‘Small change for banks’

by Aaron Wherry

Paul Dewar calls on the Harper government to support a financial transaction tax at the G20.

“The FTT will be small change for banks, but a major boost to the fight against inequality, poverty and climate change” said Dewar. “It will also cut the excesses of speculative market which were central to the most recent financial crisis.”

The FTT is supported by many European leaders including French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Prominent international economists such as Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz and Jeffrey Sachs back this change as do George Soros and Microsoft’s Bill Gates. Dewar supports an FTT implemented with the widest possible international agreement through multilateral forums such as G20.

The EU proposal is supported by France and Germany. Two U.S. Democrats are proposing a similar measure. The Harper government opposes the current proposal and has opposed similar proposals in the past.

‘Small change for banks’

  1. Marianne and Fritz want funds to fix marriage, and calm down their recalcitrant children, while the American economists are numpties who should be tarred and feathered. 

    And who knew a small change tax would fix inequalities, poverty, climate change and greed. I wonder how much more it would cost for world peace and immortality.

     

    Why Americans Hate Economics:

    Economic bimboism is rampant in Washington. The Center for American Progress held a forum earlier this summer arguing that raising the minimum wage would create more jobs. For this to be true, you have to believe that the more it costs a business to hire a worker, the more workers companies will want to hire.

    A few months ago Mr. Obama blamed high unemployment on businesses becoming “more efficient with a lot fewer workers,” and he mentioned ATMs and airport kiosks. The Luddites are back raging against the machine. If Mr. Obama really wants to get to full employment, why not ban farm equipment?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903596904576514552877388610.html

    4 Reasons Keynesians Keep Getting It Wrong:

    Those who heaped high praise on Keynesian policies have grown silent as government spending has failed to bring an economic recovery. Except for a few diehards who want still more government spending, and those who make the unverifiable claim that the economy would have collapsed without it, most now recognize that more than a trillion dollars of spending by the Bush and Obama administrations has left the economy in a slump and unemployment hovering above 9%.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204777904576651532721267002.html?mod=opinion_newsreel

    • LOL.  That article by Meltzer is hilarious. “Keynesian’s have fallen silent.. except for all the ones who haven’t, of course, but we’ll pretend they’re just crazy.”

      • What Social Science Does – And Doesn’t – Know:

        In early 2009, the United States was engaged in an intense public debate over a proposed $800 billion stimulus bill designed to boost economic activity through government borrowing and spending. James Buchanan, Edward Prescott, Vernon Smith, and Gary Becker, all Nobel laureates in economics, argued that while the stimulus might be an important emergency measure, it would fail to improve economic performance. 

        Nobel laureates Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, on the other hand, argued that the stimulus would improve the economy and indeed that it should be bigger. Fierce debates can be found in frontier areas of all the sciences, of course, but this was as if, on the night before the Apollo moon launch, half of the world’s Nobel laureates in physics were asserting that rockets couldn’t reach the moon and the other half were saying that they could. 

        Prior to the launch of the stimulus program, the only thing that anyone could conclude with high confidence was that several Nobelists would be wrong about it.

        http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_3_social-science.html

        • So if you indeed agree with the thrust of that post — that is, that we can’t prove things one way or the other with social sciences, what, pray tell, is the point of bringing up the other guy who said that “look, this proves it failed”.

          Either we can prove these things, or we can’t. Make up your mind.

    • Must admit Tony that your line, “I wonder how much more it would cost for world peace and immortality.” was hilarious.

      • Thank you. 

  2. I’m watching the G20 to see if Harper will once again do his best to undermine whatever it is Obama might want to do.

    I continue to wonder whether there is some point at which Obama will a) take official notice that Harper feels no compunction about doing him harm whenever the opportunity arises, and b) decide its payback time. 

  3. A Dipper supporting a new tax? What a surprise!

  4. “The FTT will be small change for banks, but a major boost to the fight against inequality, poverty and climate change”

    Talk about a contradiction.  Either it’s small change, or it’s not.

    If it’s small change, it will not do all those things, it will accomplish nothing. If it’s not small change, it will accomplish nothing, because it will simply take much more money away from all of us in our bank accounts, pensions and RRSPs (and fall into the gaping maw of social spending).

    Socialists will not stop until they can tax the air we breathe.

    • Small change for a guy who pulls in a billion dollars a year is a windfall for the guy living on 50c per day.

      Surely even you have the brains to understand that?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *