(A)ny reduction in consumer prices resulting from such a cut would depend on the oil industry, the shipping industry and retailers all choosing to pass along any reduced costs rather than taking profits for themselves - which is what makes such a cut a poor measure from a policy standpoint. Needless to say, there's little reason to think any of them would hesitate to take as much of the gain as possible.Of course, we received added confirmation of the latter point this morning.
What's more, even if any of the cut did manage to filter through to consumers, the effect would take at least some time to work its way through the supply chain. Which means that any potential benefit for consumers at large would be a remote possibility in both likelihood and time.
Meanwhile, the immediate costs to Canada would be obvious. After a summer where there's been plenty of attention to the possibility that the Cons have already mismanaged the country into a deficit, a move to drain another billion dollars from the federal treasury could only make Harper look even more reckless when it comes to Canada's finances.
So would Harper put forward a low-reward, high-risk strategy solely for the sake of drawing a stronger contrast to the Libs' carbon tax? If so, that can only signal that the Cons are even more bereft of ideas than any of us had already suspected.
But while one might be able to excuse some juvenile behaviour from the war room of a party which actually had some desirable policies to offer, the Cons have publicly declared that they're down to trying to pump yet more lead into a failed trial balloon for their first major promise of the campaign. And it shouldn't take more than the slightest bit of scrutiny for Canadians to notice both how little the Cons have to offer, and how likely it is that working Canadians will be the last to benefit from their idea of a populist measure.
No comments:
Post a Comment