babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Federal governments have been providing funding in provincial areas for at least 6 decades. I can imagine a provincial government saying no way we will not accept federal money for our infrastructure needs. What a load!!!
I don't dispute this. I do think that any plan needs to look at providing green relief, not just relief.
You're not suggesting I have implied otherwise/
But with all those poorer Americans giving up their cars, where will they live and how will they get around?
NYT
So the wealthier will move back to the cities with short commutes and transit and the poor will be pushed out to McMansionville and without the means to travel.
But let's talk about some more about income distribution.
Here is what the NDP is saying:
Looks like the NDP has thought real hard about the issue.
Why is it no matter what happens, as soon as an economist gets caught not know what they are talking about. Which is rather frequent they stop and say - oh look over there it is a giraffe with a lolipop.
And as if that is all the NDP has ever said about child care. The NDP was fighting for universal childcare before Liberals even started breaking promises on it.
Just saving this. Personal attacks are frowned upon on babble, you know.
What I wrote was an observation of someone who is clearly only trying to proselytize a particular partisan point of view. Seems to me I have every right to call you on it when you said I was not to talk about anything but the satanic NDP plan on climate change and then switched gears yourself to take a partisan pot-shot on childcare of all things.
Save to your heart's content. In fact save this too.
But I have to forgive you because you are an economist and therefore always work in lala land. "First you envision a free market" How's the search for the invisible hand going. Rome's soothsayers were as accurate as your "science" seems to be in predicting the economic outcomes of complex problems.
Back to the issue of who's ox will be gored and who should one trust to protect those outside the elite. The reality is we need government action to build green infrastructure first otherwise the poor and not so rich get hammered. The NDP has been pushing for infrastructure upgrades loud and clear and that is the step that needs taking now not sometime later. And if as a society we were really serious about the planetary effects of carbon we would immediately stop all subsidies to the tar sands and at minimum halt any further expansion.
Canada has one of the worst records for federal funding of public transportation, even worse than the US.
1) What will be the effect on ghg emissions? No party can answer this with any certainty (okay, the CPC can; their answer is 'none'). We're doing Star Trek here.
2) What will be the effect on prices that consumers pay? The Liberals have a pretty good answer for that (pp 27-28 of their handbook thingy). The NDP appears to have moved on from its original, indefensible answer ('none'), but it hasn't yet figured out what it will actually be.
3) How will we protect low-income households? The Liberals have worked out their answer. But since the NDP's initial position was that it wouldn't have to protect low-income households, it's behind the curve.
More horsepiss for my grampa's old bucket. Thank goodness it is a big 10 gallon one.
The Liberal plan does not protect low-income households. Sure they say it does, but that is just plain old lala land bs. It does not, will not and can not under a tax regime. Never, never, never. Get it. The tax and grabbers can go on and on about how they will pass on the savings, but it can not happen under their plan. Never. Ever. Ever.
It takes actual real dollars to purchase better technology. You can't make that money out of the air. A recent study in Toronto should that many of the most vulnerable in our society are paying close to 77 per cent of their income just to keep a roof over their head. The Liberal plan will just siphon money away from the most vulnerable, rural people and those of fairly modest means.
You can repeat the same clap trap over and over again but that doesn't make it true. If that worked I would be 6 4 with the body of a Greek god.
Trust me it will all right; look the economists agree it must be true. Somebody pass me a chicken I think I need to read the entrails to think of more questions.l
Admittedly Vancouver's was rather good when I was there. They also used double lenth buses, electric lines, and allowed people to attach their bikes to the front of the bus. In Montreal public transit is a pork barrel project for Bombardier and Nova bus.
Except using taxes is not a very precise way to approach the problem. The major emphasis must be on a hard cap mercilessly enforced.
Ration fuel and put huge surcharges on hydro usage above a set minimum usage. And don't export the hydro power that is made available as domestic use drops.
The problem with taxes is that they are only as effective as people's willingness to pay them or not. They guarantee no set level of reduction in use and favour the rich over the rest of us.
A fairer system would be to limit the amount of fuel that could be sold in any time period, and set up a system so that everyone was able to get a fair share at an affordable price.
I don't think it is a question of whether prices would have an effect on consumption or not, but on how much of an effect. What is the surer way to reach a target: set the target with a cap, and/or limit supply, or guess at what price demand will drop to that point?
[ 26 June 2008: Message edited by: Jerry West ]
[ 26 June 2008: Message edited by: Jerry West ]
Who cares if it's more feasible and effective?
He's talking $7 a gallon in the US, $2 litre in Canada. Leading to a 10-15% decline in miles driven... with Canada at he low end of that range.
That would be a 300% price increase is several years, on top of a 40% increase in vehicle cost, salted with a financial crisis that hits consumers.
And all of that impact inlarge measure because transportation costs were a very high percentage of expenses for median and below incomes before the steep increases began. That meant there just is not room for a doubling of that expense category in the household budget.
Home heating costs have not risen as much, yet... although they have in Atlantic Canada where oil heat is dominant. Zero drop in sonsumption so far, and you can bet it isn't going to drop as much as miles driven.
Extrapolate that across all products consumed, and across the economy... and thats a damned huge pricing sledghammer that would be required to get those degree of reductions we need in every sector of the economy- not just in personal vehicles where the degree of drop coming is determined by the unique degree of pain the majority of households will feel.