Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-20-Speech-4-082"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000120.5.4-082"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the European Parliament resolution on international capital movements, that we have just rejected, dealt with a very broad and very interesting subject, but unfortunately dealt with it superficially and in a slapdash way. Frankly, the subject deserved better.
After some disjointed considerations, the resolution revealed its real purpose in paragraph 9, which was to request that the Commission should, within six months, draw up a report on the interest and feasibility of a tax on international speculative capital movements. If you approach the subject from this angle, I am sorry to say that there were no grounds for the report requested. Everyone already knows that it is impossible. In fact, it is completely impossible to distinguish a speculative capital movement from a non-speculative movement, except by using arbitrary bureaucratic criteria that would distort trade.
And when would you get to the point where you have to distinguish the good speculations, those that aim to challenge the artificial situations to take better account of the real economy, from the bad speculations, those of which it is declared (also arbitrarily) that they essentially aim to harm others? This exercise would be even more impossible than the previous one. In short, the European Parliament’s resolution in this form completely missed the point.
However, the question could have been expressed differently. It could have asked whether it were appropriate to introduce a tax on all international capital movements, of whatever type, without embarking on impossible distinctions. This is a more sensible question but, again, this question was not raised.
To the second question, however, I would reply that such a standard tax would probably not resolve the monetary crises that most often correspond to real underlying imbalances. Instead of creating a new tax, to be paid into who knows what fund, it would be better to ensure sound economic policies and to reduce existing taxes and contributions, particularly on income."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples