|Quoting newark777 (Reply 1):|
Has a nice populist ring to it.
Of course, a tax on the sale of securities wouldn't affect just banks, and the cost would certainly be handed down to consumers, with both higher fees and more restricted lending. But hey, it raises more money!
|Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 3):|
|Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 3):|
To anyone who understands the issue, what caused the problem in the first place, and why a bank might choose to continue on a path it has, a populist plan is rather silly as it won't cure the core problem.
|Quoting newark777 (Reply 3):|
I agree with enacting more regulations (especially stricter capital requirements, the lack thereof being the biggest cause of the current financial
crash), but that's a whole different topic.
|Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 5):|
But this tax appears to be quite small compared to other taxes on financial services, especially in Australia. I don't think its such a bad idea considering the millions perhaps billions of transactions carried out each and every day by banks all over the world through intertrading, they probably wouldn't even notice.
|Quoting newark777 (Reply 6):|
With the amount of trading that goes on, it would put a serious crimp on the associated firms
|Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 7):|
Yes but this tax is just concerning the banks as I understand it, no one else, and they are only charged on bank transactions. Nothing to to with other financial institutions, like broking house's or mutual mangers.
I'm no expert, maybe I'm wrong ?
|Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 2):|
Look, the US removed the restrictions of Glass Stegall back in the late nineties because of bank's prodding it was the right thing to do, and the banking business had changed dramatically since it was passed after the Act to prevent another Great Depression. As anyone with common sense would see, it was a bad idea, but the govt gave the banks the 2 feet of rope it craved. Guess what? It hung itself with it. I'm sorry, but you bust the banks back up again because what happened this time, was what happened last time.
|Quoting Pyrex (Reply 9):|
Oh, no, not this crap again... how many times do I have to explain this to you? Removing Glass Steagall in the late 1900s had absolutely nothing to do with the recession (which was caused by mortgages - the simplest banking product there is, and who have been securitized since the mid-1980s or even before that by both banks and brokerages) and in fact, one could argue that with Glass Steagall still in place the recession would have been much, much worse (as in, J.P Morgan would not have been allowed to buy Bear Stearns, and the Fed could not have held a gun to the head of Bank of America to force it to buy Merrill Lynch).
But then again, I am sure you are of the school of though that all regulation is good regulation so I don't even know why I bother. (how are those 10 different bank regulators working out for you, by the way?).
|Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 10):|
It was a move to calm the markets, so that a bank run wouldn't start based on who took money and who didn't.
Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe
Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days
Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit
Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior
Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft
Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials
Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions
Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin
Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon
Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos
Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft
Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries
Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground
Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos