Well said

With the Cons now facing international blowback for their efforts to scuttle any global agreement on financial stability, now might be a good time for them to pay attention to Dan Gardner's take:

The Harper government opposes the bank tax on the grounds that a fund for bailing out banks would produce moral hazard. Which is true. But it's hard to see how that's different from a status quo in which everyone knows governments won't let banks fail. Flaherty also argues that Canada's banks didn't need a bailout so they shouldn't have to pay this "punishing" tax, which would be a compelling argument if the tax were about punishing the banks. It's not. It's about insurance. And Flaherty sounds like someone who says he doesn't need fire insurance because the blaze which recently swept through the neighbourhood spared his house.

And this is Canada we're talking about. Humility, prudence, caution, insurance: These are practically the words of the national anthem. It would be nice if the government's position reflected these fine qualities at a crucial moment.

Update: Though to be fair, Gardner is off base just slightly in accepting the zombie lie that Canada's banks didn't receive any bailouts. So that would make Flaherty more like somebody claiming he doesn't need fire insurance even as the flames from neighbours' houses threaten to spread to his own home.