President Rafael Correa Delgado of Ecuador does not mince words when it comes to development. ”Neoliberal policies based on so-called competitiveness, efficiency and the labour flexibility framework have helped the empire of capital to prosper at the cost of human labour,” he told a crowded auditorium at the 15th Raul Prebitsch Lecture.

The Raul Prebitsch Lectures, which are named after the first Secretary-General of the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) when it was set up in 1964, allow prominent personalities to speak to a wide audience on burning trade and development topics.

This year, President Correa took the floor on Oct. 24 with a lecture on ‘Ecuador: Development as a Political Process’, which covered efforts by his country to build a model of equitable and sustainable development, “Neoliberal policies based on so-called competitiveness, efficiency and the labour flexibility framework have helped the empire of capital to prosper at the cost of human labour” – President Rafael Correa Delgado of Ecuador

Development, he told his audience, “is a political process and not a technical equation that can be solved with capital” and he offered a developmental paradigm that seeks to build on “people-oriented” socio-economic and cultural policies to improve the welfare of millions of poor people instead of catering to the “elites of the empire of capital”.

Proposing a “new regional financial architecture”, he said that “the time has come to pool our resources for establishing a bank and a reserve fund for South American countries to pursue people-oriented developmental policies in our region” and reverse the “elite-based”, “capital-dominated”, “neoliberal” economic order that has wrought havoc over the past three decades.

“We need to reverse the dollarisation of our economies and stop the transfer of our wealth to finance Treasury bills in the United States,” Correa said. “South American economies have transferred over 800 billion dollars to the United States for sustaining U.S. Treasury bills and this is unacceptable.”

According to Correa, people-centric policies in the fields of education, health and employment in Ecuador have improved the country’s Human Development Index (HDI) since 2007. The HDI is published annually by the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP) is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education and income indices used to rank countries into tiers of human development.

Ecuador’s HDI value for 2012 is 0.724 – in the high human development tier – positioning the country at 89 out of 187 countries and territories, according to UNDP’s Human Development Report (HDR) for 2013.

Explaining his country’s achievement, Correa said that public investments involving the creation of roads, bridges, power grids, telecommunications, water works, educational institutions, hospitals and judiciary have all helped the private sector to reap benefits from overall development.

“At a time when Hooverian depression policies based on austerity measures are continuing to impoverish people while the banks which created the world’s worst economic crisis in 2008 are reaping benefits because of the rule of capital,  Ecuador has successfully overcome many hurdles because of its people-oriented policies,”  he said.

Correa argued that by investing public funds in education, which is the “cornerstone of democracy”, particularly in higher education or the “Socrates of education”, including special education projects for indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian people, it has been shown that society can put an end to capital-dominated policies.

“We need to change international power relations to overcome neocolonial dependency,” Correa told the diplomats present at the lecture.  “Globalisation is the quest for global consumers and it does not serve global citizens.”

The Ecuadorian president argued that developing countries have secured a raw deal from the current international trading system which has helped the industrialised nations to pursue imbalanced policies while selectively maintaining barriers.

He urged developing countries to implement autonomous industrialisation strategies, just as the United States had done over two centuries ago.

Developing countries, he said, must pursue ”protectionist policies as the United States had implemented under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton [U.S Secretary of the Treasury under first president George Washington] when it closed its economy to imports from the United Kingdom.”

Citing the research findings of Cambridge-based economist Ha-Joon Chang in his book ‘Bad Samaritans:  The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism’, Correa said that protectionist policies are essential for the development of developing countries.

He stressed that developing countries, which are at a comparable of stage of economic development as the United States was in Hamilton’s time, must devise policies that would push their economies into the global economic order.

The strategy of “import-substitution-industrialisation [ISI]” and nascent industry development is needed for developing countries, he said. “However, the developing countries must ensure proper implementation of ISI strategies because governments had committed mistakes in the past while implementing these policies.”

“Free trade and unfettered trade,” continued Correa, is a “fallacy” based on the Washington Consensus and neoliberal economic policies. In fact, while the United States and other countries preach free trade, they have continued to impose barriers on exports from developing countries.

Turning to the global intellectual property rights regime, which he said is not helpful for the development of all countries, Correa said that these rights must serve the greater public good, suggesting that the current rules do not allow equitable development in the sharing of genetic resources, for example.

In this context, he said that governments must not allow faceless international arbitrators to issue rulings that would severely undermine their “sovereignty” in disputes launched by transnational corporations.

President Correa also called for the free movement of labour on a par with capital. “While capital can move without any controls and cause huge volatility and damage to the international economy, movement of labour is criminalised. This is unacceptable and it is absurd that the movement of labour is met with punitive measures while governments have to welcome capital without any barriers.”

He was also severe in his criticism of the financialisation of the global economy which cannot be subjected to the Tobin tax. “Nobel Laureate James Tobin had proposed a tax on financial transactions in 1981 to curb the volatile movement of currencies but it was never implemented because of the power of the financial industry,” he argued.

Concluding with a hint that his government’s social and economic policies are paving the way for the creation of a healthy society, Correa quipped: “The Pope is an Argentinian, God may be a Brazilian, but ‘Paradise’ is in Ecuador.”

(Edited by Phil Harris)

More than six years after the global financial crisis broke out, European Union (EU) countries continue to protect banks and investments funds from tougher rules, despite abundant evidence of recurrent criminal or reckless activities in the sector, and new accumulation of enormous financial risks.

The latest in a string of scandals involving banks was the revelation in May that at least seven European banks or banks operating in Europe had colluded to falsely fix the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor).

The Euribor is a daily reference rate, published by the European Banking Federation, based on the averaged interest rates at which Eurozone banks offer to lend unsecured funds to other banks in the euro wholesale money market.

“The (European) commission has concerns that … three banks may have taken part in a collusive scheme which aimed at distorting the normal course of pricing components for euro interest rate derivatives,” the body said in a statement issued May 22.

The three banks in question are JPMorgan Chase, HSBC and Crédit Agricole. Another four banks (Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland and Société Générale), also accused of misconduct concerning the Euribor, reached a settlement with European regulators.“Another typical example of the lack of will among European governments to improve regulations and reduce risks in financial markets is the long and so far fruitless debate on the introduction of a very low tax on financial transactions, also known as the Tobin tax”

Because of such behaviour, bank managers have since 2009 again earned the nickname of ‘banksters’, a combination of banker and gangster coined in 1937 at the height of the global economic crisis of the time.

Experts and analysts complaint that despite such criminal activities, and the new accumulation of financial risks, European governments have during the past six years repeatedly intervened to stop far-reaching rules to regulate operations in the financial sector.

The list of actions taken by European governments to spare banks and investment funds from new rules is long. In December last year, the French government managed to arrange for French banks to pay a lower-than European average contribution to the E.U.-created national deposit insurance.

“To obtain that, France used the friendly support of Michel Barnier, the French European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services,” says Burkhard Balz, German member of the European Parliament (EP).  Balz is a member of the conservative Christian Democratic Union.

“Over the last six years we have seen a pattern of behaviour concerning efforts to introduce a Europe-wide financial regulation,” Udo Bullmann, a German Social Democratic member of the European Parliament, told IPS.

This pattern goes as follows, Bullmann added: “First, the European Commission makes a timid regulating proposal. The European Parliament takes the proposal over and toughens its content. But then it is the turn of governments, and they water the proposal down, even under the original commission level.”

Independent experts agree. “The European Union is indeed a community of states, but at the end of the day, the member states compete against each other instead of cooperating to put forward a comprehensive set of rules for financial markets,” says Joost Mulder of Finance Watch, an independent association set up in 2011 to act as a public interest counterweight to the powerful financial lobby.

“What the individual states want is to protect their countries’ banks and investment funds,” Mulder added.

Opposition to far-reaching financial regulation comes from practically every state, but in changing roles. Britain usually opposes rules that would affect operations at the London financial market. It also has consistently opposed establishing limits for bonuses for financial managers, one of the main reasons for risky investments and moral hazard. Germany and France prefer to pass modest laws on financial aspects, to avoid approving a tougher European binding regulation.

In September last year, Finance Watch published a report on the planned European banking union and the bank reform in the European Union, and concluded that “despite its intention, (it) will fail to prevent European citizens from bearing the losses of failed banks in the event of a systemic banking crisis unless there are meaningful structural and capital reforms to Europe’s largest banks.”

The banking union, which should start operations in November, is supposed to create a safety net to minimise the risk of further European Union taxpayer-funded bailouts.

The banking unions foresees a new European authority, the so-called Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM), with the power to wind up or restructure failing banks.

According to Finance Watch, “The SRM has the right objectives: namely to enable the orderly resolution of banks in participating member states, and to weaken the interdependencies between financial institutions and their sovereigns.”

But the watchdog group does not see “how these objectives can be met without reducing the regulatory incentives that favour sovereign debt, and without a structural reform of bank activities to make bail-in and bank resolution credible.”

According to International Monetary Fund (IMF) figures, in the aftermath of the global financial meltdown of 2008, industrialised countries bailed out private banks for 1.75 trillion dollars, some 1.3 trillion euros. This amounts to the one-year salary of more than 42 million people earning net average German wages of around 25,000 euro per year.

The global bank rescue weakened the European states involved, in particular Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, and triggered, among others, the present sovereign debt crisis, with its social and human costs.

Another typical example of the lack of will among European governments to improve regulations and reduce risks in financial markets is the long and so far fruitless debate on the introduction of a very low tax on financial transactions, also known as the Tobin tax, after it was suggested by Nobel Laureate economist James Tobin in 1972.

In September 2011, the European Commission proposed the introduction of the tax within the 27 member states of the European Union by 2014. According to the original proposal, the tax would only impact financial transactions between financial institutions charging 0.1 percent against the exchange of shares and bonds and 0.01 percent across derivative contracts.

According to the initial Commission estimates, the tax could raise up to 57 billion euros per year. But, as of June 2014, that is, almost three years after the proposal, only 11 E.U. member countries appear ready to introduce the tax. Furthermore, there is wide disagreement among these 11 countries about which transactions should be taxed, and how high the levy should be.

Sven Giegold, German Green Party member of the Euro-Parliament and expert on international finance, even goes as far as saying that “France, nominally a strong supporter of the Tobin tax, actually did kill it.”

In May, during negotiations at the European Council, the French government opposed raising the Tobin tax on most financial derivatives and on government bonds. Giegold said that “France obviously fears that if taxed, banks wouldn’t buy government bonds.”

After such objections, Giegold complained, “the original tax on financial transactions has been devaluated to a useless levy to be paid only by small savers.”

A new scheme to avoid new rules for financial markets in Europe is to make them part of supra-regional binding projects, such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), currently under negotiation between the European Union and the U.S. government.

According to Finance Watch, “there is no proven case for including financial services in the TTIP.” “We are concerned that the EU’s approach to regulatory cooperation (within the TTIP negotiations related to financial markets) will encourage convergence around the lowest common standards, not the highest,” Thierry Philipponnat, Finance Watch’s secretary, said during a recent hearing at the European Parliament.

For Philipponnat, “it is difficult to see how the inclusion of financial services in the European Union-U.S. free trade agreement negotiations, and especially the parts on regulatory cooperation, will not lead to a ‘race to the bottom’ in financial services regulation.”

Five years after the 2008 world financial crisis and two years after the Occupy movement it triggered, U.S. critics of the financial sector are coalescing around the idea of a Robin Hood Tax on financial transactions.

Bankers look down onto Robin Hood tax protestors gathered in New York City on Sept 17, 2013. Credit: Samuel Oakford/IPS

“The questions that Occupy raised are the right ones and it’s up to everyone else to come up with some answers,” said Robert Pollin, an economist at UMASS Amherst who works on financial transaction taxes (FTTs).

The idea, first floated by Nobel Prize-winning economist James Tobin in the early 1970s as a way to discourage overzealous currency trading, would, in its current iterations, levy a small duty on stocks, bonds and derivatives.

Though the debate over FTTs has long focused on curbing risky and unnecessary trading and “righting the market”, the Robin Hood movement attempts to shift it to one over human rights, fulfilling basic needs and not least a bit of payback for taxpayer bailouts of the financial sector.

For activists in the United States, the tax is part of what they hope will be a societal reorientation away from the privileging of an industry that has doubled its share of U.S. GDP since 1980 and drains other fields of the best and brightest.

FTTs exist in over 30 countries, many of them, like South Korea and Brazil, with some of fastest growth rates in the world.

“People don’t realise how tiny a tax we are talking about,” said Nicole Woo, director of domestic policy at the Centre for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

“There’s plenty of evidence out there that if revenues were to go to infrastructure spending, education and other public goods, it could increase GDP in the end and help increase employment,” Woo told IPS.

The Robin Hood Tax coalition, an umbrella group of sympathetic organisations, has put its weight behind a bill, “The Inclusive Prosperity Act,” introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Keith Ellison. The bill’s text is a strong critique of the financial sector and calls for the tax to pay for housing, healthcare and protecting the public sector and the environment.

The legislation would tax stock trades at 0.5 percent, bonds at .1 percent and derivatives at .005 percent.

The mix aims to “tax different markets equally”, Pollin told IPS, making it difficult for traders to flee one asset class for another. A tax in the U.S. would enjoy auto-enforcement on the part of market players because of the judicial security it provides.

“If you want to use the American legal system, you will have to trade here,” says Pollin.

Larry Summers’ decision to remove himself from consideration as chairman of the Federal Reserve in the face of a promised uproar among liberal members of Congress has Robin Hood supporters optimistic.

Summers is seen by many on the left as a leading architect of the financial crisis after he pushed for financial deregulation and opposed transparency in the derivatives market while serving as treasury secretary during the Bill Clinton administration.

A European proposal, agreed to by 11 countries, however, suffered a legal setback this month when E.U. lawyers delivered a non-binding opinion that found a continent-wide FTT used jurisdictional powers within states illegally. The decision is one of many roadblocks that supporters can expect to encounter.

For nurses at a Sept. 17 Robin Hood event in New York City, the events in Europe were noise.

“We looked around the globe and found nurses have the same issues everywhere. Austerity measures are killing us,” said Jean Ross, co-president of National Nurses United (NNU), a union of over 180,000 registered nurses and co-founder of the Robin Hood Tax coalition.

The union sees a Robin Hood Tax paying for many of the medical services which have been cut since the economic crisis.

An enemy weakened

For years, High Frequency Trading (HFT) was the oft-cited boogeyman when it came to pushing for a Robin Hood Tax. Critics claim the billions of daily trades distorted markets and added to volatility.

Fears were realised on May 6, 2010 when the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than nine percent only to regain those losses in a matter of minutes. Resounding blame was laid on trading algorithms that exacerbated an initial drop in the futures market. By 2012, HFT were estimated to be executing 84 percent of all trades on U.S. exchanges.

But as more HFT players enter the fray, returns in the zero sum game of shaving fractions of pennies off trades have decreased.

Large firms like KCG – itself formed when GETCO merged with near bankrupt Knight Capital after a haywire algorithm cost the latter over 400 million dollars in one day – have seen their profits cut by over three quarters from the height of the HFT boom, a period that coincided with the first volatile spurts of the crisis in 2008. Many have gone out of business.

KCG declined to comment for this story, as did industry leader Citadel Group.

That high-frequency trading may eat itself up underscores its social uselessness, says Woo. HFT proponents cite the volume and liquidity it creates – if bid and ask prices are nearly even, retail investors and pensions should pay lower prices. This is misleading, Woo told IPS.

“The liquidity provided by these traders is a sort of phantom liquidity because as soon as things start going south the computer algorithms pull all their money out, the liquidity just dries up completely,” she said.

HFT profits, even at their height, were small compared to those of the entire financial sector. Pollin’s models, using parametres similar to those set forth in Ellison’s bill, predict a drop in trade volume of at least 50 percent, putting U.S. market volume and capitalisation proportionally on par with Great Britain, where a tax of .5 percent already exists on stocks.

“Financial trading is an undertaxed sector of our economy,” says Woo.

Many even on Wall Street, especially those whose profits are reliant on long-term trends, agree.

A lack of tax on commodity trading can in fact be a burden on the average consumer. Legislation will help consumers by discouraging speculation in commodity markets, says Kenneth Zinn, political director at NNU. “There’s a surcharge on gasoline that’s simply Wall Street speculation.”

After watching a bruising battle over healthcare that ended in the Affordable Care Act, the nurses union is gearing for a fight with the financial industry, another special interest group which will fight tooth and nail to protect its privileged place in the economic pecking order.

By Supachai Panitchpakdi
GENEVA, Jul 9 2013 (IPS)

Almost five years have passed since the global financial crisis, and the world economy is still reeling from its consequences. The main reason for this is the continued stagnation in developed countries, which is adversely affecting economic dynamism in other regions.

Supachai Panitchpakdi, secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

Indeed, growth in the advanced economies is likely to slow down from 1.2 percent in 2012 to only 0.8 percent in 2013. If developed countries remain unable to revive their economies, there is a risk that this mediocre pace of growth may yet turn into a global recession.

At this juncture, we therefore face a dual challenge: first, we must urgently take measures to restore stable and sustained growth in the world economy, so as to truly overcome the crisis. Second, and perhaps even more importantly, we must ensure that such a devastating financial crisis cannot recur. This will require making significant reforms to global economic governance, far beyond what has been achieved so far.

Slow growth in the advanced economies and thus in the world economy is partly the natural consequence of a credit crunch and sharply reduced demand in the aftermath of a crisis. However, in many countries, these effects are being exacerbated by severe austerity policies.

Despite years of unprecedented monetary expansions in the United States, Europe and, more recently, Japan, banking credit provided to the private sector has stagnated, or even decreased. The problem is not the supply of money, but aggregate demand.

Desperately needed are measures to support demand. And yet, austerity policies are contracting demand by raising taxes and reducing expenditure, just when such expenditure would be most required. In this way, several countries that have adopted austerity policies have now been pushed into a double-dip recession.

In addition, since these austerity programmes hamper growth – and, consequently, public revenues – they do not achieve their target of fiscal consolidation either.

It is therefore time to reassess the merits of the current policy approach.

The second key challenge is to prevent a recurrence of the crisis. The financial meltdown at the heart of the financial system has reminded us of a lesson we should already have learnt after the Asian Financial crisis (1997-1998), namely that deregulated financial markets do not allocate resources efficiently and are prone to herd-behaviour and crises.

Nevertheless, after the initial flurry of measures to bail out banks and companies in need of liquidity, enthusiasm to address the wider systemic origins of the crisis quickly faded.

At the national level, there have been efforts to strengthen regulation of the financial sector in the U.S. But at the global level, reforms have been limited to a slight revision of the Basel Capital Adequacy accord, as well as a number of measures to address tax havens. It is not clear whether these measures could have prevented the financial crisis, had they been in place in 2007. And yet, even these minor steps are beginning to be rolled back.

More importantly, the reforms have not addressed the more fundamental problems of our global financial architecture. The current system based on deregulated capital markets and floating exchange rates has not prevented prolonged misalignments of exchange rates, or the build-up of large current account imbalances. It has also failed to avert the disorderly expansion of short-term capital movements, which are a major factor of economic instability.

In order to address these issues, much bolder reforms will be required. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has long argued that international monetary and financial relations should be governed by rules similar to those currently governing the use of trade policy measures in the World Trade Organisation (World Trade Organisation).

In a world where tariffs and international trade are increasingly governed by a set of rules to prevent “beggar-thy-neighbour” policies and foster trade liberalisation, it is incomprehensible that similar rules do not exist for the global financial system. And this is despite the fact that even small realignments of exchange rates can wipe out any gains from trade liberalisation, or that exchange rate crises have repeatedly shown themselves to have devastating effects.

A multilateral system of rules could ensure that exchange rates better reflect long-run fundamentals, and credibly prevent the build-up of imbalances.

Similarly, there is a need to rein in the large volumes of speculative capital flows. Such unregulated capital flows generate a risk not only in the recipient country, but also in the source economy, where the solvency of banks may be undermined by their exposure to asset bubbles in foreign countries.

Financial supervision should therefore be applied at both ends of capital movements. Already, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has recently changed its position on the use of capital controls under certain circumstances. However, a multilateral arrangement (such as the “Tobin tax”) would probably be more effective.

It is clear that truly preventing future financial crisis will require an overhaul of the current system tantamount to a new Bretton Woods. Any such system must, of course, give greater voice to developing nations than they have so far enjoyed in the international financial institutions.

(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

Despite the grave financial and sovereign debt crisis sweeping the region, the European Union has once again failed to reach unanimous approval of a proposition made by its executive body, the European Commission (EC), to tax financial transactions in order to reduce speculation and increase state revenues.

British and Swedish rejection of the EC proposal once again condemned the so-called Tobin tax, named after its first advocate, the late U.S. economist James Tobin, to remain a theoretical project with little hope of being enacted.

But under pressure from the French and Austrian governments, and the leading German opposition Social Democratic Party (SPD), ten EU countries agreed to consider the application of the Tobin tax starting in 2014.

The preliminary agreement was reached during a European financial summit late last month, and includes Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and Cyprus, all of whom pledged to levy a small tax – between 0.01 and 0.2 percent – on all financial transactions, starting in 2014.

The government of Finland also indicated that it might approve the Tobin tax.

Years after a global financial crisis of epic proportions, and following over a decade of debate around the issue, the EU’s inability to pass a common tax on speculation shows the enourmous influence the international finance sector continues to enjoy.

James Tobin, who was honoured in 1981 with the Nobel memorial prize for economic sciences, first published his proposal for a small levy on speculative financial transactions in 1972.

In 1997, in the aftermath of the Mexican and Asian financial crises, the French Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions and Citizens’ Action (ATTAC), rescued the Tobin tax from oblivion and put it at the top of the agenda to regulate financial markets.

Since then, the tax has been a central theme in academic and political debates, particularly in Europe, so far without any substantial success.

Cautious approval by ten European governments does not mean that the tax will actually be introduced, given that the EU process of approval is extremely cumbersome and time-consuming.

“The Tobin tax in Europe is not for tomorrow,” Margrethe Vestegar, Danish minister of finances, and head of the European council of finance ministers, said at the end of the summit late June.

If at all, the tax will not be put into practice until 2014.

Germany conflicted

Ahead of the June summit, the German SPD put forth an ultimatum: unless the German government agreed to tax financial transactions, the SPD would not approve the proposed fiscal pact – conceived by the conservative government of Angela Merkel to enforce “common” austerity measures across Europe – in parliament.

Under this pressure, the German government finally relaxed its opposition to the Tobin tax, but warned that it would take at least two years to put it into practice.

“The tax won’t be approved in this legislative period,” which ends in late 2013, German minister of finances, Wolfgang Schaeuble, said in a press conference. However, he added that the German government has already budgeted for two billion euros in expected revenue from the Tobin tax for the fiscal year 2014.

Without the SPD support in the Bundestag, the lower house of parliament, the German government would have failed to legalise its blueprint for strict budgetary discipline that it wants to see implemented across Europe in the coming years, in a supposed effort to reduce state deficits and thus solve the sovereign debt crisis.

Failure to pass the corresponding law for the fiscal pact would have meant a tremendous setback for the ‘austerity regime’ conceived in Berlin, which the German government describes as fundamental to restore financial stability across the continent.

“We know that the approval of the Tobin tax in Europe won’t be easy,” according to Andrea Nahles, general secretary of the SPD. “But if the governments of Germany and France, the two strongest economies in the continent, cooperate on this question, they would surely convince those governments still opposing the tax.”

Several new studies suggest that the Tobin tax would not only boost economic growth in Europe, but also substantially increase state revenues.

According to a study by the German Institute for Economic Research, released earlier this month, the tax could generate some 11.2 billion euros in revenues in Germany alone. The study takes into consideration the fact that many banks and investment funds would relocate some of the taxed transactions out of the German financial market.

Another study undertaken by the renowned economists Stephany Griffith-Jones, a professor at Columbia University, and Avinash Persaud, senior fellow with the Caribbean Policy Research Institute, estimated that introducing the Tobin tax in Europe would boost gross domestic product (GDP) in the region by at least 0.25 percent annually.

“Our analysis suggests that the overall positive impact on GDP level could be even higher, as we identify a number of channels through which the tax could encourage a higher level of GDP,” the two economists noted in their paper.

Griffith-Jones told IPS that the tax “would also contribute to reducing the risk of a future crisis. When this is taken into account, you obtain a substantial positive effect on economic growth”.

Additionally, she rejected the repeated argument that such a tax would not be feasible because of evasion or due to its limited application in Europe. “In the past, the same was said about income tax, which is indeed avoided but which still raises a lot of money,” Griffith-Jones stressed.

In the study, the two economists recalled that “one of the oldest and largest financial transaction taxes successfully functions on its own without global imitation” – the so-called stamp duty reserve tax applied in Britain.

Griffith-Jones told IPS, “Since 1986, and before in other guises, the British government has unilaterally, without waiting on others, levied a tax of 0.50 percent on transactions in British equities.”

This tax raises some five billion U.S. dollars per year.

According to the EC’s estimates, released last March, total savings resulting from the introduction of the Tobin tax would amount to 81 billion euros for the period 2014-2020.

European Commissioner for financial programming and budget, Janusz Lewandoski, stressed, “The financial sector does not pay valued added tax (VAT), but has received massive support from taxpayer’s money.”

Therefore, he added, “Taxing the transactions of all financial institutions at rates as low as 0.01 percent is only fair. Furthermore, the estimated revenue that the tax would generate by 2020 can only be welcomed by cash-strapped governments across the EU.”

(END)