you want. Let the Hummers roll!

  40. Geez, if people are going to continue whining and moaning and groaning about the past….hey, you know what, Dief the Chief cancelled the Avro …. and he was a conservative….we can never, ever let this go.

  41. “The rest goes direct to the US.”

    You don’t think the exports will be taxed at 40%, do you?

  42. A Liberal candidate in Quebec resigned today because he favoured killing Indians in order to have a golf course built in Oka. The Liberals are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find legitimate candidates in Quebec.

    One of the reasons for this is because Quebec has turned their backs on BOTH the sovereignists and the pugilistic federalism practiced by the Federal Liberal Party since Trudeau. The latter which Andrew Coyne favours.
    And which explains why he entitles this post “With respect, unity is probably not your strong suit, Prime Minister”

    Hey Andrew, open your eyes – the PQ third party in Quebec provincially. The Bloc in a freefall. The federal election in Quebec being about the same issues that touch other Canadians. When Mr. Coyne talks about unity, he means the centralizing unity of Pierre Trudeau and his acolytes that nearly destroyed this country in 1995.

  43. “You don’t think (oil) exports will be taxed at 40%, do you?”

    It’s supposed to be a tax on carbon emissions. Extracting tar sands oil generates enormous amounts of these emissions. I think all of this oil goes to the US (because the AB-BC pipeline can’t handle it or because there’s insufficient refinery capacity to turn it into oil). Is Dion exempting the tar sands from the carbon tax?

  44. “Geiseric, oil companies don’t get to decide how much oil costs, world markets do.”

    If you think increased production costs on Alberta’s exported oil is your biggest worry you’re not paying attention to what’s going on down South.

    You think “Turning the Corner”‘s regulate caps and new bureaucracy is going to be some sort of a free ride?

    how does $65 a tonne sound?

    You want to see a tax grab take a closer look at the NDP plan.

  45. Andrew,

    Harper’s bold moves have virtually single handedly crushed the seperatist movement for the foreseeable future.

    Unity isn’t Harper’s strong suit?

    I guess a PM creating a seperatism crises is what you’d consider better suited.

  46. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s One Step Forward, two backwards continues

    and as to Harper being truly is a disunity exoprt he is wrongfully still feeding the seperatist west, more speratists there than in Quebec now too, and any one think the clearly selfish, self centered west, Alberta and Saskatchewan is unified with Canada is still dreaming.. wake up..

    “Conservatives are known for being disrespectful to people who oppose them. I’ve seen it in the House of Commons – the insults come fast and furious.” NDP Leader Jack Layton

    Tory communications director Ryan Sparrow was suspended and forced to apologize Thursday for implying that criticism from the father of a Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan may have been politically motivated. Sparrow made the suggestion in an email to a CTV journalist after Jim Davis, who lost a son in Afghanistan, called Harper’s surprise pledge to pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan in 2011 “irresponsible.” Sparrow’s email to Jenna Fyfe, a producer with the television network, appeared to discount that criticism by noting that Davis was a supporter of Liberal deputy leader Michael Ignatieff.

    It was the fourth time in the still-early days of the campaign that Harper has had to deal with gaffes, or climb down from previous positions.

    The prime minister issued a rare apology for an offensive ad showing a bird pooping on the Liberal leader. He reversed his opposition to including Green Leader Elizabeth May in the televised debates. And he had to deal with the resignation of a Conservative candidate in Halifax after it became known she had a criminal record.

    http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5guTSMQRJqWWNB97ASPKDGOMEpQvA

  47. “Is Dion exempting the tar sands from the carbon tax?”

    Dion’s plan taxes inefficient production, not product. You think a regulated hard cap and $65/tonne is any better.

    What pisses me off about this whole debate is that after having more than once pounded the definition into my brain long enough to pass the mid-terms (a couple times even to the point it no longer seemed counter-intuitive) the concept of price elasticity is somehow according to Dion’s critics no longer relevant to the modern econony and we need to once again rally the bureacracy.

  48. Mind you, the Conservative plan has a better slush fund so credit for that.

  49. the only unity Harper and the separatists midwest of Canada promote still is greed, and selfishness

  50. “Dion’s plan taxes inefficient production, not product. ”

    Tar sands emissions come from the production – you have to burn a baffling amount of oil or natural gas to get the sludge out of the ground. Price elasticity doesn’t apply to Canadian oil production because there is a world market price – increased Canadain production costs will need to be eaten by producers in Canada.

    “Turning the Corner” has a range of specific measures for the tar sands. Not that I can be bothered to go and look them up right now though.

  51. “Tar sands emissions come from the production – you have to burn a baffling amount of oil or natural gas to get the sludge out of the ground.”

    and

    they can’t afford to improve it? The higher the cost of business as usual the better the ROI.

  52. ROI on 10% of fuel costs yielding 10% reduction in first year = 1 year

    What does Turning the Corner offer?

  53. I’m not following your logic on the ROI stuff – if you increase costs, the ROI on the initial investment goes down. And this looks like an equation “ROI on 10% of fuel costs yielding 10% reduction in first year = 1 year” but I cannot figure out what you mean by it. If you reduce fuel consumption by 10%, that could give you a 10% ROI, I guess (depending on the cost of fuel and the cost of the investment), but I don’t understand how that leads to the “= 1 year¨part. If you get a chance to post an elaboration on this point, I’d appreciate it.

    I understand that Paul has now heard of the Turning the Corner plan so I’m sure we’ll get details from him soon enough.

  54. “that could give you a 10% ROI”

    no, actually. That would give a gain on investment of 10% of the cost. If you gain from an investment exactly what you put in you get an ROI of zero. Take a year to the cost you get an ROI of one year.

  55. That should read “Take a year to realize the cost in gains you get you get an ROI of one year”.

  56. In year two it will take half the time to realize the same 10% savings and the opportunity cost get more attractive still two more times after that.

  57. I’ll try this one more time out of unexpectant protest for an edit button…

    “that could give you a 10% ROI”

    That would give a gain on investment of 10% of overall cost of fuel. If you gain from an investment exactly what you put in you get an ROI of zero. Take a year to realize the cost of investment in savings due to efficiency and you get an ROI of one year.

  58. Realize 20% efficiency over the first four spending 20% of fuel costs and you break even. If you’re at 40% efficiency from then on you can fill your pool with the tax reduction that came with it.

  59. uh oh

    lefties talking numbers

    must be voodoo

  60. That is a total burn for Dion, props to that…

    However, I am from Alberta, and to be frank, this IS a national unity issue for me. If eastern Canada sends western canada the green shaft through this election, I will roll it up and shove it… well… you know the rest. GET THE PICTURE ONTARIO!?

  61. GTL,

    A tar sands project generates its return by selling the oil it extracts from the tar. Rising the cost of extracting the oil by imposing a carbon tax will *lower* the ROI.

    Do you mean that a carbon tax would increase the ROI on an investment that aims to reduce carbon emissions? That’s true, but not very helpful for investors in the oil sector. What it means is that they can invest to reduce what they pay in a new tax. Not too appealing.

    You may be assuming I know a lot more about the Green Plan than I actually do, but I don’t see any reason to expect an investment to have an ROI of 10%. Are you just using that as an illustration or is there some reason to expect that kind of return?

    On ROI more generally, why would the return accelerate the way you’ve described? “In year two it will take half the time to realize the same 10% savings.” And how does getting 10% of the investment back in a year allow you to pay for the investment in one year? On this point, I think I am misreading what you wrote so please don’t be too cruel in setting me straight.

  62. James,

    What you say about Alberta is probably true (and Alberta has more grounds for complaint now than it did in the NEP years when it had enjoyed years of import protection to keep returns artificially high in AB), but Harper is talking about Quebec. Particularly the idea that spending in provincial jurisdictions, as the Green Plan intends to do, will aggravate provincial-federal relations.

    The first principle of federalism is that the Constitution must be respected. In this view, we must do away with the all-too-convenient excuse that a given governmental initiative responds to a need that is too urgent to be stymied by issues of “jurisdiction.” Infringement of jurisdiction creates confusion which damages the quality of public policy.

  63. >>However, I am from Alberta, and to be frank, this IS a national unity issue for me. If eastern Canada sends western canada the green shaft through this election, I will roll it up and shove it… well… you know the rest.

    sounds more like western Canada prostitutes still

  64. “On ROI more generally, why would the return accelerate the way you’ve described?”

    because you’re stupid.

  65. Every body seem to forget that the Harper government got a twelve billion dollar surplus from the liberal, and turned it in a deficit, why did they canceled the new military choppers, new equipment and ship for the coast guard also canceled. The federal finance minister is the same finance minister that gave Ontario there largest deficit in history. The liberal balance the books and gave Canada surplus after a Conservative record deficit. Let’s not repeat history.

  66. What do you call someone that invades a vessel then sails under that vessel’s flag. That is exactly what the reform party did to the conservative.

    These insignificant tax cuts by the conservative does nothing to improve and support the economy it actually hurts’ the economy. This $100.00 (before tax}dollars a month to families, is worth $2.79 net per day. Now what can you purchase for a family with that kind of extra buying power.

  67. I hope AB neocons are planning to return the $60 billion in federal funds Canada has subsidized the AB oil industry to the tune of. It costs $25 billion to partially cleanup a tailings pond, and it is inevitable pond dykes will fail. There is one now and two or three planned; AB is too stupid to make the oil industry pay for the cleanup. There is not enough water to service both Edmonton and oil sands. The provincial government has no plans to diversify the economy for when oil busts, which it will well before new infrastructures depreciate. Cgy should be looking at Australia’s drought adaptation measures instead of surpressing aquifer accounting studies. Starting in the late 2020s, SW AB will become a desert. Oil is not paying the costs of any of this. AB neocons are greedy, evil and brainwashed. NFLD isn’t afraid to stand up to the most profitable industry on earth. AB/SK are. Be horrible poker players.

  68. btw, yes I was talking about half the time to realize the gain on the tax increase. No I didn’t think of mentioning it at the time and yes I could have done without doing it.

    Its pure investment. Nice numbers up front, too.

  69. >> Every body seem to forget that the Harper government got a twelve billion dollar surplus from the liberal, and turned it in a deficit, why did they canceled the new military choppers, new equipment and ship for the coast guard also canceled. The federal finance minister is the same finance minister that gave Ontario there largest deficit in history. The liberal balance the books and gave Canada surplus after a Conservative record deficit. Let’s not repeat history.

    Harper’s typical one step forward, and two steps backwards management style

  70. “btw, yes I was talking about half the time to realize the gain on the tax increase.”

    Okay, so we seem to agree that the carbon tax lowers the ROI on tar sands projects while increasing the ROI on investments to reduce carbon emissions. I still don’t see where you’re getting the 10% ROI for the emissions-reduction investment. Aside from my stupidity, is there any other reason it takes half as long to realise the return in the second year?

  71. I love it when Dion starts to try to run on his record. Yeah Right! let me see was it 43 or 44 times he had the opportunity to actually vote against the gov’t and guess what nada, zer, zip not ONCE and yet there he is complaining away about this that and everything (then wanting to tax it) he should thank the PM for relieving him of his inability to stand up for anything. How anyone can take anything this guy says seriously is quite beyond me but as they say in politics!

  72. “Okay, so we seem to agree that the carbon tax lowers the ROI on tar sands projects while increasing the ROI on investments to reduce carbon emissions”

    No we don’t. The ROI shortens as either or both efficiencies increase and material costs go up.

  73. An investment either pays for itself or it doesn’t.

  74. As for the carbon tax it’s way over due. There is 11 other jurisdictions that have a form of neutral carbon tax and yes they are all doing fine.

  75. Was it Harper that wanted a fix electoral date?
    Was it Harper that said he would not tax any investment trust funds?
    Was it Harper that promise new ship for the coast guard?
    Was it Harper that ask that all opposition Government work with is Government?
    Is it the Harper Government that wipe out the surplus.
    Mr Harper did not respect the wish of the Canadian people in both minority government situation.

