This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robofish (talk | contribs) at 01:10, 3 January 2012 (added wikiproject template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:10, 3 January 2012 by Robofish (talk | contribs) (added wikiproject template)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Environment: Climate change Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Economics Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
should be more generic. Chendy (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, it needs to be specific to this actual tabled proposal. Now it is.
If anything it needs more on the implementation and some comment on the practicality and fate of some of these proposals that have been around for decades.
Implementation concerns
For instance: "changes to the... financial system, including the reduction of the ...interest rate, once again to support green investment" has been proposed many times since at least the 2005 World Mayors' agreement on climate change agreed at COP11 in Montreal. But a general reduction of interest rate doesn't do this, unless there are higher rates for all non-green investment, which means there must be a way to tell one kind of investment from another, and that's where all such proposals tend to fall down and never get implemented.
Arguing for "large financial institutions - 'mega banks' - to be broken up into smaller units" makes the "green banking" problem in some ways more difficult as these small units must be watched and regulated without the advantages of leveraging political power on a bigger enterprise. So such proposals must be accompanied by a streamlined financial risk and regret regulation system (read "Seeing tomorrow, Dembo and Freeman, 1998, on what that must look like) and there must be a way of sharing the scenarios, projections, and so on so that fundamental risks can be assessed. The reasons banks got big in the first place was because there was no way to insulate them from major price shocks of various kinds. If they are to stay small, they must be able to measure and anticipate risk far better than any previous financial institutions.
Arguing for "the re-regulation of international finance: ensuring that the financial sector does not dominate the rest of the economy" and especially for "re-introduction of capital controls" is going to fall on deaf ears without clear proposals on how that re-regulation is to be implemented. Tobin tax, carbon tax directly on the commodity market pricing itself, and on all transactions between currencies, etc., are viable, but they must be spelled out in great detail if something as onerous as capital-control is to come back.
As for "increased official scrutiny of exotic financial products such as derivatives" this is of no value whatsoever as the "officials" do not have the skills to supervise or scrutinize. it's impossible, without the above-mentioned shared financial risk assessment structure and some agreement on a capital asset model, to agree on what constitutes an unacceptable regret or over-exposure to a given risk. Without the software and systems in place, there's no "scrutiny" possible except after the fact.
Some of the proponents of the GND have argued for a specific way to proceed like implementing the new global structure for online transactions, exempting online-only transactions from all national regulation as a carrot to users of online-only currency, then offering to implement it for the legacy national fiat currencies. .
As for "the prevention of corporate tax evasion by demanding financial reporting and by clamping down on tax havens", this can never be achieved without a clear definition of profit and loss, and *this* can never be achieved without a more uniform capital asset model worldwide. This is more or less what the IMF, World Bank and BIS are working on with the TEEB and associated UN System of National Accounts reforms.
Some good quotes from credible sources on all of the above would be helpful in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.9.221 (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Categories: