The agreement merely repeated an aspiration to keep the global temperature increase to 2C without explaining how that would be achieved. The final text also failed to mention any deadline for turning it into a binding treaty. It was a humiliation for Gordon Brown, who has spent longer working on it than any other world leader. He admitted the conference had only taken the first step towards tackling climate change and said that he hoped that progress would be made at a conference in Germany next summer or one in Mexico at the end of the year. The one positive outcome for developing countries was a commitment by rich countries to provide $30 billion of climate aid over the next three years and $100 billion a year from 2020. The US announced by far the lowest pledge. It will contribute $3.6 billion between 2010 and 2012, while Japan will give $11 billion and the European Union $10.6 billion. A deadline of February 1 is expected to be set for all countries to publish emissions targets, although there was no sign last night that any country would move beyond existing offers. In a statement, released at 10.30pm, the White House described the agreement as meaningful. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6962344.ece I am moved to tears for Gordon Brown Mr Brown had offered to hand over £7.5 billion in extra cash to developing countries to sweeten the deal. He also offered to cut Britain's carbon emissions by an eye-watering 42 per cent - 10 times the level offered by the United States. But in a further humiliation Mr Brown was not included in a list of world leaders personally thanked by Barack Obama for their contribution to the talks. Read more: http://www.dail*****.co.uk/news/wor...nt--officials-admit-enough.html#ixzz0a7rm8xQy http://www.dail*****.co.uk/news/wor...nhagen-agreement--officials-admit-enough.html Hopefully the USA will further distance themselves from this Tobin Tax nutter
Brown is truly a rogue Prime Minister. Like Nick Leeson, the deeper in he gets in, the more he keeps digging. His only hope of re-election is to appear the global statesman, as on his domestic record alone he would be finished. Good for Obama for snubbing him.
It was on the table, but as one of the proposals least likely to succeed. A Guardian article on Monday singled it out as a deep out-of-the-money option: : "Less promisingly, France wants a levy on financial transactions."[1] The Tobin Tax didn't even make the shortlist of a summit insider interviewed by the BBC on Friday morning: ... on the money: a 100 billion USD a year by 2020 was what Prime Minister of Ethiopia put on the table on Wednesday, in his very important speech to this gathering, and he said that's a compromise - it's less than what we think is necessary [..], and the next day (Thursday), Hillary Clinton came and said: we're ready to support a 100 billion dollars a year by 2020, but detail matters - the developing world really wants to be confident that this is NEW money - they are looking for new sources of finance: they can be: - auction revenues, - taxes on aviation and maritime, - schemes based on IMF's Special Drawing Rights, - [an unclear fragment, the interviewer interrupted, possibly knowing what's coming, if so - a big 'thank you' to the BBC, possibly with a fund-raiser for a toupee for Evan Davis , but it really sounded to my scared mind like "taxing financial transactions"], [..] if all goes well and there is detail of the kind I was describing how the new finance would be spent and what say would the developing world have in how it's spent - that's the kind of detail that matters " [2] As we saw later, it mattered only for OCD-sufferers and other programmers. Oh, and for some 50% of the Tobin tax proponents: "The text we have is not perfect," said French President Nicolas Sarkozy [3] Small players like him (and Brown) were left waving and sending kisses from their bikes in the fields to the passing intercity train where President Obama and a few other big boys were making the real deal: "President Obama, presumably ignorant as to the bizarre sociology of these UN meetings, screwed up big-time by going on TV and announcing a 'meaningful deal' before the vast majority of countries here had even seen the text he helped hammer out. As the G-77 walked out of one of their plenary sessions, there was Obama announcing 'we have a deal.' Many were stunned to see this and took great exception at the breach of protocol." [4] Sudan delegate even reached deFazio-level notoriety comparing this kind of 'inclusive politics' to a 'suicide pact, an incineration pact.' He also said that 'this agreement is based on the same values that piled 6 million people into furnaces in Europe. And wait for even more relaxing conversation: "We do ask you to destroy L-9, destroy it, delete it from the UN system completely."[5] Some good analogy there between burning fossil fuels and burning Ashkenazy Jews - these politicians are having so much fun, they should really start paying for it themselves! I understand Obama, but wasn't prince Charles merely keeping up with the Joneses when he arrived at a climate conference... in a private jet? The Copenhagen climate summit in numbers: 140 private jets, 1,200 limos, 5-star hotels fully booked at GPB650 a night, "readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges."[6] But that's just our proletarian envy, is it? Daily Telegraph was supposed to be conservative, but no, journalists are all equally populist these days - which is why the Tobin tax gained so much undue media coverage... So here's what they did eventually *not disagree* on: [..] and when the United States were asked how much they would contribute to this fund, they were not willing to be drawn and it is clear that a lot of the finance will be drawn from carbon markets which are unpredictable and hated by some people; some people think they are a scam," [Mr deFazio springs to mind ] "while some people think they are the best way of delivering the money, some people think they are a scam, so there's an awful lot of detail still to be drawn here [..] [a sigh] well, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a disaster. What you have is the first international commitment from the United States since the Kyoto Protocol [..] it is very wooly, but President Obama brought his 17% cut from 2005 levels to this conference and said that's the best he can get through Congress at the moment, frankly he would actually struggle to get *that* through Congress; and this is where the real difficulty lies; the influences on this conference lie way outside the boundaries of Copenhagen - they lie in the US Senate and some of the key industries that fund key senators [these influences lie also] in China, with premier Wen saying that climate change has been... invented to weigh China down" [and I though I was paranoid;] "and that China shouldn't give way on *any* detail at all [..] you're seeing here macro global politics played out through the prism of climate and that's been very unsavoury for a lot of the smaller players to watch on" [7] Despite the 'new money' phrase being potentially dangerous, because 'new money' invariably translates from journalese to English as: 'new taxes', I think these developments are positive. The good side of the Copenhagen summit was to expose how low the real risk is of ever creating an international government, complete with common fiscal policy. And as we all know, a Tobin tax would require an international agreement on a similar scale - no weak links or else you end up with everyone trading CFDs or Canada with Norway replacing the US and Germany. Here we saw that even when facing a common enemy (an alien invasion, an asteroid on a collision course, a global warming, etc.) our governments are unable to rise above the prisoner dilemma and will always fail their citizens miserably. Just like when trading without an edge, the effects of little-to-no financial knowledge can be self-cancelling - our representatives, while feasting on caviar, can raise any number of economically-illiterate fiscal policy proposals, but as soon as these require also giving up some of their national interests, i.e. Game Theory 101, they will not be agreed upon, ever. John Sauven from Greenpeace summarized the above rather bluntly: "The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport. There are no targets for carbon cuts" [despite Obama's 17% pledge]" and no agreement on a legally binding treaty. It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen." [3] Possibly a global dictator? ____________ [1] The Copenhagen Summit: Filthy lucre fouls the air, URL: http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/home...Copenhagen Summit: Filthy lucre fouls the air [2] A fragment of the Friday's BBC Radio 4 'Today Programme' from around 8:16 UK time [3] Copenhagen summit battles to save climate deal, URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8422031.stm [4] Copenhagen Summit Insider, URL: http://thestar.blogs.com/copenhagen/ [5] Copenhagen Hangs in Balance, compared to Holocaust by Sudan, URL: http://thestar.blogs.com/copenhagen/2009/12/copenhagen-meeting-in-dissaray.html [6] Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges, URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...mos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html [7] A fragment of the Saturday's BBC Radio 4 'Today Programme' from around 8:39 UK time
By JOHN D. MCKINNON WASHINGTONâLawmakers are considering a financial-transactions tax that takes aim at Wall Street to help Main Street. But the tax could wind up striking others, too, including pension funds, commodity-dependent businesses, and even ordinary investors. Is Congress Playing Robin Hood? 1:20 Congress is considering a tax on Wall Street to help out Main Street. But WSJ's John McKinnon says the tax could also end up hitting pension funds, airlines and private investors. Congressional advocates describe the new tax as a matter of fairness: Taxpayers bailed out Wall Street, so Wall Street must help rebuild the economy and shore up the government's shaky finances. Some experts say the tax also might reduce market volatility. Supporters say the hit for typical individuals and even most institutional investors is likely to be light, thanks to the tax's relatively low rates and generous exemptions. The plan would assess a tax on trades in many kinds of financial assets. The rate for stock trades would be 0.25%, or $250 on a $100,000 transaction. The rate would be lessâ0.02%âfor trades of options, futures and other derivatives. The law would provide a $250 tax credit, effectively exempting everyone from the first $100,000 of all stock trades. And purchase and sale of mutual-fund shares would be exempt no matter how large, as would trading of assets held within personal savings accounts such as a 401(k). The trading tax isn't likely to become law in the immediate future. But "there is considerable support for it" among Democrats, says Rep. George Miller (D., Calif.), who adds that the tax also is "very much" on the table for deficit reduction next year. The tax would raise an estimated $150 billion a year. In recent weeks, the financial industry has begun a campaign to reframe the debate, contending the tax would hurt, not help, average Americans. "As we read it, it's clear it's going to be a tax on Main Street," said Paul Stevens, president of the Investment Company Institute, a trade group for mutual funds. Despite the exemption for sales of mutual-fund shares, mutual-fund investors would be hit with tax for their pro-rata portions of trading, at least when the mutual fund is held outside a tax-advantaged account such as a 401(k). The mutual-fund industry also gripes that the tax would introduce new complexity into their record-keeping. At least some ordinary investors and nonprofit groups likely would be socked, along with high-volume traders. The tax could even hit businesses such as airlines that engage in futures and derivatives trading to hedge against commodity-price spikes. Already, there is talk of carving out exemptions for them. Pension plans and other nonprofits also wouldn't be protected from the tax, at least in the House version sponsored by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D., Ore.) and about two dozen other members. Aides said their trading turnover usually isn't high enough to create a big tax impact. But sponsors say they are willing to change their plan, and sponsors of a similar Senate bill do plan to exempt pension plans, aides said. More broadly, critics charge, the tax would tamp down asset prices and limit gains for everyone. About 30 investment firms and industry associations have formed a loose coalition to fight the tax. The group also includes major exchanges that would have to collect the tax in most cases. "Clearly [the tax proposal] is gaining support, but there's tremendous push-back from Wall Street," says Mr. DeFazio, the chief sponsor of the House version of the tax. Mr. DeFazio says industry concerns about potential harm to the economy and markets echo similar groundless charges against a 1930s version of the tax. Back then, in the midst of the Great Depression, the U.S. enacted a transactions tax that was larger than the one being proposed now. It lasted until the mid-1960s and produced no significant ill effects, he says. Supporters say concerns about complexity also are exaggerated, noting that the mutual-fund industry already has to deal with complex tax issues such as distribution of capital gains to fund shareholders. There also are potential wrinkles in the plan that could allow sophisticated traders to escape the tax. Many in the industry worry, for example, that the tax could drive high-volume tradingâif not the traders themselvesâoffshore, noting that high-tech advances have made it easier than ever to conduct large-scale financial trades from distant locations. But Mr. DeFazio's bill would tax transactions by U.S. citizens no matter where they occur. To escape the tax, he says, people would have to move their citizenship, not just their money. Write to John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...4604053568517692.html?mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1&
"But Mr. DeFazio's bill would tax transactions by U.S. citizens no matter where they occur. To escape the tax, he says, people would have to move their citizenship, not just their money." These people are truly idiots. Going to try and tax us for an activity that happens outside of the US. What is this the Soviet Union? The destruction of Us citizens being able to compete on a global scale is being destroyed. This tax will raise zero money because of all the exemptions. Anyone who is not exempt will be put out of business. There will be nothing left to tax. So it is nothing more than a job destroying fools bill. We better take our country back from these liberal fools before they destroy it. I have been sick of politics for a long time but for the first time in my life I am getting mad enough to become an activist.
A point to keep in mind is that attempting to gain political support for a bill is much like running a political election campaign. You say you're gaining support, you say you're going to win, you exude tremendous confidence, even if the ship is taking on water & sinking. As far as the tax being on the table for next year, of course they're going to say that. They want it on every possible table. It was on the table for a jobs bill as well. It was on the table to punish oil speculators. It's been on a lot of tables. It'll be on more, as are a multitude of other ideas that never see the light of day. It's new names that speak out in favor of the idea that's the key to watch. Not the pompous predictions & hopes by one or two of its supporters.
Start at 4:00 into the following video to obtain further talking points to rebut the tax. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgbKUx3tErs
Actually he doesn't know what he is talking about. It is an impossible task unless the whole world financial communities cooperate.
Anybody recall DSK saying this, I sure as hell do not remember that. Dominic Strauss Kahn, the head of the IMF, recently said he could support a one-off tax on a small share of financial transactions. http://www.euractiv.com/en/financia...ars-fight-financial-regulation/article-188492
IMPORTANT: Itâs urgent for our cause that you sign and send our brand new second petition "A financial-transaction tax is detrimental to many industries" at http://www.rallycongress.com/greentradertax-traders-association1/. We consolidated several peopleâs points into this short and effective letter written by Robert A. Green and edited by Molly Goad (my editor from Active Trader magazine). To reach our needed goal of 25,000+ signer/senders quickly, we need your help in asking your trader friends and colleagues to sign and send one or both of our petitions to their Congressmen and President Obama. Please spread the word quickly on your Facebook pages and groups, LinkedIn, Twitter, other social media, message boards and Comment sections of online media articles. It takes just a few minutes for the RallyCongress.com Web site to automatically send our petition letter for free to your Congressmen and/or President. You are welcome to customize the letter as you like before clicking send. For a small charge ($3 per letter), we recommend the print and mail letter option too, as itâs more effective in generating positive reply letters. Our first petition âSave Traders' Jobs: Do Not Enact a Financial-Transaction Taxâ was very successful with many signers receiving replies from their Congressmen. The frequency of signatures escalated and then peaked in the week of December 11th. This important second petition focuses more-broadly on all market users, including retail investors, farmers and other industries too. We are hoping that this second petition jump starts an escalation of signatures and letters again. We donât have a budget to advertise or use lobbyists and our success as a trading community will be a result of our joint social media and viral marketing efforts. Itâs free to do, but it takes some work. Please help us and help yourself too. For all the latest news about the financial-transaction tax, please read my blog at http://www.greencompany.com/blog/index.php and join the discussion at http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=150546.. Thanks for your help. Key members of this Elite thread, please help me jump start signatures this weekend on the new petition. It will arrive at a crucial point these coming weeks in Congress. Now that the climate summit is over, the action will come back to Congress. We need our new Petition to be right in front of them.