1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today

Quote from GreenTraderTax:

Take the media and many writers with a grain of salt. Many of them are sour grapes about the new economy, including the more modernized financial markets. Long-established broadcast and print media are dependent on their old ways and they have been forestalling and fighting new media and new banking too. Should we be taking economic and business lessons from the New York Times? Don’t they kill trees to delivery their news on carbon-emitting trucks? The Times built a real-estate tower in NYC to match their ego, but they couldn’t afford it. Like others who can’t pay back their bankers for overindulged real estate spending, the Times is contributing to an effort to tar and feather the bankers instead. That’s classic populist anger and undermines their credibility in mounting progressive arguments and editorials.

The same goes for the Washington Post with Steven Pearlstein’s article yesterday. Washington Post, "Whose side is Obama on?" Nov. 25, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/24/AR2009112404014.html. Green's Comment is at the bottom. I think bankers have cut off these newspapers and they are being forced to downsize and close bureaus (WP did this week). Their writers are angry at bankers in my view and that is creeping into their opinions.

Krugman like others in the media are big tax and spend economists, supporting big tax and spend politicians. Krugman has been dogging President Obama for not passing a larger stimulus plan and Stimulus II, and not increasing government spending. Krugman’s attacks hurt supply side economics because he attacks suppliers and their financiers, plus the investors and speculators too. Krugman thinks that government jobs will turn around the economy, but I disagree. Then the only way to pay Krugman’s bill on society is with new taxes and raising taxes on the rich, Wall Street, bankers and traders in general. Economists should be like journalists used to be, neutral in politics. Of course, the other side of the debate is equally steeped in their ways too.

Back to the “useless to society” argument. Let’s follow Ayn Rand’s advice and call for a strike of bankers, traders and others in the financial system. Plus, ask the New York Times to go on strike too. We will soon see who the public cries out for returning to business, the financers or the print media. Is the print media ready to lend or invest in anyone other than their opinions?

As in America, progressive left-leaning politicians and media (Guardian) are leading the charge against bankers’ in the UK (it’s even worse) and they are flaming populist anger and votes with talk of a transaction tax. UK PM Gordon Brown faces a call for early election and defeat to Tory PM-candidate David Cameron, who is very much against this tax and an attack on London’s the City (bankers). Like most other level-headed economists, media and government officials, including Secretary Geithner, President Obama, leaders in Congress, IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, David Cameron is advocating a bank levy charged to banks instead. See more on my blog articles below.

Populist anger if left unchecked can cause devastation to our economy and emotions, which is unwise as we try to recover from a recession. Attacking small business traders, big business, bankers, speculators and other useful contributors to our economy, will make those players go into their shell and not lend, not invest, not speculate and turn our fragile recovery into a W-shaped recession.

Can we then count on the media and socialists to lend us money? Their only prescription for lending money is to sell government bonds, even though we can’t afford to pay those bonds back any time soon. By the way, if you really want a financial-transaction tax, how about starting with the biggest short term financier of them all, federal, state and city governments? Slap a sufficiently-high enough tax on those transactions so investors and speculators won’t buy government bonds and the federal government will focus on balancing it’s check book too, like the rest of America. Of course, those bonds will probably be exempt from the politicians’ plans for this tax.

Another thing that annoys me. Only progressive-Democratic Congressmen from non-trading areas are pushing for the transaction tax. For example, our Protest letter http://www.greencompany.com/Association/AssociationFinancialTransTax.shtml is being signed by thousands of traders quickly and it’s odd that not even one letter was sent to Congressman DeFazio’s (OR), who is the main proponent of this tax in the US. That indicates to me that Congressman DeFazio has very few traders in his district. Tax initiatives are similar to environmental initiatives. NIMBY (not in my backyard) is a major problem with environmental initiatives and apparently with taxes too. Congressman and voters demand alternative energy, but when environmental projects are suggested in their home towns, they often block them because of NIMBY. They say the windmills are too loud and ugly. No one wants nuclear or waste-to-energy either. Better to ship the garbage to someone else’s landfill. It’s the same with taxes, raise them on someone else. If DeFazio can lead the charge to pass a financial-transaction tax, he should find some way to raise taxes in his home town too, but he is not.

Traders want to know where we stand here. If rational minds rule, there won’t be a financial-transaction tax and there will be a bank levy instead. But like the financial markets themselves, it’s irrational minds that control things. Populist anger is for real and I truly feel horrible for people that have lost their jobs and businesses that have closed. Few in the world can muster the courage to defend Wall Street and their ongoing ways to make money and pay high compensation. I for one have that courage and won’t throw Wall Street into the Hudson River. You may as well sell Manhattan down the river too and the dominos will fall soon thereafter.

The Times should fire Krugman before President Obama fires Geithner and let’s try to figure our problems out together with less partisanship. Krugman will teach trickle down economics. Burn business and you will be burned too.

Green's Comment on the Washington Post article:
“Retribution” (the main argument in this piece), redistribution, and punishment are negative and unproductive ways to deal with a constituency. When a democratically-elected government is too heavy-handed in that manner, it invites another type of populist revolt (Tea Party movement) to trump the anti-Wall Street/banker populist backlash.

Far too many writers in the established media are inappropriately-disenchanted with Wall Street and bankers, and most unfairly lump small-business traders into that narrow group.

Highly-esteemed writer Pearlstein argues in this piece for a financial-transaction tax for no other good reason than to show that President Obama has populist’s stripes. Pearlstein concedes this tax will cause job destruction not creation. Is this a good enough reason to unleash hurtful collateral damage on our economy?

For sure, small-business traders will be put out of business over night with a financial-transaction tax. Is that fair? To get a better understanding of how dangerous this op-ed piece is (and other writing like it), please see our small-business trader’s appeal to Congress at
http://www.rallycongress.com/greentradertax-traders-association1/ -
“Save traders' jobs: Do not enact a financial-transaction tax.”
Traders, please join us by speaking out to defend your job and business from the government’s tax axe. For more background and articles, please see my blog at http://www.greencompany.com/blog/index.php .

Established broadcast and print media (like WP) are reeling from creative destruction brought on by the Internet, with blogs sharing their space at much lower cost. In my view, some are sour grapes and they are juiced up to attack (Wall Street, bankers, the rich and others that are succeeding). Sorry to see WP closed bureaus yesterday and I hope the bankers did not contribute to that outcome.



Excellent post, we can always count on something great from Mr. Green
 
I emailed the Denver piece author:

Thanks. I don't think it's a modest tax either, but it may seem that
way to some. Best -- David

On 11/27/09, Dustin <...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a full-time trader I wholeheartedly agree with your article, but I think
> you miss one crucial point that needs to be presented to the public.
>
> You state: "Yes, .25 percent seems like a modest tax. The trouble is that
> government tends to heap one modest tax upon the next modest tax..."
>
>
> .25% is not at all modest. The public is being fed this lie. If an average
> investor turns over a $100k portfolio just once per year that amounts to a
> $500 per year tax, on top of SEC fees, exchange taxes, and capital gains.
> An active investor can easily turn over a portfolio many more times. If the
> tax was presented in a way to help individuals understand how greatly this
> will affect their long term portfolio growth maybe they would put the
> pitchforks down.
>
>
 
Quote from OldTrader:

Anyone got a history of Cramers trades for the last couple of years? Why don't we apply the transaction tax to his record for several years and see how it comes out?

This guy is so dupicitous he should have been a politician.

OldTrader

I know he was big on Bear Stearns back in early '08!

:D
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSTRE5AQ3XW20091127

Will BRIC go "local" and follow Brazil on a financial-transaction tax, to slow down hot incoming money and related over investment capacity? A local trend in this case, may lead to global-consensus on a financial-transaction tax, if the EU follows BRIC. The pressure will be on the US and UK to say no. So much depends on the UK Tories winning soon, around the time of the IMF report in April 2010. If Labour retains power in the UK and continues bashing the bankers, the US could be the lone country out - except Switzerland. Not sure about Japan and Singapore and a few others. But BRIC leaning towards fix rates and firm borders enhanced with a transaction tax is not a good thing. Not saying it will happen, but this article speaks to a trend here.

http://mobile2.wsj.com/device/artic...2026481566233.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_world

French commissioner on financial reform does not bode well. Spanish socialist commissioner on anti-trust is also not good. Don't like those big anti-trust awards against Intel, Microsoft, Oracle blocking now, Google attacks and more. Hope the US shows some backbone to protect our companies too.
 
Quote from GreenTraderTax:

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSTRE5AQ3XW20091127

Will BRIC go "local" and follow Brazil on a financial-transaction tax, to slow down hot incoming money and related over investment capacity? A local trend in this case, may lead to global-consensus on a financial-transaction tax, if the EU follows BRIC. The pressure will be on the US and UK to say no. So much depends on the UK Tories winning soon, around the time of the IMF report in April 2010. If Labour retains power in the UK and continues bashing the bankers, the US could be the lone country out - except Switzerland. Not sure about Japan and Singapore and a few others. But BRIC leaning towards fix rates and firm borders enhanced with a transaction tax is not a good thing. Not saying it will happen, but this article speaks to a trend here.

http://mobile2.wsj.com/device/artic...2026481566233.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_world

French commissioner on financial reform does not bode well. Spanish socialist commissioner on anti-trust is also not good. Don't like those big anti-trust awards against Intel, Microsoft, Oracle blocking now, Google attacks and more. Hope the US shows some backbone to protect our companies too.


What if the Bric Countries do go local, and even if the EU follows suit , wouldn't that be an incentive at that point for either the US and the UK not tax transactions to have capital and business flow to the us and maybe prop up the dollar. I know the Bric or emerging countries generally like capital controls, because there growth rate is way to fast, but wouldn't that benefit us if they all do that and we do not? I am not an economist so I am not sure.

P.S. I saw Sarko's ally on for financial reform , and Alumnia as the anti trust regulator. One thing I take comfort in a bit is Sarkozy's worsening reputation on the world stage, he tried to hard to be a hero but when doesn't get his way he acts childish on the world stage. The examples were when he threatened to walk out of the April and Sept g20 meetings if there was no accord on either banker bonuses or actually the Tobin tax, and guess what, there was neither, but he never walked out. He politically postures too much until where the world takes him less seriously. Like the meeting he and Lulu from Brazil were snubbed at this week about the transaction tax they wanted to raise for an environmental fund. I say we can let the world do what they want and ruin their economies, as long as our legislators do not push this through we will be fine. Especially if we do not push this through and other countries do, we could actually benefit.
 
Quote from rsikit:

He easily forgets how he made his millions as a trader. I would like to keep reminding/commenting on his site, but I don't want him to give this to much airtime next week on cnbc!

Did he? Do we have his track record? Only showman who has a vague idea about trading business won't see that this tax simply puts the traders (including his viewers) out of business. His passion is with his show not trading.
 
Quote from GreenTraderTax:

If DeFazio can lead the charge to pass a financial-transaction tax, he should find some way to raise taxes in his home town too, but he is not.
This would make sense if the main reason for the transaction tax is to get more money for other projects and thus everyone should tighten their belts etc., but as I understand it, the transaction tax is being pushed as a "sin tax" whose desired effect is to reduce the number of instances of the "sin", in this case, socially unproductive trading.
 
Quote from rsikit:

I say we can let the world do what they want and ruin their economies, as long as our legislators do not push this through we will be fine. Especially if we do not push this through and other countries do, we could actually benefit.

The concern here is that we're(traders) the ones fighting the macro trend. The need to raise taxes, protectionism, backlash against capitalism itself, etc. It's just a backdrop where emotions can easily overrun reason. I think if we can get thru next year with favorable IMF/UK elections/US elections results, we can probably breathe a big sigh of relief. And at that point, Cramer is the one who's gonna have to expend his last breadth to fight for his cap gains and dividends b/c without trans tax those taxes must go up. Till then we do everything we can to hold back the evil.
 
My mistake, DeFazio's bill is mainly to raise money, although he is making it a point to penalize people he thinks have ill-gotten gains.
 
Back
Top