Big Idea
The New York Times published their annual The Year in Ideas. The Best idea–a Stock Transfer Tax.
Want to prevent bouts of speculative mania like those that sparked the current financial crisis? Here’s a simple but effective cure: impose a small tax on the sale or transfer of stocks, bonds, derivatives and other securities, thereby encouraging people to “buy and hold” rather than to engage in the frenetic transactions typical of a speculative bubble…
The basic idea of a stock transfer tax is an old one, and economists who have voiced support for variations of it in the past include Lawrence Summers and Joseph Stiglitz. But Baker also sees new uses for a transfer tax, noting that it would have an especially powerful effect on financiers who traffic in the sort of esoteric securities that are at the heart of the current mess. “If you had a complex derivative instrument based on slicing and dicing securities,” Baker says, “you would end up having to pay tax several different times.” To those who complain that the tax would make the creation of these instruments prohibitively expensive, Baker is blunt: “That’s the idea.”
This reminded me the role of resistance in electrical circuits. Excessive reverberation is dampened by resistors. They can be made variable. They can also be controlled by derived parameters to make the circuits adaptive. I think they are called adaptive filters.
This reminded me the role of resistance in electrical circuits. Excessive reverberation is dampened by resistors. They can be made variable. They can also be controlled by derived parameters to make the circuits adaptive. I think they are called adaptive filters.
Anthony Pellicano got 15 years for wiretapping. George Bust should get 15 light years.
Hollywood Investigator Sentenced to 15 Years
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 15, 2008
Filed at 6:50 p.m. ET
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Hollywood private eye Anthony Pellicano has been sentenced to 15 years in prison for running a wiretapping scheme that spied on the rich and famous.
Anthony Pellicano got 15 years for wiretapping. George Bust should get 15 light years.
Hollywood Investigator Sentenced to 15 Years
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 15, 2008
Filed at 6:50 p.m. ET
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Hollywood private eye Anthony Pellicano has been sentenced to 15 years in prison for running a wiretapping scheme that spied on the rich and famous.
I’m not familiar with foreign financial markets, but don’t some of them have a small tax on stock trades? If so, how is it working out for them?
I’m not familiar with foreign financial markets, but don’t some of them have a small tax on stock trades? If so, how is it working out for them?
VBM – You sure you are in the right thread?
Jon, this seems like to good of an idea but it does strike at the heart of the free-market republicans and thousands of gambling stock holders who think they got ahold of the ride to retirement and becoming a millionaire dream every time they make a trade.
How can we make this one happen without falling into that partisan trap called congress?
VBM – You sure you are in the right thread?
Jon, this seems like to good of an idea but it does strike at the heart of the free-market republicans and thousands of gambling stock holders who think they got ahold of the ride to retirement and becoming a millionaire dream every time they make a trade.
How can we make this one happen without falling into that partisan trap called congress?
rhbee1
This thread looked as good as any of them.
rhbee1
This thread looked as good as any of them.
There was a little piece on sports radio the other day about the new age of “firsts.” Seems that manipulators of data have a field day with the deep mine of sports stats. So we have the stats whizzes telling us of the “first left-handed pitcher from Utah to pitch more than three complete games before the Allstar break in an odd-numbered year where the last digit is not one.” Can anyone tell me honestly which, if any, “derivative” has any more utility, infield or otherwise, than this kind of slice-and-dice? There are already some pretty straightforward ways to hedge more honest investments without recourse to these computer-generated zombies that are eating the faces off the still-living as we speak.
I remember seeing a reprint of the front page of the Chicago newspaper from around 1885. One of the lead stories was about the then-recent conviction of a couple of nascent high-fliers who were betting on the future price of cattle and corn. Back then. that kind of transaction was a CRIME, if you can believe it.
Shee-it, Jethro, from what I read, the barter economy is growing apace — maybe the medium of exchange is not so amenable to computerization and manipulation and taxation, but aren’t those “attributes” what caused the present troubles in the first place?
There was a little piece on sports radio the other day about the new age of “firsts.” Seems that manipulators of data have a field day with the deep mine of sports stats. So we have the stats whizzes telling us of the “first left-handed pitcher from Utah to pitch more than three complete games before the Allstar break in an odd-numbered year where the last digit is not one.” Can anyone tell me honestly which, if any, “derivative” has any more utility, infield or otherwise, than this kind of slice-and-dice? There are already some pretty straightforward ways to hedge more honest investments without recourse to these computer-generated zombies that are eating the faces off the still-living as we speak.
I remember seeing a reprint of the front page of the Chicago newspaper from around 1885. One of the lead stories was about the then-recent conviction of a couple of nascent high-fliers who were betting on the future price of cattle and corn. Back then. that kind of transaction was a CRIME, if you can believe it.
Shee-it, Jethro, from what I read, the barter economy is growing apace — maybe the medium of exchange is not so amenable to computerization and manipulation and taxation, but aren’t those “attributes” what caused the present troubles in the first place?
There was a little piece on sports radio the other day about the new age of “firsts.” Seems that manipulators of data have a field day with the deep mine of sports stats. So we have the stats whizzes telling us of the “first left-handed pitcher from Utah to pitch more than three complete games before the Allstar break in an odd-numbered year where the last digit is not one.” Can anyone tell me honestly which, if any, “derivative” has any more utility, infield or otherwise, than this kind of slice-and-dice? There are already some pretty straightforward ways to hedge more honest investments without recourse to these computer-generated zombies that are eating the faces off the still-living as we speak.
I remember seeing a reprint of the front page of the Chicago newspaper from around 1885. One of the lead stories was about the then-recent conviction of a couple of nascent high-fliers who were betting on the future price of cattle and corn. Back then. that kind of transaction was a CRIME, if you can believe it.
Shee-it, Jethro, from what I read, the barter economy is growing apace — maybe the medium of exchange is not so amenable to computerization and manipulation and taxation, but aren’t those “attributes” what caused the present troubles in the first place?
JT: I was having the debate with myself in the wee hours of the morning as to the real benefits of the web to society. Pervasive communications are not a cure all. The fact that we can mine for patterns in data doesn’t mean we have successfully induced relationships. Again, functions over value.
What Jon is talking about is a form of negative feedback. A control is put over a transfer function such that with every iteration, a value is extracted/subtracted and rerouted. This may have the effect as Akira notes of damping the frequency of the function (firing rate) but only if the value extracted actually does create a negative feedback to another function (the authority/control of the derived value) which is observing the output change main value and has a rule which reduces the firing rate based on a the lower value of the output.
IOW, unless it hurts, it won’t work. It is an observer-centric universe in which the internal values of the observer act as derived values. Welcome to cybenetics and third order systems.
When we were working on HumanML, the idea was to use emotional models to drive selection behaviors for selection behaviors given a basic set of emotional polarities that act as circuits for routing these values. Then someone patented the ideas.
JT: I was having the debate with myself in the wee hours of the morning as to the real benefits of the web to society. Pervasive communications are not a cure all. The fact that we can mine for patterns in data doesn’t mean we have successfully induced relationships. Again, functions over value.
What Jon is talking about is a form of negative feedback. A control is put over a transfer function such that with every iteration, a value is extracted/subtracted and rerouted. This may have the effect as Akira notes of damping the frequency of the function (firing rate) but only if the value extracted actually does create a negative feedback to another function (the authority/control of the derived value) which is observing the output change main value and has a rule which reduces the firing rate based on a the lower value of the output.
IOW, unless it hurts, it won’t work. It is an observer-centric universe in which the internal values of the observer act as derived values. Welcome to cybenetics and third order systems.
When we were working on HumanML, the idea was to use emotional models to drive selection behaviors for selection behaviors given a basic set of emotional polarities that act as circuits for routing these values. Then someone patented the ideas.
