James Tobin, Nobel Laureate in Economics, did not believe he would open a Pandora’s box in 1972 proposing a tax on financial transactions. Twenty-nine years later, he would repent: ” I appreciate the interest that relates to my idea, but much of this praise does not come to the right place. I’m an economist and, like most economists, I am defending free trade. In addition, I support the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organization (WTO), and everything that these movements are attacking. It distracts my name . ”
What to Do not worry, the concept is (re) become one of the ideas in vogue in the context of all-out objectives of the French Presidency of the G 20. It is indeed very รจ s tempting and easy to sell politically and socially. Reading the statements of one (s) and others, however, there seems to be in disarray. Who is it? From a tax on financial transactions.
For example, if a trader sells 100,000 euros against dollars, a fee of 100 euros will be lifted. It sounds simple to do and it sounds tempting. What would the purpose of such a tax? The basic idea of James Tobin was to reduce speculation. It is understandable that inflation reduces the volume of transactions.
However, reading of the stated objectives, there is a mix of motivations. NGOs want to raise this tax to fund poor countries. The policies seem to want as a tax on banks. Ms. Lagarde wants to curb ” the ardor of speculators “on the foreign exchange market. The European Parliament wants a bit of both. Within Europe, the ideas are not clear. Needless to say that financial institutions bristle.
Who pays? Contrary to the wishes constants punish financiers are not the ones who pay this tax, unless decided not to go to their customers, which seems unlikely. This will therefore businesses, consumers and investors who will pay this tax. Can it be effective? Dominique Strauss Kahn has already stated that ” financial transactions are very difficult to measure, such a tax would be very easy to circumvent . ” Indeed, in the world of cyber communications, the location of transactions is difficult to determine. Moreover, such a tax would be happiness unalloyed tax havens that do not apply certainly. In this context, only Joseph Stiglitz, another Nobel Prize-American hotly contested here that definitely seems to have a negative influence on Elysee, defends that most of his colleagues regard as ineffective, in the best case, or harmful to economic growth and international trade, in the worst case.
It seems unlikely that the United States, Britain and emerging countries (particularly China and India) follow this initiative. This is indeed not by way of taxation on transactions that we will solve the financial problems of States. We can not escape the debt restructuring, sale of assets, tax increases and austerity measures. It is in the balance between these actions will find a solution “balanced.”