    What as he and is government done for the environment?

  76. “he ROI shortens as either or both efficiencies increase and material costs go up.”

    Do me a favour, go to the following site that explains ROI and cut and paste the bit you think supports your point. If material costs go up, logically the return on the investment would go down (because the gain would decrease).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment

  77. This isn’t beancounting 101. I’m talking opportunity cost.

  78. My analysis concludes Turning the Corner is the more deflationary of the two plans. Doesn’t even make it out of the blocks.

  79. I have a pretty good idea what you’re talking GTL, and it isn’t opportunity cost.

  80. The Conservatives commit at least 11% more in capital cost than the Liberals to a plan that does less and relies entirely on private sector credit when the Liberal plan requires no new money at all and you respond by tossing Wikipedia at me?

    go back to school.

  81. Not quite, you keep posting random numbers and incoherent statements about ROI and I plead with you to stop paraphrasing and find a quote from an actual explanation of ROI that explains what you think you are saying. At which point you switch to opportunity costs.

  82. I was being lazy. Try “full return on investment” refering to the point in time investment in capital stock and business re-engineering yields a rate of return of 0%, which doesn’t sound if you don’t keep in mind everything from that point in time on is sheer profit.

    In the case of my 11% comparison its the amount of money each plan dedicates to the project up to and including 2020 realizing their GHG reduction goal (30% and 20%) on average.

    AT LEAST 11%. I don’t bother factoring in carbon capture, which would reduce efficiency, or factor out the Turning the Corner slush fund or leakages.

    Whether either amount is enough is, of course, a different question.

  83. oh my

    never mind the 11%.

    I finally worked in the graduated efficiency of the returns. The good news in the Tories aren’t being duplicitous. The bad new is it turns out the comparison of bottom incentives makes Turning the Corner look quite pathetic.

    and TtC STILL has to come up with significant money from nowhere of the deflationary variety to fund itself.

  84. I come up with…

    Future Value ( = calculated business incentive) of the plans…

    Liberal Green Shift = $187,791.53M funded with existing tax revenues and no additional credit

    Conservative Turning the Corner without matching cap and trade funds = $34,903.05M funded by private sector credit

    Conservative Turning the Corner full Cap and Trade commitment = $52,354.58M funded by private sector credit

  85. so far

  86. but saying its a 200 billion dollar swing is in the ballpark.

  87. I may finally understand what you’ve been saying about ROI – and it’s very wrong. ROI is a ratio of returns on an investment to the cost of the investment. It’s not the tax rate on carbon.

    Your suggestion that the Tory plan is deflationary because it involves new spending is novel. You should write up this analysisfor a journal since it’s completely at odds with any known economic theory. And the tax revenue from the Green Shift is not new spending or a stream of value for business. It’s a stream of costs.

  88. With the Green Shift cost are covered by existing capital redirected within the system. The Tory cash is net new made current by credit. If you don’t think net new credit values aren’t a strain take a look down South and brace yourself.

    Its a money supply thing.

    Both plans require the same amount of net new spending. What matters at the macroeconomic level is where it comes from. Thin air isn’t much of a source.

  89. and go ahead and sue me for figure of speech if it makes you happy. Its the next logical step after calculating the IRR. Business mathnics get a kick out of showing it off. It just wasn’t on the mid-term. Whatever its called its still a valid technique.

  90. GTL – you’re not calculating a rate of return, internal or otherwise. You’re quoting the tax rate.

    Money supply refers to the amount of money put in circulation by the government. The idea that under the Liberal plan companies will redirect existing money but under the Tory plan they will print new money is ridiculous. There might be an argument about changing velocity due to the carbon plans, but I doubt it and I doubt you’re the person to make it.

  91. With the Green shift I’m calculating the additional fuel consumption energy efficiency savings realized relative to the carbon tax plus tax reductions.

    With the Conservative plan I’m calculating the additional fuel consumption energy efficiency savings realized relative to the cost of Cap and Trade commitments.

    Both analysis determine the level of funding that would pay for themselves by 2020.

    “Money supply refers to the amount of money put in circulation by the government.”

    You never hear of central banking?

  92. “You never hear of central banking?”

    Now you’ve put the central bank in the private sector? You’re not just revolutionizing economics, you’ve decided to take on public administration.

    You might be calculating the savings (although I doubt this), that still doesn’t give a rate of return. You’ve just changed the name of the taxes, you’re still quoting the tax numbers.

  93. “Now you’ve put the central bank in the private sector?”

    That’s not even close to a straw man. It all depends on which sector its backing.

  94. “that still doesn’t give a rate of return”

    try to keep up. It calculates how much investment is fully returned by 2020.

  95. Anybody know how much Canada spends on GHG fuels a year? Not makes, a dollar value on consumption. If I know that I could calculate how much we can afford.

  96. “You’ve just changed the name of the taxes, you’re still quoting the tax numbers.”

    Its not a tax if you’re not burning it. Then its called profit. You have a problem allowing Canadians a chance to earn a tax break?

  97. Canada’s central bank is a federal institution. Even if your comment about what sector is supporting meant something, it wouldn’t change this fact. It also wouldn’t change the fact that oil companies do not, as you suggest, control the money supply.

    Stats Can will have figures on how much Canadians spend on fuels. As will the NEB.

    A tax you don’t pay is not a profit. Costs you don’t incur by not doing something are not profits. The tax you don’t pay thanks to an investment you’ve made is not the profit on the investment – you need to know how much the investment cost. same way you do to calculate a ROI, IRR or any of the other measures of return you want to use. Which one of us is more worried that, after three days of this, I have to explain the arithmetic of profits to you?

  98. “Even if your comment about what sector is supporting meant something…”

    Banks make cash out nothing all the time for instance every time a credit goes out on a Visa.

    Please tell the chartered banks haven’t assimilated.

  99. “A tax you don’t pay is not a profit.”

    yada yada yada and not only that but it’s an after tax profit.

  100. But if you haven’t paid tax on it, surely it’s a before tax profit too?

    Banks make cash out of nothing all the time? That explains the banking crisis in the US – they must have run out of nothing.

  101. “But if you haven’t paid tax on it, surely it’s a before tax profit too?”

    If its that much cheaper to produce and you charge the same price for it of course it is.

  102. “Banks make cash out of nothing all the time? That explains the banking crisis in the US – they must have run out of nothing.”

    There’s one group of rich people who try to get richer making money out of nothing. Then there is another group of already really rich people who don’t want inflation to eat their USD denominated assets. When they quarrel the universe explode, or so said paranoid Mel Gibson.

  103. “There’s one group of rich people who try to get richer making money out of nothing. Then there is another group of already really rich people who don’t want inflation to eat their USD denominated assets.”

    That does have the old Speenhamland propertied versus commercial class struggle ring to it. Of course back then is was still about actual capital. Now its perhaps best caricatured as the easy-money fiat freaks versus the gold bugs.

    ROI timeframe, not just ROI. I knew I was using shorthand. Someone buy this joint an edit button and I’ll gladly work my way through the do-over.

  104. Someone should tell these rich people about GTL’s new profit-spinning idea: taxes! And the higher your taxes go, the greater your profits…Although now I hear you have to sell the taxes to someone. (And GTL seems to have forgotten that increasing costs is supposed to increase the returns, but these things happen when you’re on the cutting edge of economics).

  105. Well, if we’re playing semantic games with whether taxes are profits or not, it seems then that if taxes do not affect profits, there should be no objection to the Green Shift plans, and all this malarkey about it harming our economy is just that — malarkey.

    On the other hand, if taxes *do* affect profits, then receiving a tax rebate should probably help the economy, especially if people and businesses can work for energy efficiency to reduce the taxes they’d otherwise pay.

