Occupy Wall Street Demands Global UN Tax and Worldwide G20 Protest

[mick silver]

http://www.thedailybell.com/3111/Occupy-Wall-Street-Demands-Global-UN-Tax-and-Worldwide-G20-Protest ... it will not be long before we are taxed for the air we breath ... thanks to george soros again and people just dont see this .
Occupy's busting out on a new path ... So Adbusters is asking people all around the world to march on Oct. 29. "We want to send a clear message that we the people want to slow down this global casino." And Adbusters does have one specific demand, a 1 percent tax on financial-sector transactions (perhaps stocks, bonds, foreign-currency trades and derivatives). Some form of that idea, known as the "Robin Hood" tax, has been around for a while and might actually fly. – Jerry Large/Seattle Times
Dominant Social Theme: We want justice for the world and the UN (http://javascript<b></b>:showWindow(500,800,'/floatWindow.cfm?id=1848');) will give it to us.
Free-Market Analysis: Kalle Lasn, founder of Adbusters magazine, based in Vancouver, B.C. – the magazine that issued the call for the initial Occupy Wall Street (http://javascript<b></b>:showWindow(500,800,'/floatWindow.cfm?id=3048');) protests – has called on people to protest the upcoming G20 while demanding a one-percent tax on financial transactions.
The revenue raised would be enormous and the lingering question is where this incredible revenue stream would be directed. The answer is obvious to those who follow what we call "directed history." The intention is likely to fund the UN as part of a final push to rationalize and perfect the initial stages of true world government.
As we have written before, the movement toward world government is happening very quickly now. The ramifications are enormous and people who write off these protests as spontaneous and short-lived are not grasping what is taking place, in our humble opinion.
The financial sales tax has been around for a very long time but has found its most recent voice in a column by Jerry Large of the Seattle Times. He recently gained an exclusive interview with Kalle Lasn, who sounds as if he hopes that a large protest on Oct 29th will mark the beginning of a push for such a tax.
What's going on is pure one-worldism, an OWS ideology that is gradually revealing itself in dribs and drabs. It is one reason that that the OWS leaders have made no specific demands. They have hoped to create a momentum, apparently, before revealing what they are truly after. The movement seems to be part of a larger wave of directed history that has been in play for at least a century and is now reaching a dénouement.
The one-percent tax has been a staple of United Nations demands for more than a decade. Google UN and "one-percent tax" and plenty of information will appear – over three million citations, in fact.
Way back in 1996, a post appearing on "Americasfuture.net," entitled "U.N. Tax Threatens U.S. Sovereignty," explained that United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali wanted a tax of this sort to make the UN "independent."
Boutros-Ghali wants to finance the nearly bankrupt United Nations by imposing a global tax on foreign exchange transactions. A mere half-of-one-percent tax on these transactions would generate an astounding $1.5 trillion ... The important thing is to establish an independent revenue source.
Lasn doesn't make mention of the UN angle, though it is perfectly possible when demands for this movement are finally fleshed out that we shall discover this tax is to be administered by the UN. For us the entire gamut of protests now occurring are part of a power elite (http://javascript<b></b>:showWindow(500,800,'/floatWindow.cfm?id=610');) strategy to advance world government.
There is ample evidence that the movement's impetus came in part from US State Dept. facilities created to finance and organize "youth movements" around the world and has had significant input from American Intel and military agencies. This makes sense within the context of Occupy Wall Street's unstated Leftist agenda.
False flag movements generated by the powers-that-be are invariably statist, because that is how they maintain and expand control. Government is a big part of the command-and-control equation, especially if you're trying to build a "new world order (http://javascript<b></b>:showWindow(500,800,'/floatWindow.cfm?id=2045');)." Those involved intimately in Occupy Wall Street would seem to have a leftist agenda, as we've document in numerous articles now. But they also may be willing participants in a false flag venture.
David McGraw, one of the non-leader leaders of the movement, has no journalistic profile going back farther than two years from what we can tell, which is odd to say the least. Mat Taibbi poses as a muck-raker but the solutions he has recently and publicly contributed are extremely statist and tax-oriented. Leftist Adbuster's magazine is at least to some extent funded by the Soros one-world crowd. Here's some more from the article:
Adbusters magazine, based in Vancouver, B.C., issued the first call for people to occupy Wall Street. In its July issue the magazine asked for 20,000 people to show up on Sept. 17. A month in, I asked Adbusters founder Kalle Lasn how he thought the action was going. "As far as the birth of movements goes, I can't imagine a better beginning," he said. It's been wild and messy, he said, but he believes that's to the good. It has people talking, trying to figure out what those folks want.
What Lasn wants is clearer. For two decades, the international magazine has been attacking consumer capitalism (http://javascript<b></b>:showWindow(500,800,'/floatWindow.cfm?id=1903');) as the center of many of the world's ills. He'd like an economic system friendlier to humans and to the environment ... The demonstrators are saying they want a different kind of future. Lasn says they are learning from each other different ways to eat, to get around, to collaborate, different ways to get information ... People feel in the pits of their stomachs that things are not right economically or politically. He praised the Tea Party (http://javascript<b></b>:showWindow(500,800,'/floatWindow.cfm?id=1878');) for recognizing that and trying to do something about it, even though he doesn't agree with its diagnosis ...
Now in the Occupy movement, he said, "the political left has showed some chutzpah." But ultimately, he said, the solutions won't be found by clinging rigidly to the left or right. "We want to have more variety and more debate and to get rid of the corruption at the heart of our system." In two weeks, leaders of the G-20 (the world's largest economies) will meet in France, and Adbusters wants to send them a message. At the least, it may get people thinking a different path is possible.
Lasn's language is revealing. He wants to "get rid of the corruption at the heart of the system." In fact, there is no corruption at the heart of the system. It is the system ITSELF that is corrupt. But it's Lasn's job as an apparent employee of the world's great banking families to position the dialogue in a way that is most advantageous to the expansion of global governance.
No doubt there will be protests on October 29th. The controlled mainstream media (http://javascript<b></b>:showWindow(500,800,'/floatWindow.cfm?id=1861');) will make sure they occur. The Anglosphere (http://javascript<b></b>:showWindow(500,800,'/floatWindow.cfm?id=956');) power elite has now deliberately set in motion a series of protests designed to leverage and focus the Western middle class's current rage over the failing worldwide economy by providing behind-the-scenes command and control.
Next may come demands for more globalist solutions to ensure that "transparency" is implemented in government along with so-called "direct democracy (http://javascript<b></b>:showWindow(500,800,'/floatWindow.cfm?id=1862');)" – as we have analyzed them in the recent past. Even the way forward is beginning to become clear. McGraw, Taibbi and Julian Assange (http://javascript<b></b>:showWindow(500,800,'/floatWindow.cfm?id=2624');) of WikiLeaks fame are all involved in this movement as young leaders, and all seem to us, possibly anyway, part of a kind of directed history as well.
They are the stars of the show and the masses of young protesters following them are the manipulated "extras" that provide credibility for the larger movement in an unknowing way. And this is why we have floated the idea that libertarians ought to "get out and get out now." Start another movement that uses the Occupy Wall Street notoriety without providing it further viability. That's what Alex Jones (http://javascript<b></b>:showWindow(500,800,'/floatWindow.cfm?id=3033');) did with his newly-created anti-Fed (http://javascript<b></b>:showWindow(500,800,'/floatWindow.cfm?id=1855');)movement. It likely can be done.
Conclusion: What is surprising is the boldness with which the great banking families and their enablers and associates are moving. Perhaps they are panicked by what we call the Internet Reformation (http://javascript<b></b>:showWindow(500,800,'/floatWindow.cfm?id=2195');) and its truth telling, which has fully exposed their strategies and existence as never before. Perhaps, swaddled by unimaginable wealth and power, they just don't care

[Joe King]

Occupy Wall Street Demands Global UN Tax

F'in idiots. Don't they realize that's exactly what the so-called 1% they think they're protesting against wants to have happen?

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

The title is a bit misleading. No one is calling for any taxes to fund the UN that I've seen but there are plenty of calls to tax the financial transactions that led to the financial crisis ie derivatives. It's been documented plenty of times that even a .01% tax on derivatives could lead to over a trillion dollars in revenue. The issue at that point is who gets that revenue.

[Joe King]

The title is a bit misleading. No one is calling for any taxes to fund the UN that I've seen but there are plenty of calls to tax the financial transactions that led to the financial crisis ie derivatives. It's been documented plenty of times that even a .01% tax on derivatives could lead to over a trillion dollars in revenue. The issue at that point is who gets that revenue.Apprently they want that "who" to be the UN. If so, I'll say it again. F'in idiots. More taxes for any gov is not the answer.

Besides, how do they not realize that the cost of any tax imposed is not simply passed along to the customer? Which ultimately means you and me.

[keehah]

The article is the deception (or at least another one).


The revenue raised would be enormous and the lingering question is where this incredible revenue stream would be directed. The answer is obvious to those who follow what we call "directed history."

Yes the current people in government will waste this money or worse. Regardless of that, the tax will act as a financial disincentive to some of the ponzi banking schemes that caused the larger crisis.

Can't say I'm for the tax though because they will probably include money conversions as well. They should just treat the bankers like the rest of us and charge the VAT tax on JP Morgan Derivatives just like they do for financial disincentive for rest of the economy. And like the rest of us, no rebates when value is destroyed! A VAT would also ensure money to money transactions (includes gold and silver) are not taxed.

[Joe King]

How about no new taxes at all? VAT or otherwise.

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

Apprently they want that "who" to be the UN. If so, I'll say it again. F'in idiots. More taxes for any gov is not the answer.

Besides, how do they not realize that the cost of any tax imposed is not simply passed along to the customer? Which ultimately means you and me.

I can't find this documented anywhere that the protestors want more power to the UN. Can you direct me to your sources?

[Joe King]

I can't find this documented anywhere that the protestors want more power to the UN. Can you direct me to your sources?I was just goin' by what Mick posted in the Op.

On the condition they don't want more taxes in any form and absolutely do not want UN involvement in "fixing things", I take back my f'in idiots comment.

[Horn]

Protest for 1%?

That's just silly, If you've made the trip you should take nothing less than 100%?

[Joe King]

Protest for (the) 1%? Yep. If they actually want a World or UN tax they're unwittingly doing what the 1% they protest against, want.

[joboo]

"it will not be long before we are taxed for the air we breath"


Uhh hello, it's called the carbon tax.

[Neuro]

The one percent tax on financial transactions was tried in Sweden in the late 80's, the money went to labor union controlled funds. The stock market transactions went down to aproximately 100 million kronas/day, whereas nowadays the average is around 20 Billion kronas/day. What happened back then was that many big Swedish companies took their stocks abroad (to London and New York primarily) and much of the transaction in Swedish companies was abroad, so the tax revenues was in a decline. However if it was done on a global level it could work, certainly the rate of financial transactions would decrease (high frequency trading would go away), investments would be geared towards the long term, possibly it alone could fund small governments worldwide (I don't at all agree that the tax should go to the UN), without any other tax being leveled on the citizens. Something to be considered IMO, primarily it would hurt the bankers...

[Joe King]

primarily it would hurt the bankers... ...
If all the bankers need do is raise the fees their customers pay in order to cover the new tax, what good does it do?

If a law can be passed to create a World wide tax like that, why not just pass a law that prohibits high frequency trading and be done with it?

ETA: no matter who is taxed or how they're taxed, the people end up paying all taxes. Officially charging the tax to something else merely offers the illusion that someone or something else is paying it.

[Neuro]

If all the bankers need do is raise the fees their customers pay in order to cover the new tax, what good does it do?

If a law can be passed to create a World wide tax like that, why not just pass a law that prohibits high frequency trading and be done with it?

ETA: no matter who is taxed or how they're taxed, the people end up paying all taxes. Officially charging the tax to something else merely offers the illusion that someone or something else is paying it.
The bankers earn their money on hundreds of billions being shuffled around the world on rumours alone daily, a tax on financial transactions would stop that, better than any law could do, we will have far less bankers and the world would be a better place, period.

[Joe King]

The bankers earn their money on hundreds of billions being shuffled around the world on rumours alone daily, a tax on financial transactions would stop that, better than any law could do, we will have far less bankers and the world would be a better place, period.So then they just pass that tax along to you in the form of higher fees and keep trading the same way.

Remember, any taxes or fees charged to financial firms or any other business do nothing but hit the people {you me and everyone else} in the wallet. Businesses do not pay any taxes no matter the rate charged.

[Neuro]

So then they just pass that tax along to you in the form of higher fees and keep trading the same way.

Remember, any taxes or fees charged to financial firms or any other business do nothing but hit the people {you me and everyone else} in the wallet. Businesses do not pay any taxes no matter the rate charged.
Tell me how they would pass along the tax to me and keep their income as the financial trading business shrinks to a hundredth of what it used to be? If they started charging $2000 for a banking account I wouldn't have one (I don't have on as it is), what I have found though is that they have started charging customers all sorts of fees, for the privilige of having a bank account and a loan, are you predicting that they will up these fees 100's of times to compensate for the loss of trading revenue? They would be without customers pretty quickly, prople are at the edge as it is with their ridiculous fees!

[Joe King]

Tell me how they would pass along the tax to me and keep their income as the financial trading business shrinks to a hundredth of what it used to be? If they started charging $2000 for a banking account I wouldn't have one (I don't have on as it is), what I have found though is that they have started charging customers all sorts of fees, for the privilige of having a bank account and a loan, are you predicting that they will up these fees 100's of times to compensate for the loss of trading revenue? They would be without customers pretty quickly, prople are at the edge as it is with their ridiculous fees!
I'm saying they'll do the same as any other business and pass along, in one way or another, all taxes they are charged.

[keehah]

So then they just pass that tax along to you in the form of higher fees and keep trading the same way.

But there will be less of it. Tax as disincentive. Economics 101.

Where is the line between smart man playing a fool for effect and the devil or other such bad ego?

Oh and BTW Joe, I figure you would like this link (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/slavetobanks.php).

[Joe King]

But there will be less of it. Tax as disincentive. Economics 101.

Where is the line between smart man playing a fool for effect and the devil or other such bad ego?

Oh and BTW Joe, I figure you would like this link (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/slavetobanks.php).I just can't believe that anyone, especially anyone here, would think the "answer" to anything is more taxes.

Besides, to tax as a disencentive is morally and ethicly unjust.
ie it makes a mockery of what taxes are supposed to be.

[keehah]

Besides, to tax as a disencentive is morally and ethicly unjust.
Your morals and ethics don't apply here (you Devil! (joking) ). Every tax is a disencentive. Its what taxes are.

[Joe King]

Your morals and ethics don't apply here (you Devil! (joking) ). Every tax is a disencentive. Its what taxes are.
That's not they're purpose. Taxes are merely to fund gov and nothing more. What you're talking about is but an unwanted side-effect.....which is why they need to be kept low or even non-existant.

Besides that, you haven't explained how the businesses are unable to pass along their higher tax cost.

All businesses do is figure up all expenses {including taxes} and balance them against how much they charge for their product or service they offer. In that balancing they typically lower the payroll or raise prices.
Both of which end up with you paying their taxes.

[Santa]

Abusters are the ones who are making this demand, not the protestors.

Adbusters is a front group for George Soros.

The heading of this article is total bullshit.

My No.1 demand is that government disengage from the International Bankster Cabal for starters.

[Joe King]

Abusters are the ones who are making this demand, not the protestors.

Adbusters is a front group for George Soros.

The heading of this article is total bullshit.Well, that makes better sense then. Thanks for the clarification. :)



My No.1 demand is that government disengage from the International Bankster Cabal for starters.I agree. You could also say that in reverse, too, Santa. lol

[Neuro]

I just can't believe that anyone, especially anyone here, would think the "answer" to anything is more taxes.

Besides, to tax as a disencentive is morally and ethicly unjust.
ie it makes a mockery of what taxes are supposed to be.
Well high frequency trading is morally and ethically unjust too. Where the bank goes in and presses up the price of the stock one of their customers has sent an order to the bank to buy. A small tax on financial transactions, would stop that, and if that tax revenue replaces tax on work or capital gains or preferably both, then it would be a step up IMO...

Why on earth should financial transactions not be taxed when everything else is. I do think a much smaller government is warranted, but there are a few things necessary for a functioning society (an uncorrupted judicial system is one) that needs public financing, and taxing financial transactions is one of the best ways of financing that IMO...

[Joe King]

Well high frequency trading is morally and ethically unjust too.
So why not just ask the gov to ban it out of existence as opposed to asking the gov to also fatten its revenue stream off of it?
I'd prefer they pass a law that said they have to hold their purchase for at least an hour.



Where the bank goes in and presses up the price of the stock one of their customers has sent an order to the bank to buy. A small tax on financial transactions, would stop that, and if that tax revenue replaces tax on work or capital gains or preferably both, then it would be a step up IMO...You're still not addressing my question about how do you propose preventing them from including the cost of the tax as part of their business expense and passing it along?
ie same as they do with every other tax and fee they get charged.




Why on earth should financial transactions not be taxed when everything else is. I do think a much smaller government is warranted, but there are a few things necessary for a functioning society (an uncorrupted judicial system is one) that needs public financing, and taxing financial transactions is one of the best ways of financing that IMO...Are you taxed when you buy stock or bonds or whatever it is that is supposedly being bought or sold via high frequency trading?

[Shami-Amourae]

Normally I think David Icke is nuts, but he puts it pretty good here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV9A2IGShuk

[Neuro]

Joe they can't pass on the expense of their loss of income from high frequency trading, or any other financial transaction they do for themselves. They can only pass on the tax of financial transactions that they do for customers to the customers.

High frequency trading account for probably more than 70% of all trading activity, and basically the banks steals some of their customers wealth with each transaction lasting generally at the most a few seconds. It doesn't add anything positive to humanity, and it is probable that it may be responsible for the recent 'flash crashes' we have seen. Sure one can create rules that a person is not able to sell a position within a stipulated time frame, but such a rule is easily circumvented by creating another juristic person that sells the position that was bought a fraction of a second earlier.

Putting a tax on financial transactions will mean one thing for certain, there will be less of them, and that in itself would be a good thing, short term financial transactions doesn't create wealth, it only redistributes it, from producers, to banksters. Long term investments in production of goods and valuable services will not suffer, because the tax revenue from financial transactions will be used to decrease the tax on labor and capital gains...

A financial transaction tax will only hurt the banksters, and would refocus the economy on what builds wealth, production of goods and services instead of speculation...

[Joe King]

Joe they can't pass on the expense of their loss of income from high frequency trading, or any other financial transaction they do for themselves. They can only pass on the tax of financial transactions that they do for customers to the customers.You're saying to actually charge someone else the tax as the tax.
That's not what I'm talking about.
What I'm saying is that the tax will simply just add to their total cost of doing business and they'll mitigate that cost by raising the prices they charge their customers.
In the case of the banks, they'll just bump up their fees and/or adjust their wage structure and/or have fewer workers.

Again, why not just ban the activity?



High frequency trading account for probably more than 70% of all trading activity, and basically the banks steals some of their customers wealth with each transaction lasting generally at the most a few seconds. It doesn't add anything positive to humanity, and it is probable that it may be responsible for the recent 'flash crashes' we have seen. Sure one can create rules that a person is not able to sell a position within a stipulated time frame, but such a rule is easily circumvented by creating another juristic person that sells the position that was bought a fraction of a second earlier.I understand how it works. Again, why not just ban the activity?



Putting a tax on financial transactions will mean one thing for certain, there will be less of them, and that in itself would be a good thing,If less is good, none should double plus good times ten. So why not just ban the activity?


short term financial transactions doesn't create wealth, it only redistributes it, from producers, to banksters. Long term investments in production of goods and valuable services will not suffer, because the tax revenue from financial transactions will be used to decrease the tax on labor and capital gains...Labor is the who would be paying anyways either through higher fees lower wages or inferior products. ie no matter who you tax, labor already pays it. You're just suggesting it be hidden from them.



A financial transaction tax will only hurt the banksters, and would refocus the economy on what builds wealth, production of goods and services instead of speculation...That tax will be one of the reasons they'll raise banking fees and people will pay it for them.


Edited to add: Great video Shami....thanks for posting that. Spot-on.

[Neuro]

Here is your answer to your question Joe:

High frequency trading account for probably more than 70% of all trading activity, and basically the banks steals some of their customers wealth with each transaction lasting generally at the most a few seconds. It doesn't add anything positive to humanity, and it is probable that it may be responsible for the recent 'flash crashes' we have seen. Sure one can create rules that a person is not able to sell a position within a stipulated time frame, but such a rule is easily circumvented by creating another juristic person that sells the position that was bought a fraction of a second earlier.


I understand how it works. Again, why not just ban the activity?


Hidden in plain sight!

[Shami-Amourae]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__3POd7N8K0

[Neuro]

I predict that with a 2% sales tax on high frequency trading and other short term financial transactions, banks would simply stop doing these trades. Sure they can try and put their lack of income from these activities on their customer base via a raise of fees, but they would only lose customers, people would just stop doing business with a bank with unreasonable fee structure. Personally I think they are already unreasonable, a better option for the bank would be to cut costs when their business drops, fire staff, cut down on bonuses, stop building glass sky scrapers, political campaign contributions, bribing regulators... All those things are fine IMO, and occurs naturally in a business forced to downsizing, when the business environment turns sour...

[Horn]

A Zionist banker is the same Babylonian banker.

Any percent transfer tax, or added law just adds an excuse for their existence, and effectively shuts down & inflates the financial economy further.

A temporary mid term goal.

[mightymanx]

I predict that with a 2% sales tax on high frequency trading and other short term financial transactions, banks would simply stop doing these trades. Sure they can try and put their lack of income from these activities on their customer base via a raise of fees, but they would only lose customers, people would just stop doing business with a bank with unreasonable fee structure. Personally I think they are already unreasonable, a better option for the bank would be to cut costs when their business drops, fire staff, cut down on bonuses, stop building glass sky scrapers, political campaign contributions, bribing regulators... All those things are fine IMO, and occurs naturally in a business forced to downsizing, when the business environment turns sour...

I applaud your sentiment and faith on humanity, but I seriously doubt that will happen.

Look at ATM fees that range anywhere from $1.50-5.00 to use your own money. I heard that there was going to be a mass uprising back then when they did an across the board hike but everybody just rolled over and took it.

The same will happen again. Not using banks is a non starter for 99% of the people most all major employers don't even issue pay checks, DDS is required in most all government and major buisness jobs.

[Neuro]

Yes mightymanx however the financial transaction tax has already been tried in Sweden in the late 80's early 90's, as I have spoken about above, to my knowledge no ridiculous raise of banking fees occurred during that period, the banks just earned less money...

[Cebu_4_2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__3POd7N8K0

Libya in 5 years no?

[Joe King]

Here is your answer to your question Joe:

High frequency trading account for probably more than 70% of all trading activity, and basically the banks steals some of their customers wealth with each transaction lasting generally at the most a few seconds. It doesn't add anything positive to humanity, and it is probable that it may be responsible for the recent 'flash crashes' we have seen. Sure one can create rules that a person is not able to sell a position within a stipulated time frame, but such a rule is easily circumvented by creating another juristic person that sells the position that was bought a fraction of a second earlier.



Hidden in plain sight!

How does it get "transfered" to another, without it being sold? Are they giving it away?

[Joe King]

Yes mightymanx however the financial transaction tax has already been tried in Sweden in the late 80's early 90's, as I have spoken about above, to my knowledge no ridiculous raise of banking fees occurred during that period, the banks just earned less money...They've never raised fees for any of their services since then? If they have, those costs due to taxes are incorporated into the financial structure of their businesses.

[Horn]

Libya in 5 years no?

What a sad race of indigents.

[Neuro]

How does it get "transfered" to another, without it being sold? Are they giving it away?

Are you just being disengenious here? The two different entities can just clear the transactions between each other at the end of the day?

[Neuro]

They've never raised fees for any of their services since then? If they have, those costs due to taxes are incorporated into the financial structure of their businesses.

I think banks charge as high fees as they can get away with, regardless whether they can earn money on short term transactions or not, if they can't earn money on that, wouldn't mean that they can raise their already high fees in other areas to compensate, it just means they earn less, probably it would mean the opposite in a shrinking market for banks competition would get harder and they would have to lower fees ...

[Joe King]

Are you just being disengenious here? The two different entities can just clear the transactions between each other at the end of the day?
If at the end of the day, then whoever/whatever entity it was that bought it had to hold it for at least a little while, now didn't they?
I thought the whole point was to get rid of this buy/sell/cancel orders within fractions of a second that serve to manipulate the price an instant later for regular customers.
If they can't buy/sell/cancel within a fraction of second, it'll fix that problem. Because when you walk up 3 seconds later wanting to make a legitimate investment, you won't have had the price manipulated to their advantage one second prior to you doing so.




I think banks charge as high fees as they can get away with, regardless whether they can earn money on short term transactions or not, if they can't earn money on that, wouldn't mean that they can raise their already high fees in other areas to compensate, it just means they earn less, probably it would mean the opposite in a shrinking market for banks competition would get harder and they would have to lower fees ...If you've noticed, fees are going up. Aren't we currently in a shrinking market?

I'm just sayin' that a bank is like any other business in that it has to charge customers more than all it's expenses combined. If those expenses get added to, the price they charge will go up at some point and in some manner.

Take yourself as an example. You say you're a chiropractor, right? Well, assuming you have an office, you also have expenses for maintaining that office that must be taken into account relative to your pricing structure. Correct?
Lets suppose the gov imposes a tax on headrest paper because they want to disincentivize its use. Now you have an added expense you didn't previously have that makes it cost prohibitive to buy headreast paper....but you want to use it.

How do you do so without taking your new expense into account relative to your pricing structure? Even if you can't find a way to add a little bit to all your rates to make it back, you're still going to want to and will do so as soon as you see a way to justify it to your paitents.
Remember, this new tax is high enough to cause you to want to buy as little headrest paper as possible, but because headrest paper is important to your practice, you can't stop buying it. After all, 70% of your paitents would stop seeing you if you didn't use headrest paper as they don't want to put their face where the last persons sweaty face might have been.


If high frequency trading really does account for 70% of their profits, what makes you think they'll give that up over a 1% tax? No, they'll find a way to incorporate that cost into the overall cost of doing business and we'll all end up paying it for them in the form of higher prics, lower wages, or less services for the same price.

If this proposed tax is designed to disincentivize the practice, why not just ban it?

[Neuro]

Joe a 1% tax on financial transactions would eliminate high frequency trading, each trade adds maybe a hundredth of a percent of its nominal value as profit to the bank. I have already given you ample reason as to why a ban wouldn't work (Juristic person A buys a share, while juristic person B sells the same share fractions of seconds later, both are owned by JPM for instance, at the end of the day Juristic person A sells his share to B, alas a high frequency trade to place without violating the ban). What you are suggesting is that banks would continue do high frequency trading, despite losing money big on every trade, but they would pass these costs of high frequency trading on in other unrelated business segments...

Really? Can you see how ridiculous this proposition of yours is?

Assuming that a government would impose a tax that would render a chiropractic visit far more expensive than anyone would be willing to pay, and managed to impose that rule, I and every other chiropractor would stop seeing patients, officially at least, or possibly offer differentiated services. Lets say $666 for an adjustment with head rest paper, $60 for an adjustment without head rest paper. Those who couldn't bare lying in the profuse fear induced sweating of the prior client would bring maybe a handkerchief, instead of paying $666...

There is one caveat with the financial transaction tax, that is that it has to be applied everywhere, if one country doesn't apply it most financial transactions would move there, as seen in the Swedish experiment in late 80's, and that would necessitate a one world government, which I oppose more than anything, so even if the suggestion is good in theory it is a terrible suggestion practically...

[Joe King]

Joe a 1% tax on financial transactions would eliminate high frequency trading, each trade adds maybe a hundredth of a percent of its nominal value as profit to the bank. I have already given you ample reason as to why a ban wouldn't work (Juristic person A buys a share, while juristic person B sells the same share fractions of seconds later, both are owned by JPM for instance, at the end of the day Juristic person A sells his share to B, alas a high frequency trade to place without violating the ban). What you are suggesting is that banks would continue do high frequency trading, despite losing money big on every trade, but they would pass these costs of high frequency trading on in other unrelated business segments...You're ignoring the part I want to ban. I bolded it above.
ie ban selling in fractions of a second after purchase. Require all purchases to held for at least an hour. Perhaps a whole day, before being able to be traded again.



Really? Can you see how ridiculous this proposition of yours is?

Assuming that a government would impose a tax that would render a chiropractic visit far more expensive than anyone would be willing to pay, and managed to impose that rule, I and every other chiropractor would stop seeing patients, officially at least, or possibly offer differentiated services. Lets say $666 for an adjustment with head rest paper, $60 for an adjustment without head rest paper. Those who couldn't bare lying in the profuse fear induced sweating of the prior client would bring maybe a handkerchief, instead of paying $666...But you'd still find a way to mitigate your added costs, no?

You're saying yourself that you're not willing to absorb the cost. Which is my whole point about the banks and that tax you propose. They won't absorb it either.



There is one caveat with the financial transaction tax, that is that it has to be applied everywhere, if one country doesn't apply it most financial transactions would move there, as seen in the Swedish experiment in late 80's, and that would necessitate a one world government, which I oppose more than anything, so even if the suggestion is good in theory it is a terrible suggestion practically...Exactly. Imposing a tax like this requires a global structure to do so within.
Again, why would anyone think the answer to anything is more taxes.....on anything?

[Horn]

Whatever disastrous effects might occur, it must be made to appear as if it is the result of people & their Government retaliating against the Banking establishment.

One could only hope to control such a "vital" wild card internal enemy as the banking establishment, the fight itself justifies their existence in the card deck.

[Neuro]

You're ignoring the part I want to ban. I bolded it above.
ie ban selling in fractions of a second after purchase. Require all purchases to held for at least an hour. Perhaps a whole day, before being able to be traded again.
No, I have adressed it. Company A buys say IBM shares, B sells same amount of IBM a fraction of a second later, both A and B are owned by JPM, at the end of the day A sells IBM to B. A high frequency trade that was done without violating the ban you proposed...

Anyway it will all go away at the global financial collapse. Problem solved!

[Joe King]

No, I have adressed it. Company A buys say IBM shares, B sells same amount of IBM a fraction of a second later, both A and B are owned by JPM, at the end of the day A sells IBM to B. A high frequency trade that was done without violating the ban you proposed...Yes, it would violate it. You can't sell the same thing you just bought fractions of a second ago. ie problem solved with no global rulz and global gov to enforce said rulz.



Anyway it will all go away at the global financial collapse. Problem solved!Yes, that it will.

[Neuro]

Yes, it would violate it. You can't sell the same thing you just bought fractions of a second ago. ie problem solved with no global rulz and global gov to enforce said rulz.

It is 2 different juristic persons buying and selling IBM shares, non of them violates any high frequency bans separately... whats wrong with that?

[Joe King]

It is 2 different juristic persons buying and selling IBM shares, non of them violates any high frequency bans separately... whats wrong with that?
If both A and B are owned by JPM, then nothing transfered and JPM violated the law.

[Neuro]

If both A and B are owned by JPM, then nothing transfered and JPM violated the law.

Legally, you don't have a case, and even if you do it will take years to prove it in court. Happy high frequency trading!

[Joe King]

Legally, you don't have a case, and even if you do it will take years to prove it in court. Happy high frequency trading!
You said yourself that JPM owns both. You just proved the case.

Besides, you said yourself it was a bad idea. So why you still goin' on about how such a great idea it is?



and that would necessitate a one world government, which I oppose more than anything,How do you oppose it more than anything, but support something that will lead to it?

[Neuro]

Nice joejitsu!

[Joe King]

Nice joejitsu!Whatever.

You said yourself it was a bad idea, but refused to give up the hunt. lol

[Neuro]

Whatever.

You said yourself it was a bad idea, but refused to give up the hunt. lol
The discussion in the end was about your proposed ban on high frequency trading! And it will not work, even if it would work the bank would compensate their loss of income from it by imposing higher fees on their other business, after all customers don't really object to paying a $5000 fee to withdraw $200 from an ATM...

;D

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

The tax could be 1% or even .01% on any OTC transaction. The only reason the beast has gotten so big is because they have been given the green light to self regulate , a power which they have wholeheartedly abused.