Tax the speculators and create a public bank

Robert Pollin: Tax speculation, create a public bank and a public rating agency - these are a few of the necessary reforms

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• tobin tax
• public bank
• financial reform real news

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.