« Meetings with Meaning | Main | Who Produces CO2equiv Emissions in Canada »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

What's the plan here?

Phase 1: open up a discussion on the subject.
Phase 2: craft a basic plan based on what was learned from that discussion.
Phase 3: sell said plan to the public in order to win enough support to form government.
Phase 4: expand on the basic plan using government resources to fill in missing details as well as an implementation schedule.

This is how the process works and must work because no opposition party has the resources to craft a detailed plan academics like you won't nitpick apart.

Yep. That's what I suspected all along and that's why I voted for Mulcair in the NDP leadership convention. Smart guy, I want to see him be PM.

Re: aluminum, I'm for killing the industry with a carbon tax if that's what it does. Retrain workers, maybe help the new magnesium/carbon-fibre/CNT company R+D or market or somehow initial sales subsidy, of new industries.
http://www.differencebetween.net/object/difference-between-aluminum-and-magnesium/
Magnesium needs better coating; this can be done by aluminium industry in Que.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_car_technologies
CNTs and carbon fibre use hydrocarbon precursosrs AFAIK and if China without tax is CNT supplier, need tarriff (not popular)....Magna could do most of these. Fewer sales now with tax, more later (when boomers age).

Roads are used by trucks to bring many goods, not just cars, in response to carbon taxing cars instead of gasoline. You can tax the downstream users instead (keep in mind sell exactly same revenues of oil as paying upstream), you just have to pay for more beauracracy. I like upstream at least for oil and tar, because they can afford it. N.A. Car makers got free plants and still couldn't turn a profit with their big lumbering models. US Minerals Survey is good reference for what can and can't be substituted.

Ed Broadbent was talking about this issue in 1982!

And yet there's very little research into the effects of Dutch Disease in Canada. So little in fact, that a great many people are denying it even exists.

Once again, two issues are being conflated - "Dutch disease" and "polluter pays". Why did the NDP feel the need to link these two ideas when they can't even keep them straight?

"And yet there's very little research into the effects of Dutch Disease in Canada."

And this simply isn't true either. Look at Google Scholar. Lots of research, going back decades.

"I don't think that anyone disputes that there's a strong correlation between movements in oil prices and movements in Canadian dollar exchange rate. But this correlation is essentially the result of the Bank of Canada's inflation target"

At the risk of getting sidetracked, are you really sold on this assertion, Stephen?

I've thought of oil price shocks (and other changes in world prices for natural resources) as shocks to Canada's terms of trade. I'm guessing that we'd both expect those to affect Canada's (real) exchange rate regardless of what the BoC is doing. (BoC official might also give us a lecture on the need to distinguish between shocks to the price level vs inflation shocks, or the difference between targeting "core" vs broader measures of inflation.)

I was thinking "as opposed to targeting the nominal exchange rate".

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

    WWW
    worthwhile.typepad.com
Blog powered by Typepad