JT: I was having the debate with myself in the wee hours of the morning as to the real benefits of the web to society. Pervasive communications are not a cure all. The fact that we can mine for patterns in data doesn’t mean we have successfully induced relationships. Again, functions over value.
What Jon is talking about is a form of negative feedback. A control is put over a transfer function such that with every iteration, a value is extracted/subtracted and rerouted. This may have the effect as Akira notes of damping the frequency of the function (firing rate) but only if the value extracted actually does create a negative feedback to another function (the authority/control of the derived value) which is observing the output change main value and has a rule which reduces the firing rate based on a the lower value of the output.
IOW, unless it hurts, it won’t work. It is an observer-centric universe in which the internal values of the observer act as derived values. Welcome to cybenetics and third order systems.
When we were working on HumanML, the idea was to use emotional models to drive selection behaviors for selection behaviors given a basic set of emotional polarities that act as circuits for routing these values. Then someone patented the ideas.
JT: I was having the debate with myself in the wee hours of the morning as to the real benefits of the web to society. Pervasive communications are not a cure all. The fact that we can mine for patterns in data doesn’t mean we have successfully induced relationships. Again, functions over value.
What Jon is talking about is a form of negative feedback. A control is put over a transfer function such that with every iteration, a value is extracted/subtracted and rerouted. This may have the effect as Akira notes of damping the frequency of the function (firing rate) but only if the value extracted actually does create a negative feedback to another function (the authority/control of the derived value) which is observing the output change main value and has a rule which reduces the firing rate based on a the lower value of the output.
IOW, unless it hurts, it won’t work. It is an observer-centric universe in which the internal values of the observer act as derived values. Welcome to cybenetics and third order systems.
When we were working on HumanML, the idea was to use emotional models to drive selection behaviors for selection behaviors given a basic set of emotional polarities that act as circuits for routing these values. Then someone patented the ideas.
I don’t see the difference between this ‘tax’ and a ‘transaction fee’ such as all brokers charge.
Basically, a calculus plays out in the trader’s mind: ‘How much do I make with this sale/transfer after all fees are subtracted?’
Thus, the only way I can see this tax working is if it imposes a price stiff enough to deter the transaction.
It just goes back 30 years or so when only the stuffy old brokers were around, before Charlie Schwab popularized the notion of the ‘discount broker’ and transaction fees became dirt cheap.
So an alternative approach would be to set a floor on transaction fees, whether transfers or sales. The tax does help to win support (financial) for the government from the investing community, which has gotten a remarkable series of tax breaks since 2001.
I don’t see the difference between this ‘tax’ and a ‘transaction fee’ such as all brokers charge.
Basically, a calculus plays out in the trader’s mind: ‘How much do I make with this sale/transfer after all fees are subtracted?’
Thus, the only way I can see this tax working is if it imposes a price stiff enough to deter the transaction.
It just goes back 30 years or so when only the stuffy old brokers were around, before Charlie Schwab popularized the notion of the ‘discount broker’ and transaction fees became dirt cheap.
So an alternative approach would be to set a floor on transaction fees, whether transfers or sales. The tax does help to win support (financial) for the government from the investing community, which has gotten a remarkable series of tax breaks since 2001.
I don’t see the difference between this ‘tax’ and a ‘transaction fee’ such as all brokers charge.
Basically, a calculus plays out in the trader’s mind: ‘How much do I make with this sale/transfer after all fees are subtracted?’
Thus, the only way I can see this tax working is if it imposes a price stiff enough to deter the transaction.
It just goes back 30 years or so when only the stuffy old brokers were around, before Charlie Schwab popularized the notion of the ‘discount broker’ and transaction fees became dirt cheap.
So an alternative approach would be to set a floor on transaction fees, whether transfers or sales. The tax does help to win support (financial) for the government from the investing community, which has gotten a remarkable series of tax breaks since 2001.
pond,
“remarkable series of tax breaks” is such an understatement. And it wasn’t limited to the investor class, toss corporate taxes into the mix and you get the basic plot line for a bookend to the Griffin film called “Death of a Nation.”
Oh, I am so chipper and upbeat this morning. Will take my bad attitude and go do some chores.
pond,
“remarkable series of tax breaks” is such an understatement. And it wasn’t limited to the investor class, toss corporate taxes into the mix and you get the basic plot line for a bookend to the Griffin film called “Death of a Nation.”
Oh, I am so chipper and upbeat this morning. Will take my bad attitude and go do some chores.
pond,
“remarkable series of tax breaks” is such an understatement. And it wasn’t limited to the investor class, toss corporate taxes into the mix and you get the basic plot line for a bookend to the Griffin film called “Death of a Nation.”
Oh, I am so chipper and upbeat this morning. Will take my bad attitude and go do some chores.
pond,
“remarkable series of tax breaks” is such an understatement. And it wasn’t limited to the investor class, toss corporate taxes into the mix and you get the basic plot line for a bookend to the Griffin film called “Death of a Nation.”
Oh, I am so chipper and upbeat this morning. Will take my bad attitude and go do some chores.
I have another solution. From here on out, I plan to put my investments into FDIC-guaranteed CD’s. The nominal return is lower. For instance, in a given year, I might only make 3% while somebody else makes 25% on their stocks.
Then when the Steal It All Now crowd swings through town again (and they’ll be back, oh they will be back), I’ll still have my yearly 3% gains, and the guys with money in stocks will lose all of their gains, and then some.
If enough people start doing that, here is the inevitable eventual result:
1. The stock market becomes less important as an investment vehicle, and therefore the corruption and cheating go down, because there’s no longer enough money to steal.
2. FDIC-backed investments become far more important as investment vehicles, and therefore the Steal It All Now party will come up with clever, secret ways to gut those investments and still leave us with nothing after decades of hard work and investment.
So it’s a win-win-win, if you’re a member of the Steal It All Now party. With a little luck, I’ll die before they wake up to the FDIC-guaranteed gold mine.
I have another solution. From here on out, I plan to put my investments into FDIC-guaranteed CD’s. The nominal return is lower. For instance, in a given year, I might only make 3% while somebody else makes 25% on their stocks.
Then when the Steal It All Now crowd swings through town again (and they’ll be back, oh they will be back), I’ll still have my yearly 3% gains, and the guys with money in stocks will lose all of their gains, and then some.
If enough people start doing that, here is the inevitable eventual result:
1. The stock market becomes less important as an investment vehicle, and therefore the corruption and cheating go down, because there’s no longer enough money to steal.
2. FDIC-backed investments become far more important as investment vehicles, and therefore the Steal It All Now party will come up with clever, secret ways to gut those investments and still leave us with nothing after decades of hard work and investment.
So it’s a win-win-win, if you’re a member of the Steal It All Now party. With a little luck, I’ll die before they wake up to the FDIC-guaranteed gold mine.
I have another solution. From here on out, I plan to put my investments into FDIC-guaranteed CD’s. The nominal return is lower. For instance, in a given year, I might only make 3% while somebody else makes 25% on their stocks.
Then when the Steal It All Now crowd swings through town again (and they’ll be back, oh they will be back), I’ll still have my yearly 3% gains, and the guys with money in stocks will lose all of their gains, and then some.
If enough people start doing that, here is the inevitable eventual result:
1. The stock market becomes less important as an investment vehicle, and therefore the corruption and cheating go down, because there’s no longer enough money to steal.
2. FDIC-backed investments become far more important as investment vehicles, and therefore the Steal It All Now party will come up with clever, secret ways to gut those investments and still leave us with nothing after decades of hard work and investment.
So it’s a win-win-win, if you’re a member of the Steal It All Now party. With a little luck, I’ll die before they wake up to the FDIC-guaranteed gold mine.