Comments on: G20 Marks Shift In Economic Power

By: Gloria

Gloria — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:55:11 +0000

This is essentially to avoid the economic calamity that is the tragedy of the commons. If everyone acts in their own self interest as is natural, then they will inevitably harm others in the process. The example that people use to describe this is grazing sheep. If i let my sheep overgraze then they may grow better. If all farmers do this, we will end up with a dead patch of land and the sheep will die. If we all get protectionist and try and help our own economies, the very same thing will happen. Trade will stifle and economies will start to ruin even faster than before. By meeting together, if real cooperation can be forged between nations, then we are more likely to be able to help one another help ourselves.

By: Harvey

Harvey — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:52:37 +0000

The problem with international summits is that there is no enforcement. If everyone agrees to something, there is nothing that will actually make these countries go through with it. Now, of course, many countries will because they think it makes sense for the good of everyone, but there will be other people who use this to their advantage. Its called the free rider problem. If everyone else does it then others will not since they think the problem is solved or htey can get away iwht not doing it. This means tariffs will stay high or something like that in certain areas, and these countries will reap large benefits and screw over everyone else. I do not think we can expect any real change from this summit.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:59:51 +0000

I don’t see what the big deal is– don’t these nations have summits all the time during economic down periods? Yes, we’re obviously in a crisis, but them meeting and making some changes isn’t a sign of the apocalypse, nor does it say anything about the U.S. or the way the world thinks of us. It just says that the rest of the world is interested in keeping their own pocketbooks full, and they’re making some adjustments to ensure that. This news seems pretty ho-hum to me.

By: Edgar

Edgar — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:10:48 +0000

I take issue with the title of this blog post. Shift in economic power? You really believe that every time the international community comes together to help a county, that country is weakened? If anything, this is a testament to our economic power. If Zaire had an economic crisis, there would not have been an emergency G20 summit to solve it. But there was for the U.S., because everybody knows that if the U.S. fails, so does everyone else. So, they’re preparing for the fallout and acknowledging that the U.S. is still king of the mountain. No surprise here.

By: Raj

Raj — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:20:40 +0000

This does not bode well for our economy. It is rare that in actual practice, two heads are better than one- often what you end up with is a bunch of people with different opinions, none of whom actually do anything because they are arguing with each other. In this case, we are letting countries into our club, who’s economies are not extremely strong to begin with. This seems like a foolish move, its kind of like buying hair care products from a bald guy: he can talk a good talk, but at the end of the day he really has no standing to give advice about it.

By: Daryl

Daryl — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:15:41 +0000

I’m curious to see what these G20 nations actually plan to do about this problem. It’s great that the U.S. is admitting it needs help but how much can these nations really do? Global economics can only be regulated to a point, and after that, it’s about individual nations doing what they can do right their own ships. I doubt these nations are going to be pouring aid into the U.S. economy, and I doubt they’ll be subsidizing the losses in the developing world, so what exactly do they plan to do?

By: Marvin

Marvin — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:12:54 +0000

This is a huge boon for enforcement. I don’t mean to sound cliché, but if a country is a part of the solution, by definition they will not be part of the problem. When we invite countries to participate who are not normally consulted, we strengthen our economic and diplomatic ties, and ensure better enforcement all around. Brazil is more likely to take measures within its own country (and region) to ensure the stability of the multinational organizations, if it is given a seat at the table. We should be inviting as many of these growing economies into the solution process as possible.

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:07:56 +0000

I think that this is an important step in the right direction. We were only hurting ourselves by shutting out a substantial number of the smaller economies from our summits. The current trend towards globalization means that the economies of other countries are just as important to us as the economy of our own country, especially if that country produces something we rely on. I applaud our leaders for inviting India and Brazil to talk about a global solution to a global problem.

By: Gregory

Gregory — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:33:41 +0000

You can tell the world is changing when the United States admits that they are the cause of a major world crisis (which we did). I think this signals a new order of more global cooperation. We rarely take accountability for our actions–its not politically expedient to do so–but doing this indicates that we are willing to man up when need be. I think more countries will be willing to work with us and lend us a hand in the future after this action. this also lets us figure out to fix the problem since we are willing to admit where it comes from.

By: Kimberly

Kimberly — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:28:24 +0000

I was watching cspn yesterday and the debates in the british parliament were on (If you want a good laugh and like politics, watching this is an absolute must). There was a lot of debate between the Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition about what was actually said at the meeting. This worries me since the fact that there is so much debate about this indicates that its unclear whether or not there is even consensus on what there is consensus about. I’m not sure if this is a good sign for the world.

The other hting they discussed was about how countries really shouldn’t be deficit spending too much, which worries me since I thought that is exactly what we shoudl be doing now. I think there was even a blog post about this on this website not too long ago about that very subject.