03/04-11-2015: canadian cabinet swearing in ceremony

she seems to have a hole in her shirt. did i miss grunge coming back into style?

oh, and i don't care about star wars. remotely.

there's really nothing he's doing here that can't be done on a regular guitar with a bit of string bending. and it actually sounds very irish.

while in the office of the minister of status of women, rona ambrose voted for criminalizing abortion. that is the top issue amongst conservative donors. this selection confirms the obvious, which is that the primary aim of the conservatives over the next four years will be in reinvigorating their base.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-interim-leader-vote-1.3306152

Rosie
Their base will be dead in four years.

jessica murray
in the urban centers? eight, anyways.

you have to realize that the ccpa and the liberal party are approaching this from different perspectives. the ccpa is looking at it as a way to reduce inequality (and perhaps debt), while the liberals are looking at it a a way to increase disposable income to get more money moving in the economy. when you realize that, the truth is that they’re both right. while the ccpa will correctly point out that this tax cut isn’t going to get anybody out of poverty, the liberals are equally correct in their logic that it’s spending by the upper middle class (or perhaps middle middle class) that is really what they’re aiming towards.

the reality is that if you give a big tax break to people on the lower end of the scale, it’s going to end up in the bank. it’s going to pay off credit card bills, go to downpayment on mortgages, pay down student loan debt and other things of the sort. this may help people’s finances, but there’s no economic benefit.

however, the thinking is that if you give a tax break in the middle of the scale then you get people buying cars and other big ticket items and that helps with a bit of stimulus spending. the next step here – and i’m using this language consciously – is that that money trickles down into the economy, creating service jobs.

the criticism of reaganomics is less in the idea and more in the implementation. if you give millionaires tax cuts, they don’t spend more money – because they already have more money than they can spend. if you give poor people tax cuts, they don’t spend more money either – because they’re in debt. this income range was targeted specifically under the thinking that it would maximize the amount of it getting spent, rather than saved or eaten by interest.

now, will that *actually* create jobs? not in an open economy, i don’t think. or, to put it another way – it might create jobs in asia or mexico, but perhaps not many here.

but, the ccpa’s analysis – while correct – is judging the policy on the basis of something it’s not intending to accomplish. it’s meant to give people that are in a position to spend more money to spend, not to tackle issues of inequality.

the truth is that everything about this makes sense, in terms of the textbook. we’ve got millionaires sitting on billions or trillions in the bank. the economy is stuttering because the rich aren’t spending their money. it’s entirely reasonable to take steps to get the money in circulation.

but, it’s a right-wing economic policy. you just don’t recognize it because it’s actually coherently constructed in order to actually work.

…or, if you want to play games with dynasties, to get a quick comparison in?

this is what the bush tax cuts should have looked like, and would have looked like if they were implemented intelligently.

www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-truth-about-justin-trudeaus-tax-cuts/

you would expect an oil executive to support a carbon tax because it won't hurt them directly (it's just a cost of business) but it will work up opposition to climate change policies. policy makers have solutions that may work to offset the effects, but we've learned rather clearly that those solutions do not resonate nearly as strongly as fear of a "tax on everything".

step one is diversifying the economy, so that scaling down production (which is the goal here - not increasing revenue) isn't such a shock. that actually has to happen outside the environment or resources file. it's some of the other ministers - like chrystia freeland and amarjeet sohi - that have the most immediate task at hand.

step two is ensuring that alternatives exist for consumers. it's one thing to tell people to use electric cars. it's another to drive electricity rates through the roof, so that it's not a truly feasible option. but, this does not address industry, which is one of the biggest sources of pollution.

that is why step three is passing laws that force co-operation under threat of criminal penalties or loss of operating license. nothing else will actually work. all other costs will merely be passed down to the consumer. and, if options do not exist - or are infeasible due to costs to market entry - then consumers will be unable to make a choice, and will be forced to merely pay the costs. many industries must simply be forced to comply, or else.

let's start with step one and step two before we start talking about the likelihood of implementing step three.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/trudeaus-ministry-of-environment-and-climate-change-spooks-oil-patch/article27110322/

westernpatriot
Please tell us how to diversify the economy, Professor.
Then explain how you're going to ensure that alternatives exist for consumers.
I won't hold my breath...

deathtokoalas
do i get an appointment to cabinet?

we had an economy before oil, you know. it wasn't even that long ago. it was focused on exporting in two primary sectors: resources and manufacturing.

one of our biggest natural resources export industries today is illegal, and conducted over the black market. legalization of marijuana has the potential to not just be a domestic industry, but to be a powerful export economy, as well. that bc bud's got a good reputation, dontcha know.

but, i'm sure there's lots of other things we can come up with as well if we invest sufficiently in research and development - and attract firms that are interested in taking part in that research and development. we can also invest directly in initiatives, and then spin them off (or maybe not...) when they're ready.

but, an export economy also benefits from a low dollar. a low dollar also acts as a tariff, which makes domestic production more competitive. that should be a central part of any economic policy in canada, so long as we remain under the globalist free trade regime.

making energy alternatives more feasible happens in two stages. the first is of course developing them - but the truth is that we're mostly past that stage, albeit no thanks to the last ten years of policy. the second is in easing regulations (remove restrictions around electric vehicles, for example) or tightening regulations (i'd like to see the government put some really strong pressure on wynne to reverse the recent electricity hikes - or build parallel infrastructure if they won't) to allow for product availability at a reasonable price. you could also put down some tax incentives - like a rebate on an electric vehicle, for example. and, it would be nice if that vehicle has to be made in this country, too.

these aren't obscure ideas, and you won't see them all in place. but, it's the general trajectory you should expect in the first term.

i've left a few thought out responses along these lines - this is a good idea because it will hopefully attract more strong female candidates - but i don't think there's much use in bothering further. maybe, and even hopefully, in a few years the critics will actually be right. for today, look at the bright side: a stronger focus on competency for male cabinet picks is a net positive. let's hope that sticks. and let's hope that conservative voters take the issue to heart in their future nomination processes.

they put a chiropractor in charge of science.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/elizabeth-may/gender-balance-cabinet_b_8472966.html