  106. You’re getting to the right conclusion but you’re missing GTL’s point entirely: taxes *are* profits. Which is why the Green Shift is a good idea – because it raises taxes substantially. Which is the same as saying it raises profits. I’ll let GTL fill you in on all the details.

  107. You all sound like a bunch of bureaucrats playing puppet-masters with the masses.

    I mean, all centrally controlled economies have been a smashing success!

    Ayee!

  108. “And the higher your taxes go, the greater your profits”

    If the taxes are directly applied to the cost of production the more you save by reducing that cost. I apply the same efficiency savings to both plans relative to what the system puts at stake. You seem to think the cap and trade system will be played with monopoly money.

  109. and the assumption is made consistently that there is NO profit to be made before the efficiencies are realized and the investments paid off.

  110. Whether profits are to be made at the end of the ROI timeframe depends on whether prices hold. That is not to say they will, but the potential is there. Oligarchies being what they are and all.

  111. “I mean, all centrally controlled economies have been a smashing success! ”

    that’s right. fiscal planning is the root of all evil.

  112. or maybe the love of fiscal planning.

    whatever.

  113. “Whether profits are to be made at the end of the ROI timeframe depends on whether prices hold.”

    On the other hand, NOT keeping pace with efficiencies will put slackards at a distinct, and measureable, disadvantage. That would be two strikes right there.

  114. “taxes *are* profits.”

    Just to be clear, I never said that. I said once investments are paid for everything after that is profit.

    and no, I won’t feel sorry for producers if competition forces the savings to be passed on to consumers.

  115. “I mean, all centrally controlled economies have been a smashing success!”

    btw, if you’re looking to choose the lesser of two evils work on figuring out which of Turning the Corner or The Green Shift is more reliant of market regulation as opposed to market forces.

    here’s a hint. one of them is cap and trade.

  116. I hope T. Thwim is able to go back through your earlier comments GTL, because you’re really skipping over many of your most interesting points. You are hitting the main one, though, which is that the Green Shift generates more savings/profits for producers because it imposes higher taxes. Which means that the lower costs imposed on producers by the Tory plan leaves them relatively worse off…It’s like when the price of gas gets really high at the pumps and everyone who rides a bike automatically has more money than they had before. Because they’re saving even more in gas.

  117. “…Because they’re saving even more in gas.”

    That’s essentially it although its probably better to think in terms of how long it takes for a new furnace to pay for itself. If prices go up you’re spending more on efficiency rather than paying for fuel. Once its paid off all efficiency saving become disposable income.

    My biggest complaint about Turning the Corner is its a good 10 times more deflationary than the Green Shift not to mention the bureaucracy it creates. The Green Shift looked a lot more reasonable to me once I got it through my own thick skull that it already is a tax.

    Dion looks around $20B over budget. I’m still running the numbers.

  118. Assuming energy spending of $70B annually Dion has set aside $22B more over 12 years than he needed to. Oh well. Balance of Trade fodder.

    My numbers so far show me the GP is at least 6 times more fiscally neutral the TtC. Takes a while to get it right. The stuff I posted before about future values is close enough for rock and roll. I’d show you my work in progress but formatting is way more work than rough copy merits so the country can rot in a bank vault for all I care.

  119. New furnaces are expensive and it certainly makes more sense to spend that money when gas prices are high. As a household, which situation is preferable:
    a) gas prices so high that it’s worth spending money on a new furnace
    b) gas prices so low that it’s not worth buying one?

  120. Yes ongoing a small group of rich people are getting richer.. while the rest are getting poorer still too..

    it is certainly also not the average person in Alberta as well that is getting richer in all of this..

    Look here is what most people need to see the great costs associated with political inaction in regard to rising fuel costs in Canada too for inaction will next make a lot of things worse for most everyone

    the price of automotive gas is $1.49
    and that is about 3 times, 300 percent, higher than it was a decade ago too

    now this high costs reflects also next the higher costs of food, transpiration, heating etc.,

    next most employees will start to strike, to demand more money also.. civil and public servants included, mostly all of them..

    and who will be able to afford it as well? not the already over taxed citizens, or those retired?

  121. “which situation is preferable…”

    Its going to happen anyways so it may as well be A. Cap and Trade will hit fuel prices just as hard. Worse?

    Even after taxes the first 16.36% of fuel price increases is still be capitalized under the Green Shift. Conservative credit system has to cough up another 9.6% before Dion’s plan even STARTS to touch debt.

    AND the Conservative plan is 1.5 times more sensitive to fuel prices.

    so far.

  122. “AND the Conservative plan is 1.5 times more sensitive to fuel prices.”

    glitch
    scratch that

  123. no no
    scratch the scratch

    “AND the Conservative plan is 1.5 times more sensitive to fuel prices.”

    Its right. That means when prices rise by 113.90%
    Dion’s plan will hit where the Conservative plan starts out and by that time the TtC plan will be looking at an additional $100B end of project with or without investment.

    That’s what it looks like. Need to doublecheck some stuff.

  124. LOL!

    that’s rich

    talk about geekly

    any guesses why its 1.5 times more sensitive to fuel prices?

  125. gah

    scratch the scratch the scratch. might have been looking in the wrong place.

  126. “Its going to happen anyways so it may as well be A. Cap and Trade will hit fuel prices just as hard. Worse?”

    But, GTL, the ROI shortens as either or both efficiencies increase and material costs go up. Which would mean you now think the TtC plan is better than the Green Shift. Except, the Corner plan’s bottom incentives are pathetic.

    I’m glad you think the Tories are more sensitive than the Liberals.

  127. sophomoric debate?

    nice

    you don’t even know what price sensitivity means in this context.

  128. yep

    1 and a half

    and it IS kind of funny

  129. It’s very hard to know what you mean by economic terms, GTL. Give me a hint – what aspect of the plan do you think is sensitive to fuel prices? Revenues, reductions, the ROI?

  130. “what aspect of the plan do you think is sensitive to fuel prices”

    The aspect that makes efficiency investment the more worthwhile when prices go up.

    agreed?

  131. So, the reductions in the Tory plan are more sensitive to oil prices. That’s nice. Why does the Liberal plan have people using relatively more oil for a given price increase?

  132. “reductions in the Tory plan are more sensitive to oil prices.”

    what reductions?

    I was talking about increases in fuel costs.

    Investments in the TtC plan are 1 and a half times more likely to exceed ROI thresholds as compared to the GP.

    the reason is quite simple, actually.

    have you guessed it yet?

  133. I thought you were talking about the effects of fuel price increases – which effects would be a reduction in consumption/emissions. But now we’re back to the ROI. Given our earlier discussions on ROI, I should let you explain what you think you’ve found, rather than trying to use the details of the plans and the definition of ROI to guess.

  134. “which effects would be a reduction in consumption/emissions”

    There isn’t enough tinfoil in the world to build the hat big enough to get me to believe price elasticity depends on who wins the election.

    World prices will rise and fall irrespective of which plan is in place. When prices go up the prize will go to the more successfully aggressive of the two. and that’s enough hints from me.

    Its all about ROI. Its a critical point of reference when analyzing investment plans.

  135. “World prices will rise and fall irrespective of which plan is in place.”

    You ARE aware both plans are anchored to tonnage not price, no? The markets can wreak havoc all they want.

  136. Are you criticizing me for suggesting that there’s a difference in price sensitivity between the two plans?

    Is there anyway of explaining to you that a household is not better off if you increaes their gas prices more rather than increasing them less? Which is the appropriate analogy if you want to understand the effect of either plan on profits.

  137. “Are you criticizing me for suggesting that there’s a difference in price sensitivity between the two plans?”

    no

    I’m teasing you because you don’t know why that is.

    “Is there anyway of explaining to you that a household is not better off if you increaes their gas prices more rather than increasing them less?”

    The Turning the Corner plan is scheduled to add 8% more to the price of energy using cap and trade than the Green Plan does using the carbon tax. What’s more, the Green Plan carbon tax is only a fraction (2.45%) of the funds that are being injected into the economy up front while TtC offers bupkiss more than a stern talking and the goons to go with it.

    gasoline will not be subjected to the carbon tax slap rinse repeat.

  138. pardon me. 15.42% not 2.45% (work in progress, eh) but that’s 100% more than the Conservatives have come up with.

    Of course, Harper times ARE deflationary times. To their advantage most people don’t know what that is and of those that do its a crap shoot who’d mention it.

  139. “price of energy” of 3:15 reads more accurately as “cost of energy”.

  140. “gasoline will not be subjected to the carbon tax”

    Wow.

    Yes, there is a large misconception that the carbon tax is on carbon emissions, and we all know that the production of gas requires absolutely no carbon emissions. With all those emission at the oil sands, they are not producing neither gas nor oil nor kerosene nor diesel, rather they are producing flowers. Oil wells and Hibernia platforms produce no emissions. Gas refineries produce no emssions. In fact gas itself is not transported to the gas pump through pipelines and trucks, but instead magically appears out of thin air.

    Yes, in fact carbon itself will not be subject to the carbon tax. The use of the word carbon is a misconception, it is a tax on nothing at all.

  141. “Yes, there is a large misconception that the carbon tax is on carbon emissions”

    so Dion is damned if he applies a carbon tax and damned if he doesn’t?

    figures

    The government excise already weighs in on gas prices.

    You’re forgetting the half of the equation that represents half the consumption, and it ain’t high-octane premium.

  142. The Turning the Corner plan is scheduled to add 8% more to the price of energy using cap and trade than the Green Plan does using the carbon tax. The ROI shortens as either or both efficiencies increase and material costs go up. Again, this is your logic and these are your statements. If they were true, it would mean that the TtC plan is better than the Green Shift.

    You ARE aware both plans are anchored to tonnage not price, no? Any guesses why its 1.5 times more sensitive to fuel prices?

    I’m going to go with: no.

  143. oh did I say TtC 8% addition?

    Its starting to look more like 17% more and all of it, may I mention, by way of regulation.

    Turning the Corner levies 17% more cost to unrealized efficency than The Green Shift. That’s the crap that comes out of our pockets. Of course there IS the whole play money aspect about it and we already know the Conservatives aren’t serious and besides the damn thing leaks like a seive so Bob’s your uncle.

  144. “Turning the Corner levies 17% more cost to unrealized efficency than The Green Shift. ”

    Great – and here I thought the Corner plan was more lenient on polluters than the Green Plan. I hope the media picks this up (because I want you to focus on getting your new economic theories into the academic journals, not wasting your talents on Macleans).

  145. 17%ish

    I still have to factor GDP growth to energy suppy on the Green Plan. Might drop to 12 or so.

  146. ” thought the Corner plan was more lenient on polluters than the Green Plan”

    Check TtC for leaks and loopholes then ask yourself which one is more slack. Its not easy getting that AND more national debt into the same plan. On this Harper must be applauded.

    talents schmalents. when this isn’t a hobby it bores me to tears.

  147. “Its not easy getting that AND more national debt into the same plan.”

    Wow, so not only is the Corner plan tougher on polluters, it spends more too?

  148. Since you have no problem with governments clawing money back why would you prefer a plan that accomplishes less with more capital?

  149. 14.78% more more clawback. ish.

  150. Here you’re confounding “promising” with “doing”. But that’s okay – even though these are not economic terms, you should feel free to rewrite their definitions as well.

  151. If you were just making excuses for not liking the Liberals you could have just said so in the first place.

    Turning the Corner is a trap. On the national account no price fluctuation can prevent a deficit. ish.

    and yes, I think you have no clue what I’m talking about and yes that’s fine with me.

  152. Harper can’t be THAT much of a divider. He’s got the energy sector and the banks working on the same page.

  153. oh

    and the technocrats. that crowd is polishing their vacuum hoses as we speak.

  154. Mind you I can see how Harper would consider releasing more than $50B over 12 years over and above the project investment optimum to find its niche in the economy being a scourge.

Sign in to comment.