PDA

View Full Version : Robin hood/Tobin tax



Nate1481
12th February 10, 04:50 AM
The idea is essential a tiny (in this case 0.05%) tax on financial transactions by banks, in currency trading etc (the 'casino' operations)

Yes it would raise money (which is this site's (http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/) aim) and have other effects on the level of these transactions etc. But more importantly varying the level of such a tax would give a better control on markets.

Markets going crazy worried bout a bubble?: increase the tax & it will take the heat out of it.
Global slump and need to increase liquidity?: decrease it & markets will open up.

Obviously it's not a panacea and nothing is that simple, but it would be an extra handle to help control the excesses of the money markets in addition to interest rates etc.

Cullion
12th February 10, 05:15 AM
At present, the UK economy is already overtaxed, so this is a bad idea. The public sector has pissed away enough of our money already, thanks. It's time they got their spending under control.

If we were talking about how to more fairly distribute the tax burden in a functioning low tax economy, I'd rather see capital gains tax harmonised with income tax (i.e. capital gains up, income tax down until the percentages are the same). I'd also like to see the private equity industry not get away with buying companies, borrowing vast sums of money in the purchased company's name and then simply paying themselves the entire value of the loan to themselves as a dividend leaving the company in question a debt-laden shell of it's former self whilst the private equity sharks snort coke off a hooker's arse giggling like maniacs with the proceeds.

Tthe idea of this new tax being variable based on whether or not some incompetent chump of a govt. minister thinks they detect a bubble or not is horrible btw.

Nate1481
12th February 10, 05:53 AM
For this to work it would have to be an international tax, not a national one, I wasn't thinking of the UK specifically. Despite all the protestations on bonus taxes companies won't move their whole operations for it.

For this kind of thing they would, as it would affect them more than their employees, so it would need to be set by a body in that area who are not subject to the same political pressures. IMF, World Bank... (I don't know the exact role of each or if it would need to be a new body)

Edit: Your right the balance needs adjusting on tax burden in the UK, but until you do it's hard to state that the UK being over taxed, compared to the US yes we have higher tax, but it funds large bits of higher education & health not covered in the US (how effectively it's spent is another matter....)

Cullion
12th February 10, 06:03 AM
An international tax is an even worse idea. Who would we be paying the tax to? The UN? there's absolutely no way I'm going to willingly pay tax to a hard to audit body where all kinds of dictatorships get an equal vote with the UK representative. The EU's bad enough for corruption and undemocratic decision making, and that's comprised entirely of democracies.

I didn't compare us to the US specifically, but I believe that the misuse of the money is now endemic. People espousing higher taxes always bring up 'schools n 'ospitals', but I've read the guardian jobs pages. I know where the money's being pissed away.

They're not getting a penny more until they get their house in order.

Nate1481
12th February 10, 06:27 AM
Not it you use that money to replace the international subscriptions to them, or you set the level by international agreement, but the tax income is split between the counties where the trades are taking place; hell even 'ring fence it' to fund green development projects.

I'm not a supporter of higher taxes for the sake of them I'm saying comparisons are hard to make, so saying that the UK is overtaxed it hard to support, untill you define what your comparing it to.

The need for cleaning up bureaucracy is very high, but is a different topic. Yes it's related, but the merit of an idea isn't solely related to if it could be implemented tomorrow. How long would it take to get some international agreement on this?

Your last line basiclly says "I dont' trust anyone else to spend my money". With expenses and the waste statistics you get all the time I understand this, I also agree throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it (the NHS is a case in point here, it's performing better but not proportionately to the amount of investment.

But it is equally wrong to say "I always know the best way to spend my money" waste is easy to see with hindsight, but sometimes in public or private arena a project suddenly becomes pointless and you can't prevent it. (client pulls out, new technology etc) so slating people for not seeing it was coming is unfair. Shit happens, and people cheat, you have to work with what you've got.

Again on the first point, reform of governmental institutions is needed, but using that to undermine any suggestions for improvements elsewhere, is logically flawed. Especially when the argument is to close down the debate on a potential idea being discussed, I'm not saying the idea is perfect (or even right, I like it but that's opinion on limited facts) but it is interesting, and worth discussion on its own merits and flaws not shut down because current politics sucks.

Nate1481
12th February 10, 06:32 AM
Just a thought of a parallel:

Shunting down discussion on an idea for an external reason is what happened with immigration policy in the UK after the "Rivers of Blood" speech.

If you talked on it you were a racist, so nothing was done and we ended up in a mess, if discussions had gone on over the last 20 years we would have some sort of controls to be debated, not a discussion on where to start.

Tax being immigration if you don't talk about it because spending is screwed up then it will drift along and entropy will take over.

Cullion
12th February 10, 06:54 AM
Not it you use that money to replace the international subscriptions to them, or you set the level by international agreement, but the tax income is split between the counties where the trades are taking place; hell even 'ring fence it' to fund green development projects.

Why would I want to fund a UN 'green development project'? Sounds like a hard to audit way of siphoning my salary into some cronies 'green development' contracting firm to me. The answer is no.



I'm not a supporter of higher taxes for the sake of them I'm saying comparisons are hard to make, so saying that the UK is overtaxed it hard to support, untill you define what your comparing it to.

The UK 15 years ago would be a start.



The need for cleaning up bureaucracy is very high, but is a different topic.

Not really. There's a direct link between hiring diversity consultants, outreach workers, regional development agencies and 'carbon coordinators' and how much of my income gets confiscated.


How long would it take to get some international agreement on this?

I don't want an internatonal agreement on how they reduce their spending, I want to starve them of funds and let them figure it out on the fly.



But it is equally wrong to say "I always know the best way to spend my money"

No it isn't.



Again on the first point, reform of governmental institutions is needed, but using that to undermine any suggestions for improvements elsewhere, is logically flawed.

No it's not.



Especially when the argument is to close down the debate on a potential idea being discussed, I'm not saying the idea is perfect (or even right, I like it but that's opinion on limited facts) but it is interesting, and worth discussion on its own merits and flaws not shut down because current politics sucks.

I'm shutting it down because I want a smaller proportion of my income confiscated by the state, full stop. If you want to fritter your money away on green development projects run by some unelected, unauditable international body, be my guest.

As it stands this proposal is just another stupid way of bleeding my income into politicians and their cronies pockets under some feelgood label involving branding like 'poverty' and 'green'. The UK taxpayer already spends more on foreign aid than we do on defending it's own borders, and a goodly chunk of that money is going to countries like India which are happy to plead poverty when faced with a gullible left-wing white politician suffering from colonial guilt but in reality have enough cash spare to fund a nuclear arsenal and a manned space programme. It's absurd, and I don't even take politicians seriously who think the status quo is tenable. So there's absolutely no chance I'm going to voluntarily hand over more money to this murky feelgood world called 'international development'.

You're argument amounts to 'yeah I know it's all a bit of a mess but if you give more money over this time I promise it will work.

I think you don't understand Hayek's calculation problem, and you're extremely naive about corruption.

Nate1481
12th February 10, 09:45 AM
Why would I want to fund a UN 'green development project'? Sounds like a hard to audit way of siphoning my salary into some cronies 'green development' contracting firm to me. The answer is no.


Come on, random example that was topical fund what the hell you like, other than people playing games with money & commodities to profit while those who actually want to produce something meaningful get screwed over by those games



The UK 15 years ago would be a start.



You mean the one with waiting lists & the fall out of Black Wednesday?





Not really. There's a direct link between hiring diversity consultants, outreach workers, regional development agencies and 'carbon coordinators' and how much of my income gets confiscated.


Yes there is but I'm not trying to talk about that. 1/2 that is complete BS along with 'middle managers' who are essentially over paid administrators who decide who gets fired. I am not trying in the slightest to advocate a high tax economy with needless bureaucracy as you keep implying





I don't want an internatonal agreement on how they reduce their spending, I want to starve them of funds and let them figure it out on the fly.



Which will simply lead to more problems like piracy off Somalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_in_Somalia) where they have nothing to loose so resort to force, and those who are largely not responsible (like the couple how are well off enough to own a modest boat) or the people working on the ships taken suffer while those higher up demand that "the government must do something", so increase the tax burden by demanding war ships to protect theer cargo




No it isn't.



So your Omniscience? I'm impressed...

I'll re-phrase, do you know the fabel of The Ant and the Grasshopper?

Also is this your money? Other than that it is you money that's in the bank that someone is playing with, is it your money that's being taxed or the money of those who are best off who get to play these games.




No it's not.



You are arguing that money will be spent on the wrong things, where The original point was that the tax would reduce non-productive activities i.e. those with no tangible benefit which are not greatly different from playing poker. for billions




I'm shutting it down because I want a smaller proportion of my income confiscated by the state, full stop. If you want to fritter your money away on green development projects run by some unelected, unauditable international body, be my guest.


Why is is unauditable or unelected? Did I not say it might have to be a different body, cut the straw men down.

Saying that these would be necessary is a valid argument assuming that they won't be is lazy reasoning.


You can link anything to every thing else, but it's just muddying the waters not talking about the idea at hand.



As it stands this proposal is just another stupid way of bleeding my income into politicians and their cronies pockets under some feelgood label involving branding like 'poverty' and 'green'.

....

You're argument amounts to 'yeah I know it's all a bit of a mess but if you give more money over this time I promise it will work.



You rant of the same points again. You keep saying my money their pockets etc. but not saying how any system can be improved, stop bitching and suggest a solution.

I'm not saying "give them more money" hell for all i care the money can go into the national lottery jackpot!


I was interested in the idea of it as a control of markets that try to work round legislation. The reason for starting a thread was that point NOT what to do with the money raised.



I think you don't understand Hayek's calculation problem, and you're extremely naive about corruption.

I'm not interested (in this tread) in wealth redistribution, on corruption, i tend to be more pragmatic. It will exist, accept it. Some people will see an opportunity to lien their own pockets an take it. In my view financial trading as it exist, short selling etc, is simply organised corruption.

You try to minimise it by making the damage small so when someone does do this it dosen't fuck up the entire system, but till you know the system your talking about you can't create checks and balances.

BadUglyMagic
12th February 10, 10:57 AM
Nate1481, Normally I would not ask, so consider me rude. How old are you and what is your current occupation. Where did you get this lovely idea?

BadUglyMagic
12th February 10, 11:28 AM
Which will simply lead to more problems like piracy off Somalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_in_Somalia) where they have nothing to loose so resort to force, and those who are largely not responsible (like the couple how are well off enough to own a modest boat) or the people working on the ships taken suffer while those higher up demand that "the government must do something", so increase the tax burden by demanding war ships to protect theer cargo


WTF? Please name the English couple boating to Somalia. Or at least identify the boat.

Commercial shipping tends to factor in piracy as a part of its risk assessments.





You are arguing that money will be spent on the wrong things, where The original point was that the tax would reduce non-productive activities i.e. those with no tangible benefit which are not greatly different from playing poker.

You seem to be generalizing the argument while specifically mentiong speculative activity.

The international financial markets are facilitators of trade. Access to forgign currency markets and the credit market in general tend to lower the costs of international trade and finance. This is a productive.

How would your tax make them more productive?



I was interested in the idea of it as a control of markets that try to work round legislation. The reason for starting a thread was that point NOT what to do with the money raised.

Read your OP. Working around legislation is not mentioned.

Please elaborate on how the tax will actually work, the mechanisms for monitoring or implementation and the method of funds collections and remittance. Remember to include all of the different financial and trade market organizations and companies that would be included in this scheme.

What would be the tax percentage? 1%, 5%, 10%?



In my view financial trading as it exist, short selling etc, is simply organised corruption.

but till you know the system your talking about you can't create checks and balances.


Please help me to understand by sharing your knowledge of the international finance and trade market mechanisms?

Cullion
12th February 10, 11:47 AM
[
Come on, random example that was topical fund what the hell you like, other than people playing games with money & commodities to profit while those who actually want to produce something meaningful get screwed over by those games

I've written many times in the past about inequities in the banking system, but I don't consider handing money over to a body like the UN to be productive or meaningful.


You mean the one with waiting lists & the fall out of Black Wednesday?

We have waiting lists now. Black Wednesday was a result of us trying to join the ERM, and should never have been attempted. Our economy is in far worse state today.



Yes there is but I'm not trying to talk about that. 1/2 that is complete BS along with 'middle managers' who are essentially over paid administrators who decide who gets fired. I am not trying in the slightest to advocate a high tax economy with needless bureaucracy as you keep implying

I'm suggesting two things: a) we already have one and b) Even though it is not your intention this proposal would make it worse.




Which will simply lead to more problems like piracy off Somalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_in_Somalia) where they have nothing to loose so resort to force, and those who are largely not responsible (like the couple how are well off enough to own a modest boat) or the people working on the ships taken suffer while those higher up demand that "the government must do something", so increase the tax burden by demanding war ships to protect theer cargo

The British Navy currently only has a single ship at sea protecting the UK's coastline. I don't think you understand how feeble the UK is militarily these days. I'm all in favour of merchantmen arming themselves as a defence against piracy.
You're proposing we just give money away for free to save people the inconvenience of having to steal it.



So your Omniscience? I'm impressed...

The word you're looking for is 'omniscient'.



I'll re-phrase, do you know the fabel of The Ant and the Grasshopper?



Also is this your money? Other than that it is you money that's in the bank that someone is playing with, is it your money that's being taxed or the money of those who are best off who get to play these games.

Some of it's public money since the bailouts, the rest isn't my money or your money. The attitude 'well, it's not my pocket therefore I can support whatever wacko aid project that takes my fancy with it' isn't conducive to a productive economy.



You are arguing that money will be spent on the wrong things, where The original point was that the tax would reduce non-productive activities i.e. those with no tangible benefit which are not greatly different from playing poker. for billions

I don't think you know much about what banks do.



Why is is unauditable or unelected? Did I not say it might have to be a different body, cut the straw men down.

Which body? Why would I want to create another international bureacracy ?



Saying that these would be necessary is a valid argument assuming that they won't be is lazy reasoning.



You can link anything to every thing else, but it's just muddying the waters not talking about the idea at hand.

I'll be blunt. The idea at hand is a stupid feelgood idea of the kind I'd expect Bono to twat on about. It shows a poor grasp of economics, the realities of large bureaucracies, human nature and the true nature of foreign aid.



You rant of the same points again. You keep saying my money their pockets etc. but not saying how any system can be improved, stop bitching and suggest a solution.

I have. Give me my money back. That's a solution. I want less central planning, not more.



I'm not saying "give them more money" hell for all i care the money can go into the national lottery jackpot!

Yes you are, you just proposed a new tax.



I was interested in the idea of it as a control of markets that try to work round legislation. The reason for starting a thread was that point NOT what to do with the money raised.

That's myopic on your part, and a dangerous basis for making policy 'hey I don't care what we do with the money, I just want to collect some more because I think people like Gordon Brown need more control over financial markets!'. No thanks.



I'm not interested (in this tread) in wealth redistribution, on corruption, i tend to be more pragmatic. It will exist, accept it.

No.



In my view financial trading as it exist, short selling etc, is simply organised corruption.

Do you know what short selling actually is?



You try to minimise it by making the damage small so when someone does do this it dosen't fuck up the entire system, but till you know the system your talking about you can't create checks and balances.

This is a non sequitur.

Wounded Ronin
13th February 10, 07:29 PM
People espousing higher taxes always bring up 'schools n 'ospitals', but I've read the guardian jobs pages. I know where the money's being pissed away.

Accent coaches?

Nate1481
15th February 10, 05:42 AM
WTF? Please name the English couple boating to Somalia. Or at least identify the boat.

Commercial shipping tends to factor in piracy as a part of its risk assessments.


These ones. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/paul-rachel-chandler-pirate-captive)

Learn to :google:



You seem to be generalizing the argument while specifically mentiong speculative activity.


huh? read the thread reader, i'm not the one generalizing.




The international financial markets are facilitators of trade. Access to forgign currency markets and the credit market in general tend to lower the costs of international trade and finance. This is a productive.

How would your tax make them more productive?


That's how they started, but now it's primarily money games with the people who actually want the goods paying more when because of 'investors' who try to buy and low sell high with out any value added taking a cut.

It would make parasitic markets less profitable, they are not 'productive' in any real sense now.




Read your OP. Working around legislation is not mentioned.



No it's not, but it is related to the point of why



Please elaborate on how the tax will actually work, the mechanisms for monitoring or implementation and the method of funds collections and remittance. Remember to include all of the different financial and trade market organizations and companies that would be included in this scheme.

What would be the tax percentage? 1%, 5%, 10%?

Please help me to understand by sharing your knowledge of the international finance and trade market mechanisms?

This is why I started the fucking thread. I don't have all the answers. I said at the start it was INTERESTING. not a cure all.

Arbitrary % is listed and then I said being variable would be the point.
My knowledge of "international finance and trade market mechanisms" is very low hence starting the thread.

Nate1481
15th February 10, 05:46 AM
Nate1481, Normally I would not ask, so consider me rude. How old are you and what is your current occupation.

I'll tell you mine if you tell me yours.


Where did you get this lovely idea?

I heard about it on Mark Thomas "The Manifesto" on BBC radio 4 then saw the site linked & thought it might be interesting to discuss.

Nate1481
15th February 10, 05:48 AM
Nate1481, Normally I would not ask, so consider me rude. What the FUCK is wrong with you?



Lots.

But apparently I can do better then a half post as an attempt at wit.

Nate1481
15th February 10, 06:26 AM
I've written many times in the past about inequities in the banking system, but I don't consider handing money over to a body like the UN to be productive or meaningful.


Point taken, I'm not going to try & change your view.

I thought that it might make an interesting market control;




We have waiting lists now. Black Wednesday was a result of us trying to join the ERM, and should never have been attempted. Our economy is in far worse state today.


Maybe it is maybe it's not I am not an economist who can sit down and know all the variables to work it out.

Just an impression but I'm sure waiting times for operations etc are shorter now and people don't got onto a list for 18 months to see a consultant initially.


Could you provide some concrete (not rhetorical) reasons why? On second thought Please don't answer that's a separate thread.



I'm suggesting two things: a) we already have one and b) Even though it is not your intention this proposal would make it worse.

We already have one fine, that was not the point, couple this with making capital gains and income tax the same thing abolishing national insurance and reducing standard VAT to 5% and other this if you want, saying the loss will be made up by it and add anther 3 ideas

I am interested in discussing the idea its self as a fiscal control like interest rates not as a tax.




The British Navy currently only has a single ship at sea protecting the UK's coastline. I don't think you understand how feeble the UK is militarily these days. I'm all in favour of merchantmen arming themselves as a defence against piracy.
You're proposing we just give money away for free to save people the inconvenience of having to steal it.

More efficient in real terms (energy used to make explosive sand fuel is not wasted negotiators time could be better spent.)

less people die, unless you feel we should "reduce the surplice population"




The word you're looking for is 'omniscient'.


2 letters wrong but the correct root word, give the dyslexic a break.




Some of it's public money since the bailouts, the rest isn't my money or your money. The attitude 'well, it's not my pocket therefore I can support whatever wacko aid project that takes my fancy with it' isn't conducive to a productive economy.

No, the point was that the use of the money wasn't why I started the tread, use it to reduce the structural deficit, and pay of national debt, use it to reduce income tax. I DON'T CARE.



I don't think you know much about what banks do.

Enough, they act a central repositories for funds and (should) provide efficiencies of scale when verifying who should be able to replay a loan.

They also have other functions but i admit to



Which body? Why would I want to create another international bureacracy ?

Any or all that's not the point.




I'll be blunt. The idea at hand is a stupid feelgood idea of the kind I'd expect Bono to twat on about. It shows a poor grasp of economics, the realities of large bureaucracies, human nature and the true nature of foreign aid.

I have. Give me my money back. That's a solution. I want less central planning, not more.


Yes you are, you just proposed a new tax.

That's myopic on your part, and a dangerous basis for making policy 'hey I don't care what we do with the money, I just want to collect some more because I think people like Gordon Brown need more control over financial markets!'. No thanks.


I'm not saying it's not important what is done with the money, I'm saying it's not what i wanted to discuss.

Yes it is a simplistic feel good idea in one way but could also have a practical use in another. Which is what I was interested in before you hijacked the tread to give you another opportunity to have a "free market is the only solution; OMG The Socialists will destroy us" rant.



Do you know what short selling actually is?

This is a non sequitur.
Yes; and actually it's trying to undermine what I'm saying by implying I'm naive (again)

And I do think that making money based purely on lucky guesses and other people's losses is corrupt. Why was short selling suspended during the financial cirsis?

BadUglyMagic
15th February 10, 10:49 AM
These ones. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/paul-rachel-chandler-pirate-captive)

Learn to :google:



huh? read the thread reader, i'm not the one generalizing.


One couple. So, you feel millions should be spent so one couple may sail through a pirate infested area? Okay.

You are generalizing market activities and recommending taxes to prevent speculative activities you don't specifically define.

Your argument is like that advanced by Pres. Obama in the current debate to nationalize health insurance in the USA.



That's how they started, but now it's primarily money games with the people who actually want the goods paying more when because of 'investors' who try to buy and low sell high with out any value added taking a cut.

The source of this revelation? Also, remember to make a distinction between raw goods commodities and consumer goods commodities.




It would make parasitic markets less profitable, they are not 'productive' in any real sense now.


What is a parasitic market? One for leeches?




No it's not, but it is related to the point of why



If it wasn't in the original post, don't including it as if it were.



This is why I started the fucking thread. I don't have all the answers. I said at the start it was INTERESTING. not a cure all.

Arbitrary % is listed and then I said being variable would be the point.
My knowledge of "international finance and trade market mechanisms" is very low hence starting the thread.

Oh, you work for the BBC.

btw, Mark Thompson is a COMEDIAN

Cullion
15th February 10, 11:01 AM
Yes; and actually it's trying to undermine what I'm saying by implying I'm naive (again)

You are being incredibly naive.



And I do think that making money based purely on lucky guesses and other people's losses is corrupt.

Sigh.

In what sense is trading based on your predictions of future market conditions, 'corrupt' ?



Why was short selling suspended during the financial cirsis?

Because most of our politicians are economically illiterate 'useful idiots' who think asset prices are always supposed to go up.

You've switched from proposing a 'fight poverty' mechanism to a 'regulate the market mechanism'. Ok.

It's a bad way of regulating the market because it relies on central planning to constantly adjust the tax based on what they perceive market conditions to be. It's a classic candidate to run afoul of the calculation problem.

Nate1481
16th February 10, 07:43 AM
You are being incredibly naive.

Sigh.

In what sense is trading based on your predictions of future market conditions, 'corrupt' ?


Long term trading isn't but trading back and for for a few hours and "borrowing" stock seems to me to lack any productive end; other than personal gain if you get it right. but it's a zero sum game.

The proccess uses lage amount of time and energy to do nothing productive, just consolidates funds with those who already have lots, but with no net output.

Now I'm ranting, but the short version is that this kind of wealth centralisation. reinforces a need for wealth redistribution, why not just reduce the need for it to take place.



Because most of our politicians are economically illiterate 'useful idiots' who think asset prices are always supposed to go up.

You've switched from proposing a 'fight poverty' mechanism to a 'regulate the market mechanism'. Ok.

It's a bad way of regulating the market because it relies on central planning to constantly adjust the tax based on what they perceive market conditions to be. It's a classic candidate to run afoul of the calculation problem.
You FINALY got it. I have not changed at all, if you read my first post without such a fucking jaded view point then that was what I was getting at!



Yes it would raise money ... But more importantly varying the level of such a tax would give a better control on markets.

Put trusting "economically illiterate" politicians aside and creating an international version of the monetary policy comity, not perfect by any stretch, but they are economically literate and insulated to some extent from political pressure. As a concept it is interesting, and what I wanted to discuss was how it might work and what other effects such an idea might have.

Thanks to you not reading past the initial 'new tax' sentence I have spent several posts just to get that far.

Nate1481
16th February 10, 08:05 AM
One couple. So, you feel millions should be spent so one couple may sail through a pirate infested area? Okay.

Straw man: I'm saying you should try to address what cases such high levels of piracy.


You are generalizing market activities and recommending taxes to prevent speculative activities you don't specifically define.
I defined them loosely as I'm not righting policy let along the legislation, I was trying to get an idea across, even Cullion would acknowledge that it would be far to long to to post a detailed specific and comprehensive definition here.



Your argument is like that advanced by Pres. Obama in the current debate to nationalize health insurance in the USA.
I live in the UK I would be one of those organising demonstrations if someone tried to scrap the NHS (flawed and bureaucratic as it is)
This is a compliment.




The source of this revelation? Also, remember to make a distinction between raw goods commodities and consumer goods commodities.

Not a revelation just bloody obvious. I am not aware of markets in consumer goods they may well exist, but why?




What is a parasitic market? One for leeches?


Stop trolling, it produced nothing just takes money out of the system.



If it wasn't in the original post, don't including it as if it were.

WTF are you talking about I don't have to list the full details of every point in one post, you could have just asked. Also it's well out side the point i was trying to make.




Oh, you work for the BBC.

btw, Mark Thompson is a COMEDIAN
No I live in the UK ...

Get the name right troll Mark Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thomas) is also a political activist who makes his point thought comedy. He even holds a world record for the most different demonstrations in 24 hours, accidentally archived while making a point about restrictions on demonstrations around Parliament Square.

Nate1481
16th February 10, 08:10 AM
Accent coaches?
I think he's referring to the fact that the unions and socialist views tend to be stronger in the north of the UK which see less benefit of London big money culture

Cullion
16th February 10, 08:54 AM
Long term trading isn't but trading back and for for a few hours and "borrowing" stock seems to me to lack any productive end

Other than providing price signals with which to assess the value of the companies and more efficiently allocate capital. How does long term trading morally differ ?



The proccess uses lage amount of time and energy to do nothing productive, just consolidates funds with those who already have lots, but with no net output.

Not true, see above.



Now I'm ranting, but the short version is that this kind of wealth centralisation.


Small investors are allowed to short stock too.



Put trusting "economically illiterate" politicians aside and creating an international version of the monetary policy comity, not perfect by any stretch, but they are economically literate and insulated to some extent from political pressure.


They would be even more subject to Hayek's calculation problem than current national committees are. Even national-level central planning comittees for asset prices are a bad idea. This would be a disaster.



Thanks to you not reading past the initial 'new tax' sentence I have spent several posts just to get that far.

Everything you've said so far has been dangerous in ways you don't seem to understand because it all hinges on the concept of increasing the degree of active central planning in our economy. You saying 'hey lets not worry about where the money will go for now' as if that's not important when you decide to confiscate people's property with legal force is kind of nuts.

P.S. Northerners don't 'benefit less' from London 'big money' culture. Who do you think pays for their disability benefit? ;)

Nate1481
16th February 10, 09:55 AM
Other than providing price signals with which to assess the value of the companies and more efficiently allocate capital. How does long term trading morally differ ?


you are investing in the busness not playing games with if numbers will go up or down in a given time period. On the same basis you can bet on finishing premiership possition s of the horses IF you have the time to spend looking at all the available information. The difference is on bets every one is in on the same basis, on share trading there not

Not true, see above.

Small investors are allowed to short stock too.

Any investor who can spend the time and have the capital can short stock, but not those who are got shares as part of demutulisations and the like and are investing in a business long term. Shorting stock is not bad in-its-self but it is far to easy to abuse. It was also (as i will say for the umpteenth time) an example not the only point.



They would be even more subject to Hayek's calculation problem than current national committees are. Even national-level central planning comittees for asset prices are a bad idea. This would be a disaster.


Why? The problem is based around deciding the value of work not about attempting to gage sustainable growth. Also anyone aware of the potential issue would tread very carefully in changing the level.

Also interestingly people with far greater knowledge of the topic seem keen... http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/in-the-news/350-economists-call-for-a-financial-transaction-tax/ (http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/in-the-news/350-economists-call-for-a-financial-transaction-tax/)



Everything you've said so far has been dangerous in ways you don't seem to understand because it all hinges on the concept of increasing the degree of active central planning in our economy. You saying 'hey lets not worry about where the money will go for now' as if that's not important when you decide to confiscate people's property with legal force is kind of nuts.


I'm not saying where the money goes is not important, just that was not the point I found interesting.

The increase central planning is a potential issue (power corrupts etc) but if viewed as a regulatory/insurance for higher risk activities it makes more sense. So how about this for the money, put it in a big pot to be used to when it all goes wrong next time.



P.S. Northerners don't 'benefit less' from London 'big money' culture. Who do you think pays for their disability benefit? ;)

Then why is the north south divide so prominent in the UK? Again another topic, but i was at least in part bowing the the stereotype you had used.

Cullion
16th February 10, 10:43 AM
you are investing in the busness

No you aren't, not unless it's an initial public offering or new share issue. You're just buying somebody else's stock.



not playing games with if numbers will go up or down in a given time period.

That's what trade is. Do you think people should be banned from buying and selling antiques, or gold too ?



On the same basis you can bet on finishing premiership possition s of the horses IF you have the time to spend looking at all the available information. The difference is on bets every one is in on the same basis, on share trading there not

That's not true.



Any investor who can spend the time and have the capital can short stock, but not those who are got shares as part of demutulisations and the like and are investing in a business long term. Shorting stock is not bad in-its-self but it is far to easy to abuse.

What's your definition of abuse ? Do you think prices should always go up ?



It was also (as i will say for the umpteenth time) an example not the only point.

Every example you try to make in favour of this proposition will be vulnerable in the same way.




Why? The problem is based around deciding the value of work not about attempting to gage sustainable growth. Also anyone aware of the potential issue would tread very carefully in changing the level.

Also interestingly people with far greater knowledge of the topic seem keen... http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/in-the-news/350-economists-call-for-a-financial-transaction-tax/ (http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/in-the-news/350-economists-call-for-a-financial-transaction-tax/)

Yeah, professional economists are full of shit an awful lot of the time.



The increase central planning is a potential issue (power corrupts etc) but if viewed as a regulatory/insurance for higher risk activities it makes more sense. So how about this for the money, put it in a big pot to be used to when it all goes wrong next time.

How about fixing the problem without a central committee trying to guess the correct level of a tax all the time ?



Then why is the north south divide so prominent in the UK?

Lots of reasons, and a different thread.

Nate1481
17th February 10, 04:30 AM
No you aren't, not unless it's an initial public offering or new share issue. You're just buying somebody else's stock.

No you aren't, not unless it's an initial public offering or new
That's what trade is. Do you think people should be banned from buying and selling antiques, or gold too ?

Let me re phrase you are showing confidence in the business (commodity trading is different) and expecting it to pay dividends i.e. your share of it's profit so yes, investing in it. When it all went tits up for banks their first stop (after the initial bail out) was a rights issue i.e. asking the existing investors to support them (if they folded shareholders might have had to pay out some of the losses) That kind of links back to short selling where the price was forced down to profit dispute businesses being potentially viable which was an abuse of the mechanism, hence it being suspended.



That's not true.

Why? Putting money in that may be lost if your predictions are wrong, sounds very similar to me. Knowledge of a horse history and the track conditions on the day are the same as company history & general market conditions.

It's gambling by another name,



What's your definition of abuse ? Do you think prices should always go up ?




No, if a company is failing/struggling then people will bail out and the price will go down, that's how a market is supposed to work. The problem is where a group spends large amounts of time and effort on looking for ONLY those (and using the news of the price going down to force it down further) and shuffling money around to try an make a profit while not producing anything.

The risk is of an incorrect prediction in the movement of a number over a short period, not a prediction of the business performance or worth. There is a relation but not a direct one, share prices are affected drastically in the short term by things that will have little, no or even an inverse effect on that business in the long run!

Say a Company A's profits report well bellow expected, someone asserts it is an issue in the sector so Company B's share price falls too. A year later Company A has been broken up as it was a management issue, Company B has bought some parts of A and with the efficiently savings had improved hugely as the sector they were in has been just fine.

Here someone could have made money form short selling B but this was a gamble not based on the company but based on fear. Who lost out? B had to waste time proving it wasn't at risk and had to give concessions in contracts to reassure people.

If you start adding extra factors in that could have affected it then we will be here for eternity. Take it as a generic example, not as a fully expressed "i have the figures" case study.

[quote=Cullion]
Every example you try to make in favour of this proposition will be vulnerable in the same way.


ok then cite every broad example I can give in its favour and show its flaw.

^ A stupid request, as is asking me to mount a full economic defence on the specifics of each and every of-hand example of an area given to identify it not to define it.



Yeah, professional economists are full of shit an awful lot of the time.


You can't say I'm naive and the processionals are full of shit but you are the only one who has seen the Golden Path.



How about fixing the problem without a central committee trying to guess the correct level of a tax all the time ?


What? No! as I keep saying it is an extra tool, not a panacea the fact that goverments could threaten to raise it or economists could start recommending it if casino trading was getting out of hand would probably be enough of a reality check mostly.


Lots of reasons, and a different thread.
Agreed; maybe when we finish here? ;D

Cullion
17th February 10, 06:34 AM
Let me re phrase you are showing confidence in the business (commodity trading is different) and expecting it to pay dividends i.e. your share of it's profit so yes, investing in it.

You aren't supplying the business with any new capital though. Surely this is also just 'gambling based on what you think the market will do without doing anything useful?'.



When it all went tits up for banks their first stop (after the initial bail out) was a rights issue i.e. asking the existing investors to support them (if they folded shareholders might have had to pay out some of the losses) That kind of links back to short selling where the price was forced down to profit dispute businesses being potentially viable which was an abuse of the mechanism, hence it being suspended.

It's not an abuse of the mechanism for people to bet that a company is worth less than the market currently believes it to be worth that's how the mechanism is supposed to work.



Why? Putting money in that may be lost if your predictions are wrong, sounds very similar to me. Knowledge of a horse history and the track conditions on the day are the same as company history & general market conditions.



It's gambling by another name,

Do you think gambling should be illegal as an 'unproductive activity' ?

The difference here of course is that allowing a company's value to float on an open market allows a company whose asset value substantially exceeds its market capitalisation to be identified as a misuse of capital and that capital reallocated.




No, if a company is failing/struggling then people will bail out and the price will go down, that's how a market is supposed to work. The problem is where a group spends large amounts of time and effort on looking for ONLY those (and using the news of the price going down to force it down further) and shuffling money around to try an make a profit while not producing anything.

Capital allocation isn't a non-productive activity. That's what equity markets do.



The risk is of an incorrect prediction in the movement of a number over a short period, not a prediction of the business performance or worth. There is a relation but not a direct one, share prices are affected drastically in the short term by things that will have little, no or even an inverse effect on that business in the long run!

Say a Company A's profits report well bellow expected, someone asserts it is an issue in the sector so Company B's share price falls too. A year later Company A has been broken up as it was a management issue, Company B has bought some parts of A and with the efficiently savings had improved hugely as the sector they were in has been just fine.

Here someone could have made money form short selling B but this was a gamble not based on the company but based on fear. Who lost out? B had to waste time proving it wasn't at risk and had to give concessions in contracts to reassure people.

It's more efficient tway of allocating capital than central planning.



If you start adding extra factors in that could have affected it then we will be here for eternity. Take it as a generic example, not as a fully expressed "i have the figures" case study.

Basically, you don't seem to understand that central committee capital allocation by political fiat is much less efficient, but you're so annoyed that some people get really rich working in an swanky office in London without getting their hands dirty that you aren't engaging with the real economics.



You can't say I'm naive and the processionals are full of shit but you are the only one who has seen the Golden Path.

No I'm not.



What? No! as I keep saying it is an extra tool, not a panacea the fact that goverments could threaten to raise it or economists could start recommending it if casino trading was getting out of hand would probably be enough of a reality check mostly.

It would be a really bad tool to use, because it depends on a central planner's assessment of 'out of hand'.



Agreed; maybe when we finish here? ;D

Alright.

Feryk
17th February 10, 04:45 PM
[

I've written many times in the past about inequities in the banking system, but I don't consider handing money over to a body like the UN to be productive or meaningful.

The UN is largely unsuccessful at their attempts to be relevant. Part of the reason is that they do not have the power to levy or tax member nations...ergo, any 'punishment' they can think of is largely political and not economic. Sanctions need to be approved by the security council and are actually quite rare and usually ignored.

Giving them the ability to manipulate markets through taxation is a nightmare scenario. They would have an incentive to continually raise the tax on the markets. Seriously, do you want China and Russia to tell you what the tax on your investments will be (even if they are in the UK or US)? The UN could bring almost any economy to it's knees without too much trouble if this were allowed.

No, thank you.

HappyOldGuy
17th February 10, 05:12 PM
I'd rather see capital gains tax harmonised with income tax (i.e. capital gains up, income tax down until the percentages are the same).

You guys have that idiocy too? I thought it was just some US reagan damage.

Cullion
17th February 10, 07:36 PM
It's even worse here. Australians and New Zealanders have it more reasonable.

Cullion
17th February 10, 07:39 PM
The UN is largely unsuccessful at their attempts to be relevant.


Part of the reason is that they do not have the power to levy or tax member nations...ergo, any 'punishment' they can think of is largely political and not economic. Sanctions need to be approved by the security council and are actually quite rare and usually ignored.

Yes, that's one of the reasons 'AGW' has got such widespread support from them.
It was a PR play for an international tax. This was the next rushed out option now that AGW is a failing meme.



Giving them the ability to manipulate markets through taxation is a nightmare scenario.

Yup.



They would have an incentive to continually raise the tax on the markets. Seriously, do you want China and Russia to tell you what the tax on your investments will be (even if they are in the UK or US)? The UN could bring almost any economy to it's knees without too much trouble if this were allowed.

No, thank you.

Pretty much my thoughts, but with a heavier helping of the Hayekian fallacy that pisses me off about people doing this on a national level.

Nate1481
18th February 10, 03:52 AM
You aren't supplying the business with any new capital though. Surely this is also just 'gambling based on what you think the market will do without doing anything useful?'.


No, not the market. On if you think the bossiness will perform, did you miss the example?



It's not an abuse of the mechanism for people to bet that a company is worth less than the market currently believes it to be worth that's how the mechanism is supposed to work.


The problem is not that, it's where someone thinks that they can push a share price down and profit, regardless of the actual value. That's the abuse.



Do you think gambling should be illegal as an 'unproductive activity' ?


The difference is that most don't ask for a goverment bail out when it all goes horribly wrong, and usually it doesn't cause a rescission.




The difference here of course is that allowing a company's value to float on an open market allows a company whose asset value substantially exceeds its market capitalisation to be identified as a misuse of capital and that capital reallocated.

Capital allocation isn't a non-productive activity. That's what equity markets do.

It's more efficient way of allocating capital than central planning.


So instead of central planning we rely on an unelected, anonymous group whose motivation is personal gain? I'd prefer a publicly known one to that.

But I'm not advocating central planing stop putting up straw men, I am suggesting that an way of adding incentive / deincentive for risk taking be introduced to provide some level of a restraint on those willing screw everyone else if they can make more for themselves.



Basically, you don't seem to understand that central committee capital allocation by political fiat is much less efficient, but you're so annoyed that some people get really rich working in an swanky office in London without getting their hands dirty that you aren't engaging with the real economics.


The people working in those offices have earned their way there, no problem with that, but I don't like the system they came from, so I am suggesting a way of adding a reality check to it.



No I'm not.

Your saying that I'm naive and economists talk BS; so who does know?



It would be a really bad tool to use, because it depends on a central planner's assessment of 'out of hand'.


The central planing straw man again! I suggest one thing that would influence not control. I am not suggesting that any commity should decide who gets accces to a single pot of goverment funds, as this is bound to go wrong (classic example NHS IT projects....)

Cullion
18th February 10, 08:45 AM
No, not the market. On if you think the bossiness will perform, did you miss the example?

No I didn't miss the example, I'm deconstructing it for you so you can see why it doesn't make sense. You don't really have a clear distinction between buying existing stock based on what you think the company's long-term dividend will be, and buying a stock based on what you think other people's changing perception of what the long term dividend will be.



The problem is not that, it's where someone thinks that they can push a share price down and profit, regardless of the actual value. That's the abuse.

What do you think the 'actual value' is ?



The difference is that most don't ask for a goverment bail out when it all goes horribly wrong, and usually it doesn't cause a rescission.

Read the other threads on this. I've already argued for a different solution to this problem that doesn't rely on bankers getting bailed out or requiring a central authority to constantly change the rate of a tax.



So instead of central planning we rely on an unelected, anonymous group whose motivation is personal gain?

Yes.



I'd prefer a publicly known one to that.

But I'm not advocating central planing stop putting up straw men, I am suggesting that an way of adding incentive / deincentive for risk taking be introduced to provide some level of a restraint on those willing screw everyone else if they can make more for themselves.

You're advocating central planning without realising it.



The people working in those offices have earned their way there, no problem with that, but I don't like the system they came from, so I am suggesting a way of adding a reality check to it.

What you're proposing isn't a reality check, it's an extra layer of unreality.



Your saying that I'm naive and economists talk BS; so who does know?

Austrian school economists.



The central planing straw man again! I suggest one thing that would influence not control. I am not suggesting that any commity should decide who gets accces to a single pot of goverment funds, as this is bound to go wrong (classic example NHS IT projects....)

Your distinction between 'influence' and 'control' is a false one.

Nate1481
19th February 10, 05:18 AM
No I didn't miss the example, I'm deconstructing it for you so you can see why it doesn't make sense. You don't really have a clear distinction between buying existing stock based on what you think the company's long-term dividend will be, and buying a stock based on what you think other people's changing perception of what the long term dividend will be.


That was exactly the distinction I was making, in day trading etc the long term performance is irrelevant it' is about gage in



What do you think the 'actual value' is ?

Value as in worth, as in if someone wanted to buy the business the price, not the trading price, Stock gets undervalued too, and in some cases deliberately so.



Read the other threads on this. I've already argued for a different solution to this problem that doesn't rely on bankers getting bailed out or requiring a central authority to constantly change the rate of a tax.

I'll have a look, but I'm starting from where we are now, and this seems an improvement.




Yes.

Really? Some what ironically I was listening to Mark Thomas again last night, and one suggestion linked to this (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=71A2DE32-A0B3-D4CC-9589E741CCEC9431) and then google stock market trading and testosterone for more on the same subject.

Essentially the better a trader dose the bigger risks they take till it all goes wrong. One suggested idea was that after any huge success someone be timed out for a while till the effect wore off. The other part was more female and older traders who are less susceptible.



You're advocating central planning without realising it.


Can you define "central planning" as you use it, because your coming across as essentially an anarchist, i.e. any form of tax is theft.



What you're proposing isn't a reality check, it's an extra layer of unreality.
/[quote]
Why? Making people think twice over narrow margins and not being able to revert their without making a loss?

[quote=Cullion]
Austrian school economists.


Why would such a tax prevent this? I'm not saying it wouldn't effect the conditions & results, but how would this prevent the mechanism from working.

I'm not an economist but in lay terms it the broad idea is views valuations as a trial and error problem so uses the wisdom of masses to solve it?

Not a bad idea, but also not un-flawed in that the masses can make mistakes, especially when a large proportion share the same background which increase the chance of Crowd effect. The comments on the Winner Effect are also relevant.




Your distinction between 'influence' and 'control' is a false one.

Why? How is this proposal going to dictate where the capital goes?


The problem in my view is that economics frequently underestimate or ignore psychological and sociological effects. So some sort of reins are needed to keep the extremes from causing collapse, and a variable premium on transactions to lower when liquidity is poor and increase in boom times to provide a high risk dissintensive.

Cullion
19th February 10, 05:34 AM
That was exactly the distinction I was making, in day trading etc the long term performance is irrelevant it' is about gage in

It's an arbitrary and pointless distinction.



Essentially the better a trader dose the bigger risks they take till it all goes wrong. One suggested idea was that after any huge success someone be timed out for a while till the effect wore off. The other part was more female and older traders who are less susceptible.

Why are you lefties so obsessed with controlling people ?



Can you define "central planning" as you use it, because your coming across as essentially an anarchist, i.e. any form of tax is theft.

You're requiring a governmental authority to actively intervene in the market by adjusting the rate of a tax depending on whether they think a bubble is forming or not. That's central planning.


[quote=Cullion]
What you're proposing isn't a reality check, it's an extra layer of unreality.
/[quote]
Why? Making people think twice over narrow margins and not being able to revert their without making a loss?

You're introducing an extra source of incompetence in the system.



Why would such a tax prevent this? I'm not saying it wouldn't effect the conditions & results, but how would this prevent the mechanism from working.

Because it would be subject to variation at the whim of a political organisation.



I'm not an economist but in lay terms it the broad idea is views valuations as a trial and error problem so uses the wisdom of masses to solve it?

Partly.



Not a bad idea, but also not un-flawed in that the masses can make mistakes, especially when a large proportion share the same background which increase the chance of Crowd effect. The comments on the Winner Effect are also relevant.

Individuals understand their own self interest better than any remote authority attempting to discern it from statistical aggregates.



Why? How is this proposal going to dictate where the capital goes?

Because the government's taking away some of it as taxation and interfering in price-setting mechanisms by deliberately trying to curb price fluctuations.



The problem in my view is that economics frequently underestimate or ignore psychological and sociological effects. So some sort of reins are needed to keep the extremes from causing collapse, and a variable premium on transactions to lower when liquidity is poor and increase in boom times to provide a high risk dissintensive.

Bankers don't need to be protected from going bust.

Kein Haar
19th February 10, 01:03 PM
Bankers don't need to be protected from going bust.

QFT