Comments on: Does the G20 matter?

By: BarryNewSchool

BarryNewSchool — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:27:53 +0000

I think my colleague Terra has it partly right and partly wrong. Right is to call on her former bosses at Treasury to involve other US government stakeholders, meaning important Congress members in developing policies. I infer from her piece that this is not being done. Maybe it is a telling comment on Congress today, which also means there is little point in attending the G20, as the President will not be able to deliver on any commitment he might make. Imagine a different model: imagine if the Leaders only met when they had some actual agreement to announce instead of every year. Finance Ministers meet anyway every six months at IMF. So, now they listen to each other make the same speeches at G20 and IMFC. Not very efficient. Equally, every other topic taken up by the G20 has another more legitimate forum. G20 could be closed down with little loss and some budgetary savings.

By: gee.la

gee.la — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:19:56 +0000

The G20 doesn’t matter, but it antimatters.

By: Paats-W.

Paats-W. — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:42:30 +0000

if the G20 is just a chat room, it should be presented as such;
if it says it can broker important decisions, it should have legitimacy; how transparent are the democracies participating? or is it Wall street turning up for a drink with chums?

