>May I recommend www.earthrights.net and check out Green Tax Policy. jo* I only looked at the green tax and green economics page of that site. First, let me state that I am pro-ecotaxes and that the ones suggested on that site make sense. But... What strikes me is political-correctness and a lack of focus. The program is ambitious. A reform of the nation-states system based on some kind of world federation promoting "policy convergence" and world law (the international criminal court is given as an example) is called for, no less! It also advocates nationalisation (with another name) of infrastructure stuff and heavy industries as well as a worker-owned (or private for very small businesses) capitalist economy. But at the same times, it advocates centrism and talks about such far-fetched stuff as an economy which fulfills human "spiritual" needs and taxing satellites (but I thought that the infrastructure was to be nationalized... I have missed something). But how does Earth Rights want to reach that "fairness in the overall distribution of wealth" and those "just rewards for labor of all kinds"? "Green tax reform makes a clear distinction between private property and common property. Private property is that which is created by labor." They do advocate cuts in taxes on labour. Good. Direct taxation is redistributive but you can replace it by redistributive taxes on capital. But taxes on non-natural capital are also to but cut according to Earth Rights! At first glance, the outcome is going to me not less but more inequality. "Reducing taxes on labor increases purchasing capacity, reducing taxes on capital encourages efficiency." There is no absolute efficency. What is this kind of efficency supported by Earth Rights? Apparently it's efficency in maximizing profits! How will the redistribution be done if private property of the non-natural means of production is respected? "Non-profit banks should issue and retire currency and should loan to the kinds of business enterprises which will broadly distribute ownership of wealth." I'm not sure about what's a non-profit bank, but that seems to be saying that we should put our confidence in a unregulated capitalism to redistribute the wealth of the capitalists. Or that means that banks will be controlled by some authority which will force capitalists to redistribute or to be cut from access to lending? Since there is some talk about social justice and that the market is never attacked even implicitely except as far as infrastructure, heavy industries, and the commons are concerned, I guess it means that Earth Rights expect the outcomes of the market process to be just! Another example of incoherence is the idea that ecotaxes on land will lower it's price because it would curb speculation. Speculation is indeed bad, but either the price is too low or it's too high. You can't argue that it's too high for people but too low for the earth (I guess the idea is that the higher the price of a ressource the wisest its use). I also note anti-"financial elite" overtones (as opposed as anti-capital ones) in those pages. I already criticized that as proto-fascistic conspiracy theorism (what a phrase:-) in another post. There are many good proposals and some bad in these one, but the biggest problem is that they don't fit together. My impression is that Earth Right wants to have it both ways on several key issues in order to please to too many people. As I see nothing really new there, my crude temporary judgment on these pages' usefulness is: zero! But since these pages are better at brievety than at clarity, I may very well have misunderstood many things. Julien _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
