Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.96.991129065844.29009B-100000@ux1.cyberenet.net> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 07:07:42 -0500 From: mailto:tuandbob@CYBERENET.NET Subject: Re: DEVEL-L Digest - 27 Nov 1999 to 28 Nov 1999 (#1999-191) To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Automatic digest processor wrote in part:> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 16:36:54 -04
> From: Kerry Miller <mailto:kerryo@NS.SYMPATICO.CA>
> Subject: Re: Tobin Tax Update
>
> Bob wrote,
> > Who Determines:
> >
> > -What an "acceptable" level of tax is?
> > -How the funds will be disbursed?
> > -How the list of "acceptable" projects will be protected from "pet
> > worthy causes"?
> > -Which multiple "miniscule" increases are "worthy"?
> >
>
> These are all good questions - but when you add
>
> > These problems have not been solved for any government yet.
>
> it suggests that a more fundamental question, Why are you (of all
> people!) looking to government to solve *our problems? has been
> overlooked.
Nice try at mis direction - I said governments had not solved the problem, not that I was looking for the government to do it.
> If on the other hand, when raising such questions, you were
> to offer your thoughts on why .01 or .005% (to use the instances cited
> in the articles) are *not acceptable levels, then someone else might join
> in what might be called 'discussion.'
The second, third and fourth questions apply to the above.
> As it is, your valuable contribution
> is likely to go precisely nowhere, until some kind soul bails you out --
> rather like a government might do.
>
> In the meantime (for I can hardly pretend to kindness), why should we
> not suppose (for the sake of *future discussion, at least) that financial
> traders will come to see that 'self-regulation' is their best interest, and
> that they will be able to set their own criteria of worth and acceptability,
> using all the wisdom and sagacity for which they are reknowned?
Self regulation has so far only worked when threatened by government action.
Bob