Comments on: A quick guide to the G-20 summit http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/01/g20-summit-expectations/ Your guide to American economic policy Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:14:48 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: What happened to FREE markets in London? | KeithHennessey.com http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/01/g20-summit-expectations/comment-page-1/#comment-4767 What happened to FREE markets in London? | KeithHennessey.com Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:24:40 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/?p=1424#comment-4767 [...] I wrote, “In the short run, it is easy to see how a negotiator might give this up for a more concrete [...]
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Keith Hennessey blog… « Time for Thorns http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/01/g20-summit-expectations/comment-page-1/#comment-106 Keith Hennessey blog… « Time for Thorns Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:31:53 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/?p=1424#comment-106 [...] http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/01/g20-summit-expectations/#more-1424 [...]<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('106','Keith Hennessey blog… « Time for Thorns'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('106','Keith Hennessey blog… « Time for Thorns','[...] http:\/\/keithhennessey.com\/2009\/04\/01\/g20-summit-expectations\/#more-1424 [...]'); return false;">Quote</a></div> [...] http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/01/g20-summit-expectations/#more-1424 [...]
Reply – Quote
]]> By: ForemFinancial.com » Blog Archive » Secondary Sources: G-20, Oil Bubble, PPIP Loopholes http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/01/g20-summit-expectations/comment-page-1/#comment-105 ForemFinancial.com » Blog Archive » Secondary Sources: G-20, Oil Bubble, PPIP Loopholes Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:58:47 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/?p=1424#comment-105 [...] G-20 Priorities: Keith Hennessey, who helped prepare President Bush for the November G-20 meeting, looks at the latest round of talks and gets comments from a key Bush adviser. “Dan Price was President Bush’s international economic advisor in the White House, and also the President’s “sherpa” for the November G-20 summit. Dan suggests that President Obama could demonstrate U.S. leadership with a move that promotes both free trade and his clean technology agenda, by getting the G-20 nations to agree to eliminate tariffs on clean energy technologies. President Bush launched this effort last November, and it would be a huge win on multiple fronts for our new President if he could bring this to a successful closure. I strongly agree with Dan. I conclude with a warning from Dan Price, who says, ‘In the process of needed reform, there is a risk of political demonization of particular products or services, like CDS or securitization, that in fact perform a very useful function.’” [...]
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Secondary Sources: G-20, Oil Bubble, PPIP Loopholes - Real Time Economics - WSJ http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/01/g20-summit-expectations/comment-page-1/#comment-104 Secondary Sources: G-20, Oil Bubble, PPIP Loopholes - Real Time Economics - WSJ Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:01:20 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/?p=1424#comment-104 [...] [...]<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('104','Secondary Sources: G-20, Oil Bubble, PPIP Loopholes - Real Time Economics - WSJ'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('104','Secondary Sources: G-20, Oil Bubble, PPIP Loopholes - Real Time Economics - WSJ','[...] [...]'); return false;">Quote</a></div> [...] [...]
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Nagarajan Sivakumar http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/01/g20-summit-expectations/comment-page-1/#comment-103 Nagarajan Sivakumar Thu, 02 Apr 2009 01:06:29 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/?p=1424#comment-103 "There is an important thematic here for China and India that crosses a range of international economic policy issues. In international negotiations, China and India sometimes try to have it both ways. Their negotiators argue they should have the same say in international economic policy questions as major developed economies like the U.S., Japan, and major European economic powers. At the same time, they plead poverty and argue that they cannot possibly sacrifice economic growth for the global good. My view is: in or out. You decide. If you want to be a first-tier economic nation, that’s fantastic. You play by the same rules as everyone else, and you make the same sacrifices for the global good. You cannot have it both ways." First of all, i am of the view that there is no such thing as "global good". Individual countries will always try to do what is best for them. If there are enough number of countries who find that signing on to certain agreements is helpful to each of them individually, they will come together. this is probably the only "rule" that matters. Also it is not clear, what "sacrifices" India and China have to make or how they will benefit by making these "sacrifices"? India,China have one big problem with the US - agricultural subsidies - this was what broke the camels back in the last round of WTO (Doha) talks. They are not that much open to products from the US either - i some times wish that they did, but there is protectionism on both sides. I also happen to think that the IMF/World Bank projects for developing countries is so full of corruption. It is mind boggling some times - Paul Wolfowitz tried to address them but he was standing up to really powerful interests on both sides of the ball. This is not to minimize the work that they do, but opening leadership positions in the IMF while inevitable will also be open to more entrenched corruption. Call me a cynic, but these meetings dont achieve much more than providing some photo-ops of "global leaders".<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('103','Nagarajan Sivakumar'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('103','Nagarajan Sivakumar','"There is an important thematic here for China and India that crosses a range of international economic policy issues. In international negotiations, China and India sometimes try to have it both ways. Their negotiators argue they should have the same say in international economic policy questions as major developed economies like the U.S., Japan, and major European economic powers. At the same time, they plead poverty and argue that they cannot possibly sacrifice economic growth for the global good. My view is: in or out. You decide. If you want to be a first-tier economic nation, that’s fantastic. You play by the same rules as everyone else, and you make the same sacrifices for the global good. You cannot have it both ways."\n\n First of all, i am of the view that there is no such thing as "global good". Individual countries will always try to do what is best for them. If there are enough number of countries who find that signing on to certain agreements is helpful to each of them individually, they will come together. this is probably the only "rule" that matters. Also it is not clear, what "sacrifices" India and China have to make or how they will benefit by making these "sacrifices"?\n\nIndia,China have one big problem with the US - agricultural subsidies - this was what broke the camels back in the last round of WTO (Doha) talks. They are not that much open to products from the US either - i some times wish that they did, but there is protectionism on both sides.\n\nI also happen to think that the IMF\/World Bank projects for developing countries is so full of corruption. It is mind boggling some times - Paul Wolfowitz tried to address them but he was standing up to really powerful interests on both sides of the ball. This is not to minimize the work that they do, but opening leadership positions in the IMF while inevitable will also be open to more entrenched corruption.\n\nCall me a cynic, but these meetings dont achieve much more than providing some photo-ops of "global leaders".'); return false;">Quote</a></div> "There is an important thematic here for China and India that crosses a range of international economic policy issues. In international negotiations, China and India sometimes try to have it both ways. Their negotiators argue they should have the same say in international economic policy questions as major developed economies like the U.S., Japan, and major European economic powers. At the same time, they plead poverty and argue that they cannot possibly sacrifice economic growth for the global good. My view is: in or out. You decide. If you want to be a first-tier economic nation, that’s fantastic. You play by the same rules as everyone else, and you make the same sacrifices for the global good. You cannot have it both ways."

First of all, i am of the view that there is no such thing as "global good". Individual countries will always try to do what is best for them. If there are enough number of countries who find that signing on to certain agreements is helpful to each of them individually, they will come together. this is probably the only "rule" that matters. Also it is not clear, what "sacrifices" India and China have to make or how they will benefit by making these "sacrifices"?

India,China have one big problem with the US – agricultural subsidies – this was what broke the camels back in the last round of WTO (Doha) talks. They are not that much open to products from the US either – i some times wish that they did, but there is protectionism on both sides.

I also happen to think that the IMF/World Bank projects for developing countries is so full of corruption. It is mind boggling some times – Paul Wolfowitz tried to address them but he was standing up to really powerful interests on both sides of the ball. This is not to minimize the work that they do, but opening leadership positions in the IMF while inevitable will also be open to more entrenched corruption.

Call me a cynic, but these meetings dont achieve much more than providing some photo-ops of "global leaders".

Reply – Quote
]]> By: KeithHennessey.com » A quick guide to the G-20 summit « US Economic Views http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/01/g20-summit-expectations/comment-page-1/#comment-102 KeithHennessey.com » A quick guide to the G-20 summit « US Economic Views Thu, 02 Apr 2009 01:00:28 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/?p=1424#comment-102 [...] a comment » KeithHennessey.com » A quick guide to the G-20 summit: The President has arrived in London for the G-20 economic summit. I have different policy views [...]<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('102','KeithHennessey.com » A quick guide to the G-20 summit « US Economic Views'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('102','KeithHennessey.com » A quick guide to the G-20 summit « US Economic Views','[...] a comment » KeithHennessey.com » A quick guide to the G-20 summit: The President has arrived in London for the G-20 economic summit. I have different policy views [...]'); return false;">Quote</a></div> [...] a comment » KeithHennessey.com » A quick guide to the G-20 summit: The President has arrived in London for the G-20 economic summit. I have different policy views [...]
Reply – Quote
]]>