Dear RN list, Hans Sinn, who has worked over the years on civilian-based defence and civilian peace service, is interested in the Tobin tax idea. An international tax such as the Tobin tax could be used to fund some of the things the world so badly needs: basic services for "undeveloped" areas, peace professionals to mediate and promote understanding in areas torn apart by fighting, etc. However, there are reasons to be wary of efforts to build international government. Richard's comments and a couple postings he selected as supporting material (following the Tobin Tax posting) shed light on some of these concerns. Further discussion of this issue is welcome. all the best, Jan *************************************************************************** Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:19:51 -0400 To: •••@••.••• From: Hans Sinn <•••@••.•••> Subject: Tobin Tax Dear Jan, Let me recommend "GOOD TAXES - The Case for Taxing Foreign Currency Exchange and Other Financial Transactions", it is a 87 page, very informative, monograph by Alex C. Michalos, Chair of the Dept.of Politics and Social Science, University of Northern B.C.. Published 1997 by Science for Peace, Dundrum Press, Toronto, Oxford. The book can be ordered by e-mail from the Toronto University Book Store for $ 8.99 Can. Below some excerpts from pages 23-26 " The United Nations Development Program is laying on quite substantial research program...looking more deeply into the technicalities of enforcing it (the Tobin Tax) Inge Kaul, director of the UNDP's Office of Development Studies, argued for purpose of funding the operations of global governance: ' The most obvious place to look for global funding sources are the use of global (e.g., oceanic seabeds or the air) and globalized activities (e.g. foreign currency movements and trade, especially trading in global 'bads' such as export of arms and dumping of toxic wastes...If there were the requisite political will among UN member states 'to go global' in terms of the organization's financing, there would be no scarcity of funds. On the contrary, there would be much more money than the UN is likely to require for its own purposes in the foreseeable future (Kaul 1995,pp186-187)..... " In its 1994 Human Development Report the UNDP estimated that the cost of wiping out the worst forms of poverty in the world by providing basic energy, water and sanitation for the most needy would be between $30 and $40 billion a year (Ecumenical Coalition for Economic Justice 1995, p.7) So, on the basis of Felix and Sau's most modest estimate, the global revenue of a 0.o5% Tobin tax in 1995 would have been two to three times as great as would have been required to eliminate the world's worst forms of poverty. No wonder, then, that in the UNDP's ' Human Development Report 1994 (pp.68-69), a Tobin tax was recommended as one source of funding for 'global human security compacts' regarding things such as natural disaster, ethnic conflicts and environmental pollution. In Langmore's view(1995,p192), one of the main benefits of the tax is that ' Part of the revenue could also be used for establishing a permanent reliable source of funding for the United Nations system at last.... Revenue received by the UN could be used for disaster relief, security and development." Best wishes Hans. Hans Sinn 687 Brooke Valley Rd. RR#4 Perth ON K7H 3C6 Canada Phone: (613) 264 8833 Fax: (613) 264 8605 Civilian Peace Service homepage: <http://www.superaje.com/~marsin/cps.htm> ************************************************************************ From: •••@••.••• (Richard K. Moore) If the UN could become a focus of _resistance to globalization, if NGO's and Third-World delegates could shift the direction of UN policies, that would be great. But is that what the Tobin initiative is about? If it was accomplished over the strong objections of the US and EU, that would be a good sign. But if the US supports it, then you know it's a trap. Consider this analogy... Western governments get a lot of their revenues from petrol taxes. What this means then is that Western governments get into the business of promoting automobile usage and building highways. That increases their revenues and helps balance their budgets. The net effect is increased environmental destruction and global warming. If the UN gets general revenues from taxing global trade, that makes the UN an ally of global trade, which only accelertates concentration of ownership and power in TNC's. Generally speaking, while the UN is under the thumb of the Western powers, any changes in the UN are going to be engineered so as to promote globalization. Do you believe in local self-sustainability and in localized democracy? If so, then that applies at all different levels. Power should go to the locality when possible, and then to provinces, and then to nations, and finally to global institutions, when absolutely necessary. Nations are the appropriate level to tax capital and financial flows, because at that level the taxing system can be used as a tool to nurture national economies, to fund sustainability, etc. When implemented at a global level, the goal will instead be to reform the financial system _just _enough to continue the smooth operation of capitalist domination. Capitalist "self reform" has occurred often in history. It has always looked good at the time, but has ultimately proven, in each case, to be a consolidation of elite power. The IMF is now talking about lower interest rates, and limited controls on capital flows. But Malaysia, Russia, and others, who have ideas of their own for such measures, are condemned by the IMF as "destroying investor confidence". The IMF, one of the front-line globalist institutions, clearly puts the suppression of national sovereignty as its highest priority. That should be a lesson to those of us who want to resist globalization and promote democracy. It is the national level where the engagement between popular forces and capitalism is most favorable to popular forces. That is precisely why globalization is so eagerly attacking national sovereignty, before resentment against globalization becomes more widespread and politically potent. Another "self reform" that is receiving exposure in the media is debt forgiveness. Again, it is a sham. Instead of forgiveness, what is being proposed is the rewriting of short-term debt into long-term debt, so that more short-term loans can be made. And to secure the long-term debt, it is propose that national oil fields and other assets be signed over to IMF lenders. It is not debtors that benefit from such measures, it is the lenders, as usual, who would be bailed out, and into whose hands even more of the world's resources would be transferred. Below re snippets from some recent mailings that illustrate some of these points. all the best, rkm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Henry Garman <•••@••.•••> Subject: BUSINESSWEEK MAGAZINE CALLS FOR "NEW DEAL ON GLOBAL DEBT" Cc: •••@••.•••,[list suppressed] Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:38:06 -0600 Sept 1--BUSINESSWEEK MAGAZINE CALLS FOR "NEW DEAL ON GLOBAL DEBT". In its Sept 7 issue editorial, entitled, "Needed: A New Deal on Global Debt", {BusinessWeek} magazine states, "it's time for a global [debt] write-down." It is one of the first attempts of a major American publication to address in a significant way the idea that the current mass of outstanding debt cannot and will not be paid, and that it is time to "wipe the slate clean." {BusinessWeek} writes: "Central bankers flocking to Jackson Hole, Wyo., for their annual late-August retreat this year might want to take time to learn ... something called debtor-in-possession financing. DIP involves segregating the defaulted loans of a bankrupt company, wiping the slate clean, and starting the borrowing process all over. -----<snip>----- It is time to consider a global write-down. The best way may be to swap emerging-market debt for long-term bonds backed by hard collateral ranging from U.S., German, and Japanese government bonds to Russian oil reserves." -----<snip>----- IN ITS SEPT. 7 EDITORIAL, {BW} NOTES, "A BACKLASH AGAINST GLOBALIZATION HAS BEGUN," and states with alarm, "Hong Kong, the paragon of laissez-faire capitalism, is openly intervening in the stock market. Thailand and Indonesia are nationalizing banks. Now, Russia is taking a giant step backward by contemplating capital and price controls while printing rubles." After surveying the loan exposure of American, European and Japanese banks to Asia and Russia, {BW} states, "{All thes banks are facing significant write-offs on these loans ranging from 30% in Hong Kong to up to 80% in Indonesia and 90% in Russia. If the emerging world recession gets worse, the banks could wind up with nothing}. Better to save something by taking a hit, exchanging bad debt for new long-term paper. -----<snip>----- New lending and new easing are needed to get everyone back in the growth game." [ There you have the main goal: keeping the "growth game" going. And the growth game, as we all know, is about the growth of elite-owned capital. -rkm ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Janet M. Eaton" <•••@••.•••> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:24:14 +0000 Subject: (Fwd) Facts and figures from the Guardian, Key facts and stats on the debt burden, courtesy of Guardian Thursday May 14, 1998 *The staff budget of the IMF could provide a basic health care package for more than 14 million people in the poorest countries. *Rupert Murdoch's wealth is estimated at $4 billion, the same as the debt of Lebanon. * Infant mortality in Zambia in 1970 was 106 per 1,000 live births. In 1996 it had worsened to 112 per 1,000. Since 1990 the country has paid a total of $4.8 billion in debt service, about one and a half times its total economic output in one year. * US investment bank Goldman Sachs is valued at $20 billion, which is $100 million for each partner. The debt of South Africa is $23 billion, which is $550 for each South African. * In the developing world maternal mortality is still the leading cause of death among women of childbearing age, claiming 600,000 lives globally each year, with 30 times that number left disabled. * The world's most heavily indebted countries, by size of debt are: 1. Brazil $179 billion 2. Mexico: $157 billion 3. Indonesia $129 billion *The world's most heavily indebted countries, by debt as a percentage of national output are: 1. Sao Tome and Principe 647 per cent 2. Mozambique 432 per cent 3. Somalia 406 per cent *Britain's contribution to HIPC will be around £2.5 billion - less than has been spent on National Lottery scratchcards and around one-fifth of Britain's annual cigarette bill. *Britain spends £579 per person each year on health and £355 on the military; Jamaica spends £30 per person on health, £7 on the military, and £165 on debt service; Malawi spends £2 per person on health, £1 on the military, and £6 on debt service. Neither Malawi nor Jamaica are eligible for relief under HIPC as their debts are not big enough. *Voting in the World Bank is based on financial contributions. The US has 15.29 per cent of votes, Britain 5 per cent, China 2.02 per cent, Brazil 1.63 per cent, India 3.14 per cent, South Africa 0.28 per cent, Libya 0.07 per cent, and Zimbabwe 0.10 per cent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note from Jan: To add to this collection of statistics, I will copy out some I got in a mailing from the Montreal-based group, Alternatives, which funds social justice projects in many countries (Brazil, Canada, Chile, India, Nigeria, Cuba, Russia, south Africa, Panama, etc.) - the 10 richest billionaires have more wealth at their disposal than the 48 poorest countries - 1.3 billion people earn less than $1 per day - the CEO of Walt Disney Corp. makes an annual income that is 325,000 greater than a worker employed at one of his company's suppliers based in Haiti. - the world's 500 largest corporations control 70% of world trade - $809 billion US is spent on armaments every year. [I assume this is a global figure.] - 1.2 billion human beings are already experiencing fresh water shortages - By 2025 the number of people without adequate fresh water could well be 5 billion *********************************************************************** and one last note from Jan: Richard recently posted a very interesting article by Michel Chossudovsky to the cyberjournal list. (To subscribe, send any message to •••@••.••• To see the index of the cj archives, send any message to: •••@••.•••) It explains how the current financial crises throughout the world are being engineered in the interests of the world's biggest financial institutions. It also explains how the provisions of the MAI may well be imposed on the world through the IMF: "The timing was right on course: while the approval of the MAI had been temporarily stalled [in April, 1998], the proposed deregulation of foreign investment through a more expedient avenue had been officially launched: the Amendment of the Articles [of the IMF] would for all practical purposes derogate the powers of national governments to regulate foreign investment. It would also nullify the efforts of the Worldwide citizens' campaign against the MAI: the deregulation of foreign investment would be achieved ("with a stroke of a pen") without the need for a cumbersome multilateral agreement under OECD or WTO auspices and without the legal hassle of a global investment treaty entrenched in international law." (from cj #835) It looks like we're getting a form of world government whether we like it or not, and this world government is extremely unlikely to tax the world's wealthiest people and corporations to fund the transition to a demilitarized, more environmentally sensible world.
