Shrapneliferousness – random link pile

Things I won’t work with, a compendium of truly terrifying chemicals. Sample:
“The experimental section of the paper enjoins the reader to wear a face shield, leather suit, and ear plugs, to work behind all sorts of blast shields, and to use Teflon and stainless steel apparatus so as to minimize shrapnel. Hmm. Ranking my equipment in terms of its shrapneliferousness is not something that’s ever occurred to me, I have to say.”

A Tobin tax would be a very good idea. It’s a tax on financial speculation. Others seem to agree – google trends for “tobin tax”

from here

Spank those objectivists! Objectivism as a trivial and useless solution

(Coz this is artistic, there’s some wanky words mixed in with more pics)

And the Yorkshire Ranter on why the rheotorical styling of conservatives dominates the debate – “Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler”

5 thoughts on “Shrapneliferousness – random link pile

  1. There are a few problems with a Tobin Tax.

    Firstly, how do you deal with tax havens? It would only take a few countries to decline to participate, and FX trading would go there to avoid being taxed. Maybe if the tax was low enough to make moving operations to Switzerland or Bermuda, that would be uneconomic (the traders would want more money to cover the higher cost of McMansions in Nyon over Chingford, for instance). Or possibly parent companies could be taxed on their FX dealing in their countries of operation – maybe..

    The other issue is that the markets need some level of speculation to maintain liquidity. Otherwise, if you take your holiday in the week that Air NZ buy five jumbo jets, you might find the NZ dollar has dropped alarmingly.

    1. 1) The same way we currently deal with tax havens. Both of the options you suggest are in the list of possible approaches.

      2) You only need liquidity so that trades can go ahead, so the market can clear and for prices to reflect the information about the market. However, how much trading is necessary for this is a matter of debate. I’ve seen plenty argue that the financial system could be 1% of it’s current size without any loss of price-setting ability.

      Personally, I’m fine with 99% of those in the City getting the sack. They’re all smart people and I’m sure they’ll end up doing something useful instead.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *