Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.96.991129215323.15834G-100000@ux1.cyberenet.net> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:37:16 -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:> Topics of the day:
>
> 4. Tobin Tax Update
>
> 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 distraction, but I only made a statement. I was not proposing that "government" do anything.
Please explain the "(of all people!)".
> 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.'
Pretty Slick! You imply that I already support the tax by suggesting that I comment on the amount.
I don't.
I question the principle of the tax itself, not it's amount, by posing questions about it's equitable administration and vulnerability to abuse, misuse, and increase.
> 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.
I asked questions, which remain unanswered. I did not make proposals that need "bailing out" by any one, kind soul or government.
> In the meantime ...
> (for I can hardly pretend to kindness),
Huh?
> 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 mostly occurred as self preservation in the face of enforced regulation by an external force. As for the alleged wisdom and sagacity... What's the internet symbol for a Bronx Cheer?
As to miniscule amounts, the Camel's Nose Under the Tent and Cutting off the Puppy's Tail in Small Pieces as a Pain Saving Measure are the ideas that come to mind.
My apologies to the group, I've had my random periodic rant on Tobin Taxes and things that "we" ought to do because someone else has decided for us that those things are "for our own good" because we just don't know what's good for us and never will.
Bob (of all people!)