Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-198"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001024.6.2-198"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I think this is an interesting suggestion too, one that warrants looking into, but at the same time I think you have to understand the ambiguities we are liable to face. As James Tobin said himself, the greater the product of this tax, the more it will have missed its target, as this will indicate that short-term speculative amounts have not been eliminated. Mr Tobin is himself opposed to the principle of using this tax to fund development other than as a secondary objective, as a tax intended to restrict and even prohibit certain types of transaction cannot at the same time seek to provide ongoing funding of development schemes. This is the principle, with which economists are familiar, of focussing an instrument on a single objective. We do have to consider a number of questions calling for specific answers, particularly on the subject of funding development, and clearly efforts must focus on the improvement and the quality of state aid for development, the development of trade, strengthening international financial institutions, and the issue of debt must be considered in depth once again."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples