Men på fredag fikk Gordon Brown viktig støtte, fra økonomen og sjefssynseren (se nedenfor) Paul Krugman, som kommenterte IMF-lederens argument slik: "[W]hile traders are all over the place, a majority of their transactions are settled — i.e., payment is made — at a single London-based institution. This centralization keeps the cost of transactions low, which is what makes the huge volume of wheeling and dealing possible. It also, however, makes these transactions relatively easy to identify and tax."
Nevnte James Tobin har begrunnet skatten slik: "The idea is very simple: at each exchange of a currency into another a small tax would be levied - let’s say, 0.1% of the volume of the transaction. This dissuades speculators as many investors invest their money in foreign exchange on a very short-term basis. If this money is suddenly withdrawn, countries have to drastically increase interest rates for their currency to still be attractive. But high interest is often disastrous for a national economy, as the nineties’ crises in Mexico, South East Asia and Russia have proven.”
OM KRUGMAN
Men hvorfor skulle det være så viktig hva Paul Krugman måtte mene? Økonomen Brad DeLong sier:
- Remember that Paul Krugman is right.
- If your analysis leads you to conclude that Paul Krugman is wrong, refer to rule #1.
I anledning en leder i The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), kvitterte Krugman nylig slik: "Also, with apologies to Brad DeLong, when reading WSJ editorials you need to bear two things in mind:
1. The WSJ editorial page is wrong about everything.
2. If you think the WSJ editorial page is right about something, see rule #1.
After all, here’s what you would have believed if you listened to that page over the years: Clinton’s tax hike will destroy the economy, you really should check out those people suggesting that Clinton was a drug smuggler, Dow 36000 [Dow-indeksen er nå ca. 10 000], the Bush tax cuts will bring surging prosperity, Saddam is backing Al Qaeda and has WMD, there isn’t any housing bubble, US households have a high savings rate if you measure it right."
Og, joda, ifølge WSJ er en Tobin-skatt en dårlig ide.
Alltid greit å få fagøkonomer på banen.
SvarSlettJeg visste ikke at finanstransaksjoner var så sentralisert som Krugman beskriver. Og er dermed litt usikker på effekten av en Tobin-skatt. Betyr det at skatten havner i England - siden det er knutepunktet - eller er det en mulighet å la skatten tilfalle det området transaksjonen gjøres FRA?
Fra Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax):
SvarSlett"It was originally assumed that the Tobin tax would require multilateral implementation, since one country acting alone would find it very difficult to implement this tax [siden transaksjonene da ville flytte fra dette landet, antar jeg. Kanskje er dette andre transaksjoner enn dem Krugman nevner ved London-institusjonen, jeg vet ikke.]. Many people have therefore argued that it would be best implemented by an international institution. It has been proposed that having the United Nations manage a Tobin tax would solve this problem and would give the U.N. a large source of funding independent from donations by participating states.
However, there have also been initiatives of national dimension about the tax. (...) The possibility of a currency transaction tax for the UK was investigated by City of London firm Intelligence Capital, who found that a tax on sterling wherever it was traded in the world, as opposed to a tax on all currencies traded in the UK [dette gikk antakelig ikke å ha bare i UK fordi valutahandelen da ville flytte fra London], was indeed feasible and could be unilaterally implemented by the UK government."
Fra samme kilde, James Tobin konkretiserer begrunnelsen for Tobin-skatten: "The idea is very simple: at each exchange of a currency into another a small tax would be levied - let's say, 0.1% of the volume of the transaction. This dissuades speculators as many investors invest their money in foreign exchange on a very short-term basis. If this money is suddenly withdrawn, countries have to drastically increase interest rates for their currency to still be attractive. But high interest is often disastrous for a national economy, as the nineties' crises in Mexico, South East Asia and Russia have proven."
Spekulasjon i valutaer (og kanskje også i annet) kan mao. være skadelig. Og om det ikke var det, er vel spekulasjon ofte lite eller ikke nyttig, og da er det ressurssløsing at masse flinke folk driver med det. Og disse folkene kan tjene mye penger, som, når spekulasjonen er unyttig, i realiteten blir gaver fra resten av befolkningen.
You’re the one with the brains here. I’m wathcnig for your posts.
SvarSlettTOpYbK twfbhudvhbkd
SvarSletth5ztsg , [url=http://jvnlvdfmhdmx.com/]jvnlvdfmhdmx[/url], [link=http://bssksnwzxhah.com/]bssksnwzxhah[/link], http://gvkgultosoya.com/
SvarSlettauto insurance quotes 467875 buy auto insurance online 532253
SvarSlettlevitra =[[[ generic viagra =-P
SvarSlettcheap auto insurance 8((( life insurance premium 458 life insurance quotes 6680
SvarSlettshort term health insurance 3598 student health insurance akv
SvarSlettbontril nexium plendil flomax 8380 order cialis online 185
SvarSlettcar insurence 577 healthinsurance 831
SvarSlettcar insurance lswhr business insurance 420273
SvarSlettcialis 42826 cialis online 792
SvarSlettcar insurance rates dzu cheap health insurance 56546
SvarSlett