My son wanted me to comment on the Robin Hood Tax
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/apr/13/robin-hood-tax-economists-letter
Jeffery Sachs spoke at my elder son's graduation. He is very liberal, in the new sense that he wants to tax folks and take that money and use it for what HE thinks is the better good. In other words he thinks he is a Robin Hood.
I have since read two of his other articles and he apparently toned down his comments for the audience who listened to him last May.
Second - I considered myself a liberal for my first 25 years, then an independent for 20 years until around 2004 when I started transitioning into my current state which is not happy with labels which shift and change with the times but if I had to pick a leadership at this point in time it would be conservative so I suppose I agree with that direction more than the liberal one. I understand these terms as follows.
Liberal - used to mean a person who wants free choice - now it means a person who wants to tax people and use those funds to improve other's lives - this takes the choice out of the equation for both parties as a third party is doing the taking and the making.
Conservative used to mean a person who likes things to stay the same as change might threaten their advantages. - Now it means someone who is rebelling against government trying to take over the ability for people to rise and fall on their own skills and efforts by competing in the free market economy.
Now with that background (disclosure) here is my response
For a liberal to succeed (do good works) he has to have money so the Robin Hood tax is proposed. The economists would then be hired as experts (who else?) to allocate those funds.
The tax would be low they say, but of course it won't stay low.
It eventually would act like a drag on financial transactions which would probably be negative but let's leave that aside for now.
What really bothers me is these "third parties" getting all this money and misusing it.
"This money is urgently needed to raise revenue for global and domestic public goods such as health, education and water, and to tackle the challenge of climate change."
This interferes with the free market which is the only mechanism that has proven to properly allocate resources to their highest and best use and raise people out of poverty.
There is tremendous evidence for the failure of self appointed NGO's in trying to solve these issues where they interfere with the markets and prop up regimes that should fail.
"Basically liberals want to run my life for me instead of letting me run my life myself."
See this video on a brilliant refutation to Jeffery Sachs and all of the "I know how better to use your money than you do" liberals.
http://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A
the entire interview is here
http://youtu.be/E1lWk4TCe4U
As a final thought consider what it means to be Robin Hood.
He mugs a shop owner on his way to the bank and takes his money thereby making him leave the forest and set up his shop somewhere else. The forest jobs get lost and those people are out of work. Robin meanwhile gives the money to his merry men for distribution. The merry men take a cut for mead and beef of course and the give the remainder to a few related poor folks who they like. These poor folk get lazy, quit their day jobs cutting firewood and now count on Robin to keep robbing. There is simply no good outcome here. Methinks Robin Hood a common hood.
