Tax the speculators and create a public bank

[whedonfreak976]

a public bank works for north dakota, one 2 states with a surplus, ND, has a state owned government run bank, wow, it works what a surprise

[thoughtsurfer1]

That's right. We need a U.S. Public Banking system to compete with the private ones, with a public credit card that has a static 7% interest rate. If somebody wants to get rich inventing something useful, that's justifiable. If someone want to get rich manipulating money, that's bogus.

[4854derrida]

"But what is the truth? The truth is that markets are a social institution. Their efficiency depends on the rules that govern the behavior of people in markets. When free market economists talk about markets deciding this or that, they are reifying a social institution and ascribing to it decision-making power. But, of course, markets do not act or make decisions. People act and make decisions, and markets reflect the decisions and actions of people.

[allgoo19]

Yes, Yubin Chokin (Post office savings account)!! ^_^

I still have the account book with a few yens in it.

[VoIPpoetry]

Fed/IMF/World Bank = all criminals

get lists of names

imprison 'em all

[WRz101]

Isn't a Toben tax the same as "Stamp Duty" in the UK?

If so, im shocked the greedy Yanks havent done this before..

Oh im just loving the squeeze on Yanks!

Instant Karma!

[voidsiriusonly]

The Fed/IMF/World Bank need to be placed in recievership. Every Wall street firm especially banks need to be audited and all fraudulent assets siezed. No one is above our laws even, the US treasury,WB. States need to establish public banks at this time, using collateralized state owned assets. Long term, low interest loans can be made partnering w/regional and small local banks,credit unions, pensions, mutual funds...Loans based on the fractional reserve system can then be issued. Eliminate Fed

[luissting]

To tax the speculation isn't enouth and it would legitimate it. None stock market live without speculation. And all of them have allways been a casino economy. Capitalism is speculation. That's the real problem that almost everybody's pretending it isn't, only arguing 'bout the need of «regulation». A sistem where a government really democraticly elected detain the public domain of the strategical sectors of the economy is THE ONLY SOLUTION. You know it, but dont have the b..ls to assume it

[pat442389]

@luissting it already is legitimate... either eliminate it or tax it now. end secret donations, corp donations and have public tax $ fund elections, make TV stations give at least 4 parties equal TV time from july to the elections in november

[salsaa24]

taxing individual day or positon traders is just another stupid idea proposed by someone who has never risked anything.

[NYredwhiteandblue]

Wow, this is just a transfer tax on me and you... Do you people really think Professional traders will be taxed. It's presented as lets tax the Big bad speculators and the wont be paying a dime... Also, spreads will widen as liquidity erodes... Dont get foole... this is getting pushed by wallstreet, just like the 25k pattarn day trader rule... This is an attack on us, Goldman wont be paying a dime....

[MarquisdeBarrabas]

Don't worry Pauler, TheRealNews viewers are going to get fooled by anyone.

[blackiron60]

Every one of his economic advisors urged King Louis of France to tax the nobility prior to the French Revolution and he ignored every one of them. Speculators are today's aristocrats, with governments afraid to touch their privileges. It's pretty evident where this sort of thing leads in the long run.

[bfq3000]

income made on speculation is already taxable, rich or poor. and what makes you think all speculators are rich? almost every citizen is involved in speculation in some form or another (property, stocks, mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).

[MarquisdeBarrabas]

Brilliant video, TheRealNews.

It's time to stop talking about the Tobin Tax and put it in place.

[gmfutube]

How to prevent this kind of mess?

1. END corporate personhood

until then, do NOT elect anyone who receives contributions from the big companies that are raping the economy.

[Paetaor]

And if the funds and pensions didn't demand AAA securities in their funds?

Everyone deserves a butt-kicking but only the public is going to get one.

[crwells]

That guy looks like "House"

[nightpotato]

Ok, so the "real" news network has become the left wing version of fox news.

[VolcanicPenguin]

@nightpotato

Hehe, this brings to mind a quote from Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well-known Liberal Bias".

lol! X)

[gmfutube]

what part of this video is selling pure crap or lies?

what part of the explanation of the current fraud is not true?

[nightpotato]

The part where it says I'd not care about the tax on my small trades, the part where it claims this would bring stability instead of creating less gradual curves in the market as a result of fewer large investors at key points in time, and a few other bits that i'd need to re-watch the video to remember.

[VolcanicPenguin]

@nightpotato

Oh and wait a minute. How can this be the left wing version of Fox News if it criticizes Obama? :P

[nightpotato]

I don't know if you noticed, but all of it's criticisms of Obama are that he is not LEFT enough. What a silly query!

[VolcanicPenguin]

True, but considering that by the rest of the world Obama is actually to the political RIGHT, it makes sense.

[nightpotato]

Yes.... how exactly does that refute the claim that the RNN is blatantly left wing? If anything it bolsters my claim.

[VolcanicPenguin]

Fair enough. The Real News Network definetely does have a political preference.

I personally don't mind it, as I see the political "right and left" as "politics of the rich and politics of the poor", so I prefer the more altruistic side to be represented.

[nightpotato]

Personally, I don't care about rich and poor. I care about authoritarians and advocates of liberty. There are autocrats on both the left and right. Additionally, even if I believed that Altriusm was a coherent ethical theory, I would not be a leftist. Stealing from some in order to give to others, still involves stealing. I think people should be charitable on their own dime, if they so choose, not by robbing others via taxation.

[VolcanicPenguin]

I would say that one's freedoms is to a large extent a function of your wallet.

I also don't see taxation as stealing.

1. Someone who is born poor has little chance of becoming rich, and vice versa. The game is already tilted.

2. The way people make a lot of money is usually corrupt.

3. Because money isn't real anyway. Let's say instead of taking your money, society simply re-adjusts how much of the worlds resources that it will give you in exchange for your labor, to leave some for others.

[nightpotato]

to address your points

1. I see no moral problem with this.

2. Then the proper thing as I see it would be to fight the corruption, not the wealth. Plenty of people make money legitimately as well.

3. Money represents very real value. Why does society have any right to determine what I do with my wealth? I don't exchange my labor with some abstraction called "society", I exchange it with other specific individuals who give me an amount of wealth. The entire process is perfectly voluntary.

[VolcanicPenguin]

I have no idea how you can't have a problem with the first point.

[nightpotato]

That's interesting, but if you assert that violence should be enacted in order to alter the first scenario, then the I think it would probably be most honest if you first proved that it actually is a problem in need of correcting.

[VolcanicPenguin]

Proving that people being born poor and staying this way is a problem? This is being proven constantly, as people lose their homes and starve to death. Around one billion of the human population is starving to death because they were born into poverty they can't get out of.

There's no violence needed to correct this, just political will. Tax is not violence.

[nightpotato]

This is not proof. To prove your point you must

1. Show that the negative effects you describe are attributable to a LACK of government action

2. Show why the effects are objectively negative

3. Show why when a citizen takes money via the threat of force, it is bad, but when the government does it it is good.

[VolcanicPenguin]

Alright. :)

1. Generally speaking countries with higher taxes have a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. But it does depend on what the government spends taxes on, the US unfortunately spends a lot of it on military instead of welfare.

2. People who are homeless and can't support themselves is a problem in my view, that's as objective as I can get.

3. I think it all depends on what the money is used for. As mentioned I'm opposed to a lot of the things the US spends it's taxes on.

[nightpotato]

1. True, but whats also true is that in general, a free market raises standards of living for people at every end of the spectrum. Redistribution cuts the pie differently, and shrinks the pie, free market leaves the pie unevenly sliced, but enlarges the pie in total. It's tradeoffs.

2. This gets into ethics, but that's not really an objective statement. Why is homelessness objectively bad? You might feel like it's bad (I certainly do), but that doesn't make it objective.

[VolcanicPenguin]

You could argue that sadness isn't objectively bad, in which case nothing is objectively bad.

However, I think it's pretty obvious that homelessness is something most people would want to avoid.

[nightpotato]

Also, is there a correlation between homelessness and a free market? I was aware of the opposite correlation. That once businesses are free to operate as they please, the area in question attracts businesses, which employ the locals, who can then afford housing, etc. You know the story.

3. If I mug you, and then donate some of the money to charity, does that justify the theft?

[VolcanicPenguin]

Well, if the government spends more on social security, less people lose their homes when they're unable to generate an income on their own.

3. Hehe, well I wouldn't personally like it. ;) However, if the money ends up coming to better use at that charity than it would have for me, then I can see how it's justifiable.

[nightpotato]

Then I'm glad you are at least consistent. However, this means you are cool with theft, killing, rape, whatever kind of violence as long as the net pleasure at the end of the interaction is higher than it was before. This is pretty much why I'm not a utilitarian leftist. I think that theft is wrong even if the beneficiaries are poor, rape is wrong even if the rapist is really ugly and nobody would willingly have sex with him, slavery is wrong even if the slave is rich, and murder is always wrong

[VolcanicPenguin]

Now you're making a lot of assumptions.

Murder and rape are not monetary or property-related crimes, and as such I consider them much more offensive and wrong.

And even the most radical communist would most likely be against those things.

If one person is born with nothing, while another is born with a billion bucks, and it is each individual's right to keep their money, wouldn't that mean that people aren't born with equal rights?

[nightpotato]

They are all property related crimes. I own my life my sex organs and my money. Taking any of them away from me is wrong on the basis that its mine, not yours. Toddlers on the playground are taught this (if one child has 10 great toys and the others have 1, should the lucky child be penalized?)

Everybody has an equal right to PURSUE wealth, not to OWN wealth. The only things you have a right to is that which you worked for, traded for, or were given. Thats justly obtained property, no stealing

[VolcanicPenguin]

I would not classify your body as property. I generally reject the whole concept of property.

[nightpotato]

And the same logic can be applied to rape. If one person is born with good looks, while another is born horribly deformed, and it's each individual's right to have sex, wouldn't that mean that people aren't born with equal rights. And we should get the state to pin down women for ugly men to rape them, so that sex can be redistributed amongst the more deprived.

It's the same logic with something more depraved in place of taxation/redistribution.

[VolcanicPenguin]

Hehe, that's an interesting argument.

My answer would be that I see sex as a privilege, while I see food and housing (the necessities of life) as a right.

[nightpotato]

Why are they rights?

[VolcanicPenguin]

Alright. :)

Well. I think ultimately rights are made up things, so I think we should define what our rights are based on what we can actually deliver. In other words I think it's to a large degree a matter of practicality.

And I very much believe that it IS possible to provide everyone with food and housing. There just needs to be political will for it. From what I can tell, the homeless and starving are so because they lack purchasing power, not because of over-population.

[nightpotato]

Even under your strict definition, only food water and shelter, the necessities of life, would be rights. That means no public schooling, no government imposed minimum wage, no military. But I'm still confused as to why food is a right. Before you said they were rights, now you say rights are made up, but then you said that they do exist, but are based on what is practical. Can you explain this a bit more?

[VolcanicPenguin]

Sure! :)

From a scientific standpoint, it seems to me that rights don't actually exist. They are figments of our imagination.

But with that being said, I think it can still be useful to consider some things as rights, because that sort of sets the bar at what we can expect, or what we can demand.

I'm definitely for public schools and minimum wages as well, so one could call those rights too.

I don't like military tho, I'd like to see military power phased out globally over time.

[nightpotato]

Before you said that only necessities for life are rights, which is why you can morally use force to obtain food, but not sex. But just now you said that public school and minimum wage are also rights. Public school certainly isn't a requirement for life.

[VolcanicPenguin]

As mentioned before, I don't really believe in rights. I think that the government should supply the people with certain things, REGARDLESS of whether we define them as rights or not. And I don't see it as a problem to do this through taxation, because I don't see it as a right to not pay taxes.

There was a time when I thought taxes went against your rights. Since then I've come to the realization that the survival of the poor comes before the luxuries of the rich.

[nightpotato]

Why though? Why should the government supply people with things? Why is the survival of the poor more important than the luxuries of the rich? why? Why do poor people have a right to the property they own, but rich people do not? What is the objective basis of these claims?

[VolcanicPenguin]

A life without food and housing is quite horrible, a life without a bunch of excess materialistic things isn't. The money that rich people spend on stuff they don't need would be put to much better use if it was used to give poor people the necessities of life.

Large profits are made through exploitation. It's not just in some cases, it's the general rule.

[nightpotato]

What definition of exploitation includes entirely voluntary economic transactions?

When you say "The money that rich people spend on stuff they don't need would be put to much better use if it was used to give poor people the necessities of life."

what do you mean by better? why is it better? If fate dealt some poor person a bad hand, why does his potential starvation justify him stealing? I'm asking for the moral theory that your political/economic theory rests on.

[nightpotato]

On a free market, the only way you make money is via voluntary transactions. Lobbyism and corporate+government cartels are only possible with the government. You might not like low wages or bad working conditions, but they are voluntary.

Why is the food+housing which ensures that people dont starving to death better than the boat? You say it is more important in your book, but that isn't the same as a logical proof. What makes it objectively better? If you have no answer, its just a preference

[VolcanicPenguin]

There is no such thing as a free market, and there never will be.

Low wages and bad working conditions are NOT voluntary if the population is forced to go along with it or die from starvation.

There is no objective "better" or "worse" in anything. There are no objective "rights". It is my preference that the survival of a boat load of people is more important than some guy getting a boat, and it is my preference that taxation should be used to accommodate this.

[nightpotato]

Why will there never be a free market?

The choice is almost never work for a low wage, or starve. In almost all cases, people choose a job that has bad wages or working conditions in order to avoid an even worse situation.

Besides, by your ethical framework, the farmer would be the biggest tyrant of all, since he demands something in exchange for his food instead of giving it away for free. If you don't trade with the farmer, you starve.

[VolcanicPenguin]

A free market demands a government that is immune to corruption, lobbyism, campaign contributions, massmedia propaganda, etc. In other words, it demands a government that exists in a vacuum that is separate from the monetary world.

I'm not against the farmer, simply because of how small scale it is, and how small the margins are when compared to mega corporations like Monsanto.

[nightpotato]

Also, if you claim that there is no objective better or worse, then you cannot claim that taxation is objectively better. And when you say that taxation is your preference, what you are really saying is that you believe that the citizenry should be extorted to satisfy your non-objective, arbitrary opinion about what is a desirable end for mankind. The violence you support has just as little objective rational backing as race killings, or petty theft.

[VolcanicPenguin]

Nor can one claim that taxation is objectively worse.

When you say that taxation is wrong, that is a non-objective opinion where you think that the desirable end for mankind is to have mass amounts of people living in poverty.

If used well, the average citizen gets more back from taxes than they give.

Taxing people has much more rational backing than race killing, because the end result of taxes, if spent well, is actually beneficial for society as a whole!

[nightpotato]

Except I assert that my position is objectively true, you do not.

And I don't think that it is desirable to have a mass amount of people living in poverty. The fact is that a free market consistently lifts people out of poverty. I avoid bringing this up because that is not WHY a free market is objectively better. It's true, but totally irrelevant.

The last paragraph you wrote seems to be a claim about objective morality. Odd, as you've already abandoned the notion of making such claims.

[VolcanicPenguin]

How is your position objectively true? How are property rights, something that is entirely made up, an objectively true notion? Where's the scientific proof for this?

I would like to see some evidence for the free market consistently lifting people out of poverty.

The last paragraph is about rational versus irrational thinking. There's no rational backing to race killing because it's not going to solve any of the problems those people blamed on other races to begin with.

[nightpotato]

Objective rights: isil (dot) org/resources/introduction (dot) swf

It's cheesy I know, but it's a good summary.

Evidence for free market consistently lifting people out off poverty: pretty much any beginner economic text, though I can make some suggestions if you'd like

Regarding the last paragraph: Whenever you make an unqualified normative statement, you are making a claim about objective morality. Your claim about well spent tax dollars was an unqualified normative statement.

[VolcanicPenguin]

The swf you linked me to is still a subjective statement based on ideology, not something that has been objectively and scientifically proven.

Rather than some economic text, I would prefer to see actual real life examples.

So you really think that taxing the rich to help the poor is as irrational as killing people for their skincolor? Really?

[nightpotato]

Self ownership is not subjective

Real life examples are anecdotal. I can give you a "real life example" of gravity being disproven: a helium balloon. But unless you understand physics, you won't understand that a helium balloon doesn't disprove gravity. I can tell you the industrial revolution increased standards of living, (and so do "sweatshops" in vietnam btw) but you won't understand why unless you have a basic grasp of economics.

[VolcanicPenguin]

I think we were talking about property, not self ownership. They're not the same thing.

Heh, I definetely do have a basic grasp of economics. What I'm asking for are actual statistics proving that a more free market economy creates less disparity.

[nightpotato]

Someone can give you an opposing example as well, but unless you understand the economic principles behind it, it's all just anecdotes.

Yes, all violence initiated without an objectively valid reason is irrational.

[VolcanicPenguin]

Actual observations of society are not simply anecdotes. It depends of course on the specific observations, but if done right, they can shed much more light to a situation than sometimes ideologically influenced texts.

I'm not sure what you would qualify as objective, seeing as how your definition of objective seems quite subjective.

[nightpotato]

Ideology does influence some economic texts. But not good ones. I respect Krugman's microeconomics texts, and Mankiw's micro and macro texts, despite the fact that I am ideologically opposed to both of them. Economics, when done properly, is a science. It's harder for ideology to influence a science than it is for ideology to influence a selection of anecdotes. Consequently, I highly recommend reading some introductory econ texts, specifically microeconomics texts.

What is my def. of objective?

[VolcanicPenguin]

Alright thanks, I'll look into those. :)

I dunno what your definition of objective is. :P But it seems to include some rights, and since rights are ideas, I would say that they are by definition subjective. :9

With that said, I still think some rights are worth holding on to tho. Like self-ownership for example.

[nightpotato]

I still think that Political Economy by Bastiat, and Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith are the greatest econ texts, and some of the least ideologically controversial. That said, there is a wealth of literature out there, and you don't need some dude on youtube giving you a reading list.

To be clear: I don't think rights exist in reality like a liver or a book. I think they are objectively logically valid and true, like math or the scientific method.

[nightpotato]

Additionally, self ownership's only consistent application is the abolition of taxation, as that flash video succinctly showed.

[VolcanicPenguin]

I have to disagree there. I see self-ownership and ownership of property as being completely separate things.

[nightpotato]

The flash video I posted asserts otherwise. What is the flaw in the reasoning of the flash video?

[VolcanicPenguin]

You, are you. A chair, is not you. We may decide that it is yours. But it's not you. So there's an obvious difference there.

Although I think the concept of property is nice at first glance, what seems to be happening is that more and more of the world's resources are being concentrated into fewer and fewer pockets. And when that leads to many people not having enough to survive, which of course is happening already, I think that the concept of property comes second to human survival.

[nightpotato]

That doesn't address the argument laid out in the video

[VolcanicPenguin]

That's exactly what I'm addressing. How is it not addressing it?

[nightpotato]

You simply assert "you are you. A chair is not you". You don't prove it. The video asserts that in a sense, the chair IS me, because my labor is invested in it. I'm asking you to refute the argument laid out in the video.

[VolcanicPenguin]

I think it's quite obvious that a chair is not you, so I don't quite see how that has to be proven.

As for being monetarily rewarded for your labor, I would much rather see a society where people are given the necessities of life as a default, and then do work not because of some materialistic gains, but because of the purpose of the actual work itself, i.e. wanting to achieve something of value in their life and contribute to society. Most people want to help out.

[nightpotato]

That's an assertion, not a counter argument. I could just as well say "I think it's quite obvious that when i invest my labor into something, it becomes part of my life". I'm asking you to address the argument laid out in the video, not to simply make a contrary assertion.

[VolcanicPenguin]

Ok so you don't want any taxes? Does this mean you don't want any government? How would your property rights be protected without a government? Or if you do want a government, how would it be sustained?

[nightpotato]

That's right, I don't believe in a State. Anarchist, Voluntaryist, Agorist, even Mutualist, whatever, choose your favorite term. There is a LOT of literature on how property rights can be protected without a government, from the writings of Gustave De Molinari, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman and the like, to videos on here youtube by people like stefbot. The essence is that free individuals competing and cooperating in an open marketplace will supply security as it is demanded, just like any

[nightpotato]

other product. Security is not fundamentally different from any other utility. I'm not opposed to "government" per se, after all there are plenty of voluntary "governments" that exist, like condominium boards. I'm opposed to the State, which is a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area.

I'd be happy talk about stateless institutions that can protect property rights, but that has to do with practicality, not morality, which is what this has been about, so it's a bit off topic.

[VolcanicPenguin]

Heh, well I don't mind going off topic. :P

From what you've said so far, it sounds to me like whoever has the most money, gets the most security. What would stop the big corporations of today from creating private militaries that the poor just wouldn't have the resources to protect themselves from? Even with lots of guns, it would be hard to fight back against bombs and drones. It seems to me like the rich would just kill the poor and take everything they've got.

[nightpotato]

To give that the caliber of a response that it deserves, I'd need more room than a youtube comment box. I'll give a brief summary here, and we can continue this discussion in private messages if you'd like.

The dystopia you've described is the world as it exists today. The State amplifies the power of the rich, Anarchism would discourage the kind of behavior you are talking about. Additionally "corporations" as they exist today are State created legal fictions. No state = no Haliburton.

[VolcanicPenguin]

I would agree that the state amplifies the power of the rich, but I don't see how that power would disappear without it. How would anarchy discourage it?

Also, the whole point of taxes, if used right, is to diminish the gap between the rich and the poor. The US, which has less government regulation and lower taxes than most places, also has the widest gap between the rich and the poor. What would prevent this gap from widening in an anarchy?

[nightpotato]

I'll respond to this in a private message so that we are no longer constrained by the bounds of youtube comment character limits.

[nightpotato]

Oh and one more point- the kind of large scale conflict you are talking about (aka war) is very very unprofitable UNLESS you can dump the costs of the war onto a taxpaying citizenry, or inflate it away with a central bank. Without the government being used as an enforcement arm, large scale conflicts would vanish, as would the corporations that profit off of large scale conflicts.

[jotunobsidianeyes]

Because it's not all yours. A hidden percent is public or there because of the public. The entire process is not perfectly voluntary, not always.

[nightpotato]

The public part only exists because we are not given the option to opt out of the public program. We are forced to participate in the public program, and then charged a tax because we used the "service". The part of the transaction that is not perfectly voluntary, is the part that involves the "public".

[bbburton]

Crap.

[sirellyn]

I understand why they hate speculators, but they are neither the cause of the problem nor would taxing them even help.

The money they are using to speculate results from fed loans or bailout money.

Taxing those trades only makes for less trades at more opportune times. In other words, less gradual curves in the market, and more huge gains or huge losses. Detecting trends would be harder. Not to mention to stop the bad behavior of some you tax them and everyone else. And bail them out again.

[0800RelevantElephant]

"In other words, less gradual curves in the market, and more huge gains or huge losses" How?

[sirellyn]

Because micro transactions cost the most. So large investment companies wait for specific times to buy or sell a whole bunch. This can also lead to blatant market manipulation. A company offselling at a specific time

It's less longer prudent to make trades when it may or may not be a good idea and more when signs are stronger. This leads higher skyrocketing and lower cliff diving stocks.

And gov needs more money when 75% of budget is war? Try cutting spending.

[GorgonLuvs8008135]

I really like his goal to remove short term speculation, but you make a very good point.

However, Wouldn't large investment companies buy and sell in large lots already? Without the tax he's talking about, Whats the advantage of large investment companies making micro transactions?

[bfq3000]

you haven't actually looked at intraday stock market volatility over the course of history, have you?

[PsyogiBottoms]

Yeah - 'its a small tax you wouldn't even care' BULLSHIT I wouldn't - this corrupt government has enough of my families money - GET A JOB CROOKS!

And what - we end Traders' careers and make them Farmers? yeah... get a fuckin' clue. this is retarded.

[UnoRaza]

It's a coincidence that Goldman is Obamas biggest contributor....

At least we see from where their contributions come.... MILKING US.

[VexRiot]

Taxing used to discourage. That's all taxing accomplishes a good majority of the time.

[MarquisdeBarrabas]

People who get discouraged by taxes are weak.

