Hmm, I'd been idly intending to post discussing the woolly thinking of the Robin Hood campaign, but between these they've pretty much covered my thoughts. Oh well, more time saved.
Lenin fails utterly by his second sentence: "The bankers got rich ... they should pay for it." Well maybe, but this scheme won't and couldn't possibly achieve that.
Still, to be fair to him he does strawman the argument later, apparently oblivious to the fact he's undermined the alleged motivation for the tax in the process.
But my favourite bit is definitely him coming out in favour of stamp duty on share trading. Hurrah for things that hurt small investors! Oh, hang on a minute...
He's describing the "instinct" into which the campaign taps.
And he explains in detail, and in the same terms as Harford, why those who oppose taxes on capital will in general explain that no company ever "pays for" anything, since every company makes minimal profit in a perfect competitive market, and therefore passes all costs on to customers. Unlike Harford, he notes in para 3, that "the consumers of such services are disproportionately wealthy", and believes that passing the costs on to them may be no bad thing.
Hurrah for things that hurt small investors!
Indeed, Lenin is not primarily looking out for petty bourgeois interests, which is why he makes a good contrast with Harford.
Oh, and I should add that I read both of their blogs regularly, not just this pair of articles which happen to be on the same subject. When I say I'd like to see them debate, this isn't just on the basis of Lenin's half-formed thoughts and Harford's lightweight piss-take of some media nonsense. They're both capable of doing their research thoroughly, and addressing the question more fully, should the occasion demand it.
I think when Lenin speaks in person (as opposed to on the blog), it's as Seymour rather than Lenin. Just like Harford, in that guise he has a reputation to maintain for doing his homework, and a book to flog.
I haven't yet seen any really convincing arguments either way on the Robin Hood tax. I personally lean towards supporting it, essentially because I think it's about time those of us who are in favour of decent public services etc stand up for the corollary: you have to pay for it, through tax, and therefore tax is not an inherently bad thing, contra the prevailing political discourse
( ... )
Comments 6
Reply
A fan of one-sided slaughter, are you?
Lenin fails utterly by his second sentence: "The bankers got rich ... they should pay for it." Well maybe, but this scheme won't and couldn't possibly achieve that.
Still, to be fair to him he does strawman the argument later, apparently oblivious to the fact he's undermined the alleged motivation for the tax in the process.
But my favourite bit is definitely him coming out in favour of stamp duty on share trading. Hurrah for things that hurt small investors! Oh, hang on a minute...
Reply
And he explains in detail, and in the same terms as Harford, why those who oppose taxes on capital will in general explain that no company ever "pays for" anything, since every company makes minimal profit in a perfect competitive market, and therefore passes all costs on to customers. Unlike Harford, he notes in para 3, that "the consumers of such services are disproportionately wealthy", and believes that passing the costs on to them may be no bad thing.
Hurrah for things that hurt small investors!
Indeed, Lenin is not primarily looking out for petty bourgeois interests, which is why he makes a good contrast with Harford.
Reply
I think when Lenin speaks in person (as opposed to on the blog), it's as Seymour rather than Lenin. Just like Harford, in that guise he has a reputation to maintain for doing his homework, and a book to flog.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment