G20 2008 Plans: A citizen's analysis
[This is entirely my own opinion, I reserve the right to be mistaken (as well as repeat myself) - and welcome rebuttal]
The September 15th G20 document's stunning quick delivery (and accute relevance to affairs of October 11th), and some interesting turns of phrase,
compelled me to share the following observations and opinions.
I will try to maintain the original text formatting in all cases - exceptions noted
This report on “G20: Plans and Prospects” is compiled by the G20 Research Group largely from public sources as an aid to researchers and other
stakeholders interested in the G20.
Note the phrase"
...and other stakeholders interested in the G20.
Considering the magnitude and scope of this alleged 'aid;' would one not expect to see an officially recognized list
of who these
'stakeholders' are and what is the exact meaning (not definition) of the term is?
In the Agenda of this body we find...
The work of the G20 finance group has led to discussions of other “20” groups. Since 2005, under the Gleneagles Dialogue, 20 ministers from
the fields of environment and energy have met, most recently in Japan, to discuss the issues associated with global warming. On the margins of the
2008 G8 Summit in Japan in July, a gathering of the Major Economies Meeting of 16 members (MEM-16) at the summit level was held,following official
level meetings of this U.S.- initiated forum starting in 2007. In both cases, their membership largely overlaps that of the G20 finance ministers.
Former Canadian prime minister Paul Martin has advocated a “Leaders 20” (L20) forum, but it has not yet been established in forms other than the
So this "group of 20" form of government is now self-replicating, they claim, having created 2 or 3 sibling groups.
More interesting to note, is that the driving force behind this "20-ism" is the financial group.
Some may say that each of these groups is,
no doubt, rife with opportunity for elite socialites to play god with the population, while simultaneously coordinating their financial empire on a
global scale. Less CT-inclined might see the pattern emerging of a form of ministerial-cabinet government - one easily maintained and protected by
those who are 'interested stakeholders.' Yet others might see this as a global governance opportunity, consolidating consensus based on fiscal
health. Others may see it as a convenient tool applicable to the consolidation of control of global revenue flow.
Regardless of what it is, it is being engineered without the input or consent of the global population. And it is specifically devoid of any aspect
of servitude to the common good. Danger Will Robinson!
As a legacy theme, the G20 will take up South Africa’s Fiscal Space theme, focusing on the creation of fiscal space through the prioritization
of government expenditures.
How does an international body, 'prioritize government expenditures' of a sovereign state?
American's are sure to be pleased when they discover their government expenditures are determined, not by congressional, or senatorial initiative,
but actually by a foreign body of ministers - using local government as an agent of their agenda. U-G-L-Y!
As a new element of the work program, they will introduce competition in the financial industry.
So, this group, which has existed formally for nearly a decade, is ONLY NOW
considering 'competition in the financial industry' in their
deliberations of the global market? I guess they really wanted to keep this off the agenda! Either that, or they are completely disconnected from
reality and spent most of their time socializing.
With both of the themes, enhancement of growth, a key concern of the G20, will be addressed.
"Enhancement" of "Growth" - specific enough for ya? This means making available funds to 'some' industries, and denying it to others, doesn't
it? Look out Australia and South Africa! They're coming for you next. (Do they always target countries in which the common tongue is "the Queen's
The paragraph that follows is replete with 'soothing platitudes' such as - [bold text is mine]:
The level of competition in the financial sector affects the efficiency of the production of financial services, the quality of financial
products and the degree of innovation in the sector.
"Level" of competition - anybody wonder what the 'levels' of competition are in their opinion Did you ever consider the "production" of
financial? - What do they 'produce'? Now financial services are 'products'? To which they can apply to the concept of 'innovation'?
The degree of competition in the financial sector can also influence firms’ and households’ access to financial services and external
financing. Most importantly,competition in the financial sector is linked to economic growth and stability.
In addition to 'levels' of competition, there are 'degrees'. I really have to see there expansion on this topic.
After an introductory look at best practices in competition policy and the benefits to the economy more broadly highlighting possible
differences between the financial and other sectors, the focus will be on the benefits and risks related to increased competition in the financial
sector, the relationship between competition and financial stability, the role of regulatory frameworks, the impact of greater openness to
foreign bank competition on local financial systems, the implications of consolidation for competition in the financial sector and the
role played by non-bank financial institutions in promoting competition in the banking sector, among other topics. In addition, the links
between competition in the financial sector and economic growth will be explored.
Well, well. There agenda sure is full of 'non-answers.'
... working towards a potential double dividend by meeting the energy needs that are essential for economic growth and fighting
Why do the words 'double dividend' seem alarming? Perhaps its contextual.
...requires mobilization from governments, the private sector and the International financial institutions (IFIs).
IFI's are an element of of this 'double dividend'?
...energy is a source of poverty reduction and macroeconomic stability worldwide.
Some might argue that energy 'could' be a source of poverty reduction, etc. At the moment the 'energy' element is responsible for quite a bit of
poverty - all by itself.
Some of these challenges will have distinct economic effects on developed and developing countries.
Ya think?! We are
talking about redistribution here, no?
The punchline, a litany of subjects for this 'platform for discussion.' The most robust outline goes to item "b" :
Clean Energy and International Financial Markets
, which includes gems like world markets for biofuels," "commoditization of
and "the international carbon market."
...fiscal space for growth and social inclusion...
Fiscal space for growth. Like this isn't the exact cancer that is eating away at mankind's potential. The objective of fiscal growth has, I
suspect, cause more death and suffering on Earth than any other human enterprise. Interesting that they seem not to be done squeezing the theoretical
"production value" out of every person on the planet.
turning to the expenditure side of the budget, specifically, to issues of quality and efficiency in public spending.
This could be construed as implying that 'public spending' is to be coldly and rationally calculated as a 'drain' on such things as 'fiscal
space' - that explains the 'social inclusion' element. This statement can be rendered into a scary scenario indeed.
a) maximizing crowding-in: government spending and productivity growth;
The words 'maximizing' and 'government spending' should set off alarms to Americans. Considering it's the single most abused element of our
b) price, output and debt stability: countercyclical fiscal policies, macroeconomic stability and debt sustainability.
They seem to be concretizing the economic doctrine that got us here in the first place..., market manipulation..., at least, that's how I infer the
phrase "countercyclical fiscal policies". Flattening the curve.
..issue of whether current public spending is also linked to productivity growth, and of what kind: education and health or more broadly, social
assistance programs including intergovernmental transfers.
public spending (education, health, social assistance programs, intergovernmental transfers) = counter productivity to growth.
Apparently they question the value of 'liberal' programs... isn't that the right term? We can't have lowly 'states' helping each other out
economically..., sanctions anyone?
... budget procedures, given the long-term objective of creating fiscal space for economic growth with social inclusion through the business
I get it! We CAN have social inclusion..., as long as it is 'tied' to the profit model. Joy!
public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR).
(above bold underline mine)
There is a borrowing requirement
!? OK, could this be any more transparent as to whom it serves?
This agenda is quite revealing all by itself, no?
[edit on 11-10-2008 by Maxmars]
[edit on 11-10-2008 by Maxmars]