Ed,
You undoubtly saw the posting on Linda McQuaig's article re: the Tobin
tax if you missed it in The Toronto Star March 22. As I understand it,
the argument goes that "by scooping a tiny percentage of the enormous
sums traded daily on foreign exchanges, the Tobin tax could help reduce
the volatility in world currencies and collect billions of dollars for
good causes". Ontelevision and elsewhere on paper McQuaig is among those
who believe that the rapid exchange of money across currencies tends to
destabilize national currencies, making it hard for countries to conduct
international trade. This, it has been argued, is also one of the major
factors that contributedto the Asian money crisis.
Rose Dyson
On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Ed Weick wrote:
> >
> >Hi Ed,
> >
> >a few months ago you and I had an exchange following a posting of my book
> >review on the MAI.
> >
> >What are your thoughts on the matter these days?
> >
> >You are probably aware that the City of Waterloo has passed a resolution
> >calling more a halt on negotations and further public disussion.
> >
> >Rose Dyson
>
> Hello Rose,
>
> >From all I've read recently, the MAI - at least in its present incarnation -
> is dead. There are many reasons for this: The OECD was not the right
> organization to put it together; countries wanted too many exceptions to it;
> the process of negotiation was not "transparent" enough; and it raised a lot
> of grass-roots opposition from people who felt that the autonomy of their
> governments would be undermined.
>
> In a variety of posting to several different lists - often at the risk of
> being drawn and quartered - I've said that I didn't see too much wrong with
> the MAI. I argued that, given the enormous importance and growing scale of
> international investment, a common set of rules applying equally to all
> signatories, was a good idea. I still think it's a good idea. If a MAI had
> been in place during the past decade, the Asian meltdown might not have
> happened, and would almost certainly not have been as severe as it now
> appears to be (provided, of course, that the Tigers were signatories).
>
> In my mind, we need rules for something as big as international capital
> flows. The question then is, who will set those rules? Will they be
> imposed by the banks of big creditor nations on small debtors? Will they be
> imposed in a typical one-size-fits-all manner by the IMF following each
> crisis? Or will they be established by international negotiation and
> national ratification, as was supposed to have happened in the case of the
> MAI? The latter approach, while not perfect, appears preferable to me.
>
> I'm copying this to the Futurework list. Someone on the list may still want
> to tell me of the error of my ways.
>
> Best regards,
> Ed Weick
>
>
>
>
