As for the substance of the first post on his brand spanking new blog--that auto-subsidies are ineffective--well, what do you want Ontario to do, Andy? Cut them when various U.S. jurisdictions maintain them? Act like Peter Pureheart, pining for the free market of yore?
There's a difference between lost jobs and closed plants. So far we're just dealing with the former. Your brand of Capitalist Romanticism would lead to the latter.
PS. Welcome back. Mocking Paul Wells is no fun at all.
12 comments:
You don't need to be an economics guru to understand the concept of opportunity cost. Wouldn't it make sense to subsidize industries whose Canadian jobs are viable in the long term?
Doesn't he even take into consideration the domino effect? Factories close down - no money to shop - stores close down, etc., etc.
When Massey Ferguson closed down in Brantford, for example, the town was devastated - it literally died for many years and is just now coming back to life.
Some say economists/financial critic types are approx 95% wrong.
Act like Peter Pureheart, pining for the free market of yore?
That's what he gets paid for, after all. With the help of 3+ milliion a year from the Publications Assistance Program.
No worries, Dalton is so smart he'll be able to pick and chose which companies in which areas should get a taxpayer subsidy.
Because he's smart.
No worries, Dalton is so smart he'll be able to pick and chose which companies in which areas should get a taxpayer subsidy.
Fred-tarded.
Dalton, smart as ti-guy.
Ontario is saved.
Huzzah !!
Coyne's point makes sense BCL.
The problem with the auto industry is that Ford and GM are both heading towards Chapter 11 in the US and Chrysler will likely disappear within 5 years.
Government money will only keep plants open for the short term in the present environment. Better to let Ford and GM (goodbye Chrysler!) go through Chapter 11 first and then look at providing them with some govt incentives.
Ruralsandi, the domino effect of the opportunity cost is just as bad if not worse. Money directed by government into auto plants is money that DID NOT go into something else. Economists are very fond of measuring the "spin-off benefits" of government subsidies in this or that. They never bother commenting on the lost spin off benefits of the next best foregone alternative for that money. They can't of course, because no one knows what that is.
You're second paragraph is correct however. I'd say 95% is a rather conservative estimate in fact. Coyne is one of the few who actually gets it, which means he's destined to write columns for the rest of his life while policy makers ignore him. Political considerations mean that policy makers must always play to vested interests and existing industries, as opposed to simply letting older industries collapse and allowing the investment to flow elsewhere.
And Ti-Guy, you're just as retarded and irrelevant as ever. Go read a book or something.
That comment wasn't in response to you, Fatty. It was for Paul S. I decided to delete it because I don't want to be on a thread with your stink of smegma, tinactic and flop sweat.
I know; I wish I had a diploma in accounting and payroll from Herzing College like you do.
You're a real headcase, Fatty; I've rarely questionned the internal logic of economic policy within the current framework of investment and taxation (most of that is just math anyway); but like most disagreements about economics, it's the underlying assumptions (too many of which have to be swallowed open-throated) that are the problem, an issue that is exacerbated by the incomparable naïveté of the fwee mahket simpletons and the intellectual brankruptcy of financial economy parasites such as yourself.
Now do something about that smell. You know how you morbidly obese have problems with flora in your fold areas...
Post a Comment