Look at Gates, Buffett and Soros: they keep asking for more.

[0800RelevantElephant]

yeah taxing discouraged people to make money in the 80s... and also just recently during the economic boom everyone was discouraged because of taxes - NOT.

[agitcam]

North Dakota has a State Bank. North Dakota is in good financial shape and has a 1 billion dollar surplus. The money the state collects goes to the state bank and lent out. A much better plan than doling out state funds to private banks for kickbacks.

[Nighr2001]

We already have public banks: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You're welcome to invest in those penny stocks. Bwah-hah!

[jedirock]

yeah exactly, keep your money at home, why banks?

freespeechnetwork (dot) ning (dot) com

[gmfutube]

are you retarded?

fannie & freddie are neither public or banks.

only their debt belongs to the public

corporate socialism at its best

[MarquisdeBarrabas]

Let me remind you that Fannie Mae was privatized in 1968 and Freddie Mac was never public in the first place.

[bfq3000]

The premise that the frequency of trading on simple exchange-traded and regulated instruments like stocks, futures and options was responsible for the crash is completely incorrect. The Tobin tax is targeting the wrong people. It would hurt retail traders and destroy trading volume. Look at what happened in Sweden between 1984-91. This is just misguided economic populism.

[dddiegopan]

could you elaborate more on that. i dont trust hedging when all they trade is paper promise and no real product trade. i dont trust hedging just to make a profit out off the speculation. it distorts real markets, although it is a source of financial support, it is not an insurance nor is it a real payment mechanism between buyers and sellers, again of true physical products. About tobin taxes, i dont like them either, they are as bad as that cap & trade crap tax to squeeze our wealth

[bfq3000]

The root cause of bubbles (which can be distruptive if extreme) are the human emotions of greed and fear. They've been happening since well before Reagan or Greenspan (ie. Dutch tulips, South Sea Company, dozens of crashes of the 19th/20th century stock market, etc.) and will always occur as long as sometimes irrational humans make investment decisions. Excessively low margin requirements increases the magnitude of bubbles. [1 of 2]

[bfq3000]

When people are so overleveraged that they lose way more than they can afford to cover it can be extremely disruptive (ie. AIG). Trading volume itself is not the problem. The added liquidity from speculation creates value because investors of all purposes can get in and out of a position much quicker and at better prices (due to a reduced bid/ask spread). Bubbles can happen just as easily in illiquid markets (ie. the housing crisis). Leverage is the major issue. [2 of 2]

[RemiG2006]

FTW! You want to take my hard earned money using high frequency trading?! Go to hell!

PS Just kidding! :D but the truth is you cannot tax every and each trading company or individual tradaer. if you want to tax someone tax the wallstreet big mafia boys like gs, jpm, c! And yes, it's time to something with the FED! Everything begins there and everything ends with them.  The idea that they shoud gain more power from Congress now in my opinion is preposterous!

[dackjaniels555]

A Public Bank, Makes Sense.

[OmarThePug]

called a Tobin tax.

[KhmerD0g]

they can't do that. banksters and wall street would fight back. they have thousands and thousands of lobbyists working in the white house. that will not happen.

[abilityoflove]

A rise in taxes for the rich etc only concentrates the money in the hands of the government and thus turns the government into a corporation, while people are still being ripped off both by the corporations and the government.

The solution is in reducing the speculative capitalism to the non-essentials only. Keep housing, food, education, healthcare & fuel out of speculative system.

In other words, reduce casino-capitalism to 30% while expand co-operative economic model to 70%.

[daniel987878]

To reduce casino capitalism all you need to do is fix the money supply and not allow any governmental or corporate institution to fabricate money. All the money for leverage would dry up and speculation would return to a small and healthy level.

[flyhead2]

It would be a first step, but the power of banks is aligned with the imperious US foreign policies and the vast arms industry. Then there is the WB, IMF, CFR, etc, etc. The financial sector isn't simply a runny nose, it is but one small tumour of a metastasized, cancerous system.

[daniel987878]

I know and the core of this global syndicate is the monetary system. If you take out central bank secrecy the whole game is over for the global elite.

[flyhead2]

Do some research; the US government IS a corporation, as are the British and others.