General Discussion

MindPilot

(12,693 posts)

16. Financial transactions are not part of GDP

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 05:12 PM

Apr 2013

I saw a wonderful documentary on Japanese TV (one of those things you would never watch except it is the best thing on in a hotel room) where a German economist laid out how the financial world operates almost separate and part from the "real" economy.

There was a chart that showed how global GDP--which is people making and doing things that other people pay for--is about $70 trillion. It also showed that the financial transactions are several times more that, about $175 trillion if I remember right.

The presenter was making a case for a FTT (financial transaction tax) based on the idea that hundreds of trillions of dollars change hands every year tax-free while adding exactly nothing to the GDP.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

THIS scares me: from Jonathon Turley's website [View all] snappyturtle Apr 2013 OP

Can you eat stocks? demwing Apr 2013 #1

Doesn't matter how big of a fire I build ... Kennah Apr 2013 #54

Bank Of America Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On U.S. Taxpayers With Federal Approval OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #2

I so appreciate you posting these links. I had read about this and it, too, is snappyturtle Apr 2013 #3

It seems likely to happen. OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #5

Meanwhile, Wikipedia says that "In nominal terms, the total 2011 GWP was around US$69.11 trillion." Occulus Apr 2013 #6

Like an aneurysm about to burst. nt OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #7

I'm starting to think that letting it all fall apart is the only possible path to a lasting remedy. Occulus Apr 2013 #9

Misleading figure for a couple of reasons: geek tragedy Apr 2013 #11

Glad someone has a clue. Lucky Luciano Apr 2013 #35

Financial transactions are not part of GDP MindPilot Apr 2013 #16

The notional amount of their derivs was about $75T. Lucky Luciano Apr 2013 #34

your math isn't wrong. Volaris Apr 2013 #40

uh Occulus Apr 2013 #41

sorry. But on a brighter note, think of it this way: Volaris Apr 2013 #43

Hmmm. Then how about this tactic. Occulus Apr 2013 #45

See, THAT'S why I come here, Volaris Apr 2013 #46

You're welcome. Occulus Apr 2013 #47

You always think this couldn't possibly happen mercymechap Apr 2013 #4

It's not so much that any one of us would be a mother lode for a bank but snappyturtle Apr 2013 #13

If/when it happens I'm sure PBO will propose a policy to "protect" the VERY VERY VERY poor..... forestpath Apr 2013 #8

A work program OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #10

A FEMA camp program, more likely. WinkyDink Apr 2013 #50

ACLU: Debtors� prisons are alive and well in (Ohio) OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #53

I'm reading the actual FDIC BOE plan and am a substantial portion of the way through it, Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #12

...and just finished it. Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #14

Well, in the bank's view, the depositors are safe as they get stock in lieu of $$. snappyturtle Apr 2013 #15

No, that's not what it says. Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #17

Actually the FDIC-BOE article says from the beginning snappyturtle Apr 2013 #27

I'm not addressing the article, I'm addressing the primary source, the actual plan. Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #30

I was using the same source as you. Unfortunately, I used the term 'article'. nt snappyturtle Apr 2013 #37

Where does it "say from the beginning that depositers are unsecured creditors"? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #57

It doesn't. What I meant to say was that from the beginning to the end of snappyturtle Apr 2013 #58

Here's the paragraph that Benton refers to just above muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #24

It's a post Cyprus interpretation of the document that doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny, Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #32

Well, it's not 'obvious' to me. Maybe you should also read snappyturtle Apr 2013 #36

According to the CRA amendments to the Gramm-Leach Act, OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #18

Read that again Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #19

90 billion > 75 trillion OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #22

That's notional value Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #23

Richard Wolff is concerned OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #28

Thanks for posting these links too...love me some Richard Wolff. I find snappyturtle Apr 2013 #29

That's just an appeal to authority Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #31

Richard Wolff is an economics professor. OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #33

You still have not acknowledged the difference between derivative notional and derivative value. Lucky Luciano Apr 2013 #38

Well, what's the difference then? OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #39

I would estimate that dividing by 25 is about right. Lucky Luciano Apr 2013 #42

Even dividing by 25 is still a shitload of money. nt OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #44

Remember that is gross. If I have two trades on the book with you... Lucky Luciano Apr 2013 #52

Is the plan you are reading titled dixiegrrrrl Apr 2013 #25

My bank is so nice... fadedrose Apr 2013 #20

Literal one would be just plain silly as Satan's minions aren't likely to catch fire. Kennah Apr 2013 #55

It certainly would screw the majority of Social Security recipients, who Cleita Apr 2013 #21

Gee, one might almost think that was part of the plan. WinkyDink Apr 2013 #51

Theoretically, the FDIC insures deposits. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #26

I've done more reading on this doc by the FDIC and BOE. snappyturtle Apr 2013 #59

K&R DeSwiss Apr 2013 #48

THAT would finally = revolution. Bankers would be murdered. WinkyDink Apr 2013 #49

Madame Guillotine, please pick up your voicemail. Kennah Apr 2013 #56