Something for the idiot Tobin Taxers

SPIEGEL: The IMF, of all things? It is viewed as a handmaiden of global capitalism that ought to be abolished — and not just by the opponents of globalization.

Tobin: On the contrary, I think the IMF must be strengthened and enlarged. Certainly it\’s made many mistakes — no question about that — but it, like the World Bank, has far too few resources at its disposal to help the member countries, especially the poor and less developed economies. The World Bank and the IMF are not part of a conspiracy called globalization.

SPIEGEL: Does that also hold true for the World Trade Organization (WTO)?

Tobin: Certainly its predecessor, the GATT, did much good in expanding world trade.

SPIEGEL: Not everybody believes that. In 1999, the WTO-Meeting in Seattle failed as a result of pressure from tens of thousands of opponents of globalization.

Tobin: WTO may need more power — vis-à-vis the United States, among others. The WTO ought, for example, to be in a position to prohibit the industrialized countries from setting up all sorts of trade barriers to exclude imports from developing countries.

SPIEGEL: The tact is that the industrialized countries flood the markets of the third world with their goods and use those countries as a source of cheap labor.

Tobin: I think this whole idea that the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization are the enemies of the developing countries is misconceived. The problems of globalization will not be solved by trying to prevent it from going forward. All countries, along with their inhabitants, profit from the free exchange of goods and capital.

SPIEGEL: Then why has world poverty increased?

Tobin: It hasn\’t done that at all.

Or, as we might put it, fuck off hippies.

21 thoughts on “Something for the idiot Tobin Taxers”

  1. Okay, Arnald, just for you.

    Fuck off, ignoramuses

    I’m not going to use “ignorami” ’cause PaulB will pop up and give me a lecture on the proper modern plurals for second-declension latin nouns …

  2. maybe PaulB the derivation in ENGLISH might be a little odd:
    Merriam-webster
    Origin of IGNORAMUS
    Ignoramus, ignorant lawyer in Ignoramus (1615), play by George Ruggle, from Latin, literally, we are ignorant of
    First Known Use: circa 1616

    IE a theatrical character called Ignoramus.

  3. Same with Keynesian economics in general. Classic Keynes says you save in the boom and spend in the bust. Leftist politicians spend in the boom and spend in the bust.

    “But isn’t the the theory you presume to subscribe to different to how you do it, Mr Balls?”, you ask. “Shut up,” he explains.

  4. BB @ 5
    ” Leftist politicians spend in the boom and spend in the bust.”

    Yes, but rightists spend in the boom and save in the bust. Ie 100% rather than 50% wrong.

  5. Only if you assume Keynes was right.

    And that’s on a practical level. On a philosophical level, fuck the government and its spending right up the arse.

  6. ….Yes, but rightists spend in the boom and save in the bust. Ie 100% rather than 50% wrong…..

    Luke, as I remember it the last two periods of strong growth under a Conservative government in the UK, were Lawson led in the 80s and Clarke led in the 90s. During both, government finances improved substantially.

    George Osbourne’s current spending plans are a product of a Gordon Brownfield economy rather than his own choices.

  7. Reverting to the facts: there were significant reductions in government debt as a percentage of GDP during every postwar government up to Heath’s. There were very small reductions during the Wilson-Callaghan and Thatcher-Major governments. The Blair-Brown government saw a reduction up to 2008, after which debt increased rapidly. The Cameron government has seen a rapid increase.

    I think it would be unfair to blame either Cameron or Brown for the effects of a global financial crisis.

  8. If we can’t blame them (Personally, I blame Brown who should be thrown in jail), and it is nobody’s fault, then that rather shows that we dont need them at all.

  9. SE and PaulB are quite right, ignoramus is a verb in latin, and therefore can’t be pluralised. However, one could take the view that it has come to be a noun in English and therefore the plural is ‘ignoramuses’.

    I’m forever getting into arguments on this head with people over the plural of ‘forum’, mind. Some maintain – incorrectly in my view – that ‘forum’ as a latin word pluralises to ‘fora’. I submit that we do not use it as a latin word but an english one (because we mean something else by it) and it is therefore ‘forums’.*

    Either way, the Tobin taxers can fuck off.

    *don’t get me started on people who talk about ‘octopi’. They need shooting.

  10. I refer to Fowler for the plurals of foreign words.

    In unrelated news, is anyone else getting a ad on the left hand side for mature dating with a picture of Stifler’s Mom? It’s starting to make this blog distinctly unsafe for work.

  11. …..I think it would be unfair to blame either Cameron or Brown for the effects of a global financial crisis……

    Not blaming a sailor for the storm is only fair, but Brown failed to mend the sails and maintain the hull.

  12. *don’t get me started on people who talk about ‘octopi’. They need shooting.

    That’s right, it’s clearly “octopodes”.

    I jest, it is of course “octopuses” because no matter where it came from it’s an English word now, and one of our freedoms as Englishmen is the freedom from an Academie Anglais.

  13. Octopus means ‘eight foot’, doesn’t it? So wouldn’t two octopuses actually be hexadecapodes, and so on?

  14. “Yes, but rightists spend in the boom and save in the bust.”

    At least they know when the purse is empty.

  15. Serf // Jan 18, 2013 at 12:42 pm

    …..I think it would be unfair to blame either Cameron or Brown for the effects of a global financial crisis……

    Not blaming a sailor for the storm is only fair, but Brown failed to mend the sails and maintain the hull.

    A good sailor would have been checking the weather forecasts and if they weren’t available would have known how to read the skies. At the first hint of the impending storm they would have headed for a safe haven.

    If caught out they would have reefed to a minimum sail area, not put up more sails.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *