The Opposite & The Green Shift

George does the opposite:



I was somewhat surprised to see Stephen Harper say the other day that the Liberals proposed shift of taxes from incomes to carbon would "wreak havoc on Canada's economy, destroy jobs, weaken business at a time of global uncertainty."

Sadly, no reporters were on hand, to ask, if increasing taxes on carbon and reducing taxes on income would destroy the economy, shouldn't Harper be raising income taxes and slashing carbon taxes in order to create an economic boom? If he truly believes what he says, isn't he showing gross negligence with respect to the Canadian economy. Given that the economy is currently struggling - couldn't he fix this with a reverse green shift, e.g. black shift?

* * *

Looking forward, the following scenario seems plausible:

1) Conservative party forms the next government
2) Canada goes into recession (we're pretty much in one already)
3) Conservative apologists explain that only a moron would blame the recession on the Conservatives because the federal government's policies are not so influential that they can change the course of the whole economy.

If you're childish like me, it will be fun to throw Harper's comment in the face of Conservative supporters when that time comes.

But I Don't Wanna!

I don't really have anything to add to what Timmy, Greg and Andrew have already said about the latest evidence that when it comes to trade deals with the U.S., Canada gets to play the role traditionally played by Native Americans (i.e. the patsy).

To summarize, Canada won another trade panel ruling in the endless softwood lumber dispute and the American response was,

“We are, of course, disappointed with the (panel’s) decision, but it will have no impact on the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders,”

Or to put it more bluntly, 'We don't wanna and you can't make us'.

No doubt Americans are working behind the scenes to fix the flaw in the trade agreement which allowed a trade panel to rule against the U.S., but, until they fix that error, the NAFTA agreement has less and less credibility.

I'm reminded of a classic Seinfeld moment at a car rental agency:

"Agent: Can I help you? Name please?

Jerry: Seinfeld. I made a reservation for a mid-size

Agent: Okay, let's see here.

Agent: I'm sorry, we have no mid-size available at the moment.

Jerry: I don't understand, I made a reservation, do you have my reservation?

Agent: Yes, we do, unfortunately we ran out of cars.

Jerry: But the reservation keeps the car here. That's why you have the reservation.

Agent: I know why we have reservations.

Jerry: I don't think you do. If you did, I'd have a car. See, you know how to take the reservation, you just don't know how to *hold* the reservation and that's really the most important part of the reservation, the holding. Anybody can just take them.

Agent: Let me, uh, speak with my supervisor."

The Americans know how to sign trade agreements, they just don't know how to *abide* by them. And that's really the most important part of an agreement, the abiding. Alas, the problem with dealing with the Americans is that when things go wrong there's no supervisor you can talk to.

The scene concludes:

"Agent: I'm sorry, my supervisor says there's nothing we can do.

Jerry: Yeah, it looked as if you were in a real conversation over there.

Agent: But we do have a compact if you would like that.

Jerry: Fine.

Agent: Alright. We have a blue Ford Escort for you Mr. Seinfeld. Would you like insurance?

Jerry: Yeah, you better give me the insurance, because I am gonna beat the hell out of this car."

What puzzles me are the Canadians who, in reaction to this kind of behavior from the Americans, would be more inclined to demand that Jerry apologize for his comments about beating the hell out of the car (because it might damage the relationship with the rental place) rather than looking for a way to make an uneven exchange (in which one side has all the leverage) more even.