1. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    23 Feb '10 12:09
    Read it here:

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/markets/article-23804049-joseph-stiglitz-robin-hood-who-wants-to-tax-the-rich-for-the-poor.do

    How would such a tax be best put to use?
  2. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    23 Feb '10 12:10
    I was going to say 'wrong forum' -- but this is a question of economics, and economics is a science, isn't it?
  3. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    23 Feb '10 12:39
    This is actually a very good idea, since such a tax punishes frequent changes in one's portfolio, it encourages long-term investments over short-sighted short-term trading and speculation.

    This tax should be used for whatever tax dollars are needed for. I don't believe in reserving tax revenues from source X specifically for purpose Y.
  4. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    23 Feb '10 12:39
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I was going to say 'wrong forum' -- but this is a question of economics, and economics is a science, isn't it?
    Feynman would disagree.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    23 Feb '10 12:54
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    How would such a tax be best put to use?
    There are at least two areas that I belief are always good ways of 'helping the less fortunate'.
    The first and foremost is education. In Zambia we are still badly in need of more schools and more and better teachers and facilities.
    The second is health. Tackle the worlds worst killer diseases, and general health for poor people makes a massive difference in the world. Something as simple as treated mosquito nets has made an enormous difference in many places, but more still needs to be done - a vaccine for malaria would be nice. A vaccine or cure for AIDS would be nicer still.

    There are plenty of other worthy causes. Far too much aid goes in the wrong places and is given for the wrong reasons, but a lot of it does do a lot of good.

    The one place however that it could probably do the most good, is the one place that Robin Hood isn't going to put it - paying people to pressure governments to change their policies in favor of poor countries.
  6. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    23 Feb '10 13:40
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Feynman would disagree.
    You mean like he does here?
    http://www.videosift.com/video/Richard-Feynman-on-Social-Sciences

    The man can't even properly articulate his criticism. He's just lucky there's no one there to argue against his position.
  7. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    23 Feb '10 13:421 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I was going to say 'wrong forum' -- but this is a question of economics, and economics is a science, isn't it?
    First we need to agree on the goals, before economics can say something about predicted outcomes of specific policies.
  8. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    23 Feb '10 13:53
    Originally posted by Palynka
    First we need to agree on the goals, before economics can say something about predicted outcomes of specific policies.
    OK. In Africa, there are the Millenium Development goals. Other regions would have different goals. Perhaps the first goal would be to allocate funding to different regions?
  9. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    23 Feb '10 13:54
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    This is actually a very good idea, since such a tax punishes frequent changes in one's portfolio, it encourages long-term investments over short-sighted short-term trading and speculation.

    This tax should be used for whatever tax dollars are needed for. I don't believe in reserving tax revenues from source X specifically for purpose Y.
    Would you mind saying a bit more about how it would encourage long-term investments?

    How would the overall catch be allocated? Tax is raised by individual countries -- this would be a sort of world finance tax.
  10. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    23 Feb '10 17:09
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Would you mind saying a bit more about how it would encourage long-term investments?

    How would the overall catch be allocated? Tax is raised by individual countries -- this would be a sort of world finance tax.
    Well, if every transaction is taxed, it pays to reduce the amount of transactions when investing, i.e. people who have a long-term strategy get relatively more returns than speculators.

    This kind of tax would require some international agreement, otherwise you could evade it easily - so in practise it would be very difficult to implement.
  11. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    23 Feb '10 17:15
    Originally posted by Palynka
    You mean like he does here?
    http://www.videosift.com/video/Richard-Feynman-on-Social-Sciences

    The man can't even properly articulate his criticism. He's just lucky there's no one there to argue against his position.
    Well, he does have a point.
  12. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    23 Feb '10 17:19
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Well, he does have a point.
    Not really. He's ignorant about what science is. He's still stuck on the idea of verifiability, when it is falsifiability what science is based on.
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    23 Feb '10 18:45
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Not really. He's ignorant about what science is. He's still stuck on the idea of verifiability, when it is falsifiability what science is based on.
    Since the esteemed Popper started it.
  14. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    23 Feb '10 19:53
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Not really. He's ignorant about what science is. He's still stuck on the idea of verifiability, when it is falsifiability what science is based on.
    Well, I think what he is trying to say is that it's a difference in degree. QED does predictions which are accurate up to 10 digits - what kind of prediction in psychology or economics is so accurate?
  15. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    24 Feb '10 09:531 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Well, I think what he is trying to say is that it's a difference in degree. QED does predictions which are accurate up to 10 digits - what kind of prediction in psychology or economics is so accurate?
    I'm not disputing that. But was physics not a science before predictions were that accurate? Perhaps not, but simply because of a question of method not inexactness.

    It's just not a consistent view. What is science and what is not is defined by the method, not really the exactness of the results. That he claims that social sciences mimic the form but cannot come up with any laws (I'm quoting from memory here) is clear evidence that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Back to Top