As you have accepted, monetary speculation played a part in the situations you noted, and I will certainly agree only a small part. Other instances, such as the hedge-fund bail out and the fall of South-East Asian currencies were situations where speculation played a greater role.
I believe that point is that monetary speculation, movement of large funds of cash-like assets back and forth for small profit, is becoming easier and more prevalent. In some cases it has been a major contributor to international crisis and in general it clogs the 'bandwidth' of the trading floors. Tobin proposed a very small tax on transactions that would discourage such trading and generally not interfere with currency movements related to real trade. His use of an the UN as the authority may have been because at the time it was, and still is, one of the few viable international bodies in existence. Suggesting that funds from such a tax be used to increase development in poor countries was a laudable humanitarian gesture.
I don't much like the UN myself, and have stated so in previous posts. However I regard a great deal of the criticism of the UN as simply racist in origin, and promulgated by groups without the sense to actually identify administrative problems and suggest solutions. Easier to just hint that 'they' will be controlling 'your' life, to create fear and dread, than to look at what is actually happening and what the problems are.
The fact is, that given the increasing degree of internationalization of trade, and the push to reduce financial borders, the reality of an international authority to regulate and/or tax international trade is almost a given. Tax itself is neither left nor right in its politics. All governments utilize the method to reallocate resources. Tobin's proposals are simply farsighted, recognizing an area that may need to be regulated, and utilizing an accepted tool in such regulation. Its not politics its economics. In 20 years argument over this concept is likely to be mute, as the Authority and the tax will exist--along with a sophisticated framework of controls.
With regard to your comments on the Middle East vs. Latin America. We both seem to agree that poverty and inequity has a tendency to provoke, within the middle classes, elements extremist behavior. I'm not interested in judging the political 'quality' of such behavior. I simply wish to point out that often reducing poverty can reduce the tendency of societies to produce radical elements.
Your contention that Latin America is less violent than the middle east seems a bit of an overstatement. What do we call the periods of violent terror in Argentina, Chile, Peru, Columbia, and others if not the killing of innocents? What do we call the genocide of Natives in Brazil, Guatemala, Mexico if not the killing of innocents? If anything the European heritage of Latin America is most evident in the willingness of its middle classes to immerse themselves in the blood of their neighbors. The argument I will accept this that much of this killing was more about power than poverty.
Compared to the recent history of South America, the Arab/Moslem world is a safe place to visit and live. The fanatics are intent on killing others and have a general tendency to leave their brothers alone, and they are certainly less prone to killing the innocent than the fanatics of Latin America. |
