Print Blog RSS

PGPF Blog

5 Things to Watch for at the G-20

As 35 leaders are convening at the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, there are five main issues to watch. Here they are:

1) The Obama administration will propose "sustainable and balanced growth" coming out of the recession, telling big exporters, primarily China, not to count on Americans to go into hock while they import foreign goods, coinciding with the United States's longtime effort to persuade China to switch from an export-driven to a consumer-driven economy, and to let its currency appreciate. A second aspect of the growth strategy is what it will signal about the intention of the major economic powers to lessen government's role in the market. But not much specifics are expected on when the U.S. will raise interest rates, cut federal spending or reprivatize the American banking system.

2) Speaking of China, trade will be a big and perhaps contentious issue, because the Chinese are still furious over Obama's recent imposition of tariffs on Chinese tires and the implicit threat that such tariffs could be slapped on other products if China does not let the value of its currency, the renminbi, rise more than it has against the dollar. Obama has yet to convince global economic powers that he really is in favor of free trade. He's yet to convince business interests in the United States either. Look for pressure on him in Pittsburgh and how he responds to it.

3) Global warming is another big issue, only a few months away from the big United Nations conference on that subject in Copenhagen. Europeans are dismayed that the American legislation — stalled by the health care debate — appears likely to include a package of protectionist measures to help American industries compete against Chinese and Indian products, if those two countries don't sign on to a global warming pact. The world leaders also have to reassure poor countries that they will get the financing and development assistance to convert to low-carbon economies. That will come with a big price tag, just as everyone is trying to wind down from the crisis.

4) A deep rift has opened between the Europeans and the Americans over financial regulation, and it will be interesting to see how they resolve or paper over it. The Europeans want strict limits on compensation of banking executives. The Obama administration is resisting their call for pay caps and wants requirements on the minimum amount of capital each bank has to have in relation to its assets and liabilities, along with other limits on their activities.

5) The issue most dear to many participants, but not to us civilians, is the future global financial architecture. Should the G-20 become a permanent steering committee for the global economy, replacing the old G-8? Should the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank be given new responsibilities and be forced to give greater governing power to the emerging new economies, especially China, India and Brazil? Look for some questions to be answered in Pittsburgh.

It will definitely be interesting watching Mr. Obama showing world leaders the sites and sounds of Pittsburgh — which, truth to tell, is a city of many charms and much history. But it is unlikely to serve as more than a three-river diversion from the flood of problems facing him at home. Meanwhile, the world leaders are no doubt waiting for Obama to emerge as a leader of real stature, more than a tour guide to a steel city with a great past and an uncertain future.

Read the full article here.

3 Comments

  1. Re: ...Things to Watch...
    In the full article, Mr. Weisman said:
    >>The Obama administration is resisting their call for pay caps and says the main problem is that institutions "too big to fail" had to be rescued. The administration's solution: requirements on the minimum amount of capital each bank has to have in relation to its assets and liabilities, along with other limits on their activities. But the [Obama] administration's approach is widely viewed, even in Congress, as tepid and meanwhile Wall Street is back to many of its old tricks.<<

    We should note that Wall Street's "tricks" (old or new) only work by appealing to an underlying avarice that exists off Wall Street as well.  For instance, when the top-level financiers have to offer (sell) insurance against investment loss to sell their investments to lower-level investors, then, clearly, they are investments with a high probability for loss.  Had investors here and around the world rejected the "insured ploy" and instead demanded appropriate rates of return on high-risk investments, we'd not be in this subprime mortgage mess today.

    It also is no secret on Capital Hill, in the White House, and elsewhere that government meddling is the root cause of this mortgage mess.  It started under President Carter with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA,) which President Clinton greatly enhanced.  President Bush tried repeatedly to rein back these foolish loans, etc. but was scoffed at and stopped by Democrats in the Congress---like, for examples, Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd.  Wall Street managed to appease imprudent legislation and legislators  and  profit handsomely, even wildly, in the process.  Then when the nonsense finally implodes, it's all Wall Street's doing?  The CRA functions to force loans to unworthy borrowers.  Step 1 should be if not an outright repeal of the CRA, then, certainly, some prudent amendment(s) to it.  In short, mandating that Wall Street's giants maintain greater reserves against their loans while still trying to force them to make imprudent loans is not solving anything.  For, the more they must hold back in reserves, the less they have to loan out.  When the supply to loan out is tight, only those with stellar credit, down payments, and steady income need apply. 

    Wall Street and its equivalents around the world, to be sure, are not without problems relative to their "exploitive" natures, and reserve requirements cannot but help them to weather future economic downturns.  But, anyone who thinks we can regualte away their avarice-driven chicanneries, is one on a fool's errand---morality is not something that lends itself to legislation.  Beyond all of that, Wall Street should be among the least of our worries.

    Compared to fraud, waste, and abuse coupled with perks, pomp-n-circumstance, staffs, and ... in government, Wall-Street (and other executive) bonuses pale.  Heck, not even the SEC's incompetence could prevent Wall Street from "outing" one of its own, viz., Bernard Madoff.  That is, without this mortgage meltdown Madoff very likely still would be running free and scamming more.  There's an estimated $60B/yr. of fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare alone!  Madoff's total scam, run over the course of decades, doesn't outdo the annual fraud, waste, and abuse in one government-run program.  Maybe I'm the odd person out, but it seems to me that when there are hundreds of billions of dollars ill spent  annually  by and in our seat of government, an undue focus on Wall Street, and bankers in general, amounts to a distraction from where our primary focus ought to be.

    It just seems to me a bit odd that world leaders who collectively consume annually hundreds of billions of tax dollars directly or indirectly to service themselves, their entourages of cooks, servants, staffs, security,... and near-endless pomp-n-circumstance shows would decry a few billion in bonuses paid out in the private sector.  Of course they seek an evil greater than they.  For, without the distraction, the finger would turn to point exactly where it ought and needs to point, viz., at them.  It's just another manifestation of one seeing the splinters in another's eye, while not seeing the log in one's own eye. 

    Our unregulated or little regulated lending institutions definitely need regulation akin to the regulations we impose on our banking institution.  But, beyond that it is government itself that is driving our Nation towards bankruptcy.  Future elections in America are certain to address this because government intrusions, spending, and taxing initiatives here, simply, are running wild.  As for the other advanced nations, their problems are greater than ours, and ours by no means are not minor.

    Socialism is a flailing and failing model.  As it approaches its climax of glory, we'd be quite unwise to jump on its bandwagon.  GDP growth in socialist nations always underachieves relative to what America has managed throughout its history.  So, when an American President pushes more socialist ideology/policy with a hope that future GDP growth will pay for it all, there simply is no empirical evidence to support that "hope."

    For 150 years, low taxes and limited government served us well.  Over the last 70 years, our taxes have grown and the enumerated limits on government have been all but unleashed.  And, lo, we now face an unprecedented fiscal crisis.  More government is one thing and often appropriate.  More "nannyism," however, is another thing and rarely appropriate.  Because of this inappropriate nannyism, we have significant challenges to overcome in the coming decades.  But, our challenges will be "play time," compared to the challenges facing nations that have been under full-blown Socialism (or Communism) over the past 70-odd years.  After all, the leaders here are attempting to take our taxes from reasonably low to moderately high.  In those other nations, the leaders will be attempting to take the taxes from high to extremely high.

  2. Re: capital market regulation...
    What you suggest is a 7-day turnover of all investments, as any turnover less than this would be very expensive.  This does not create market stability but, rather, market chaos.  We loathe our mortgage companies selling our mortgages even once.  Just imagine if they had to sell them once per 7 days to avoid a severve holding penalty!  The mailings to keep us "informed" could not keep up.
  3. On October 13, 2009 10:24 PM, imademedoit said:
    This makes way to much sense. No one will listen to your post. Thank you taking the time to post.

Add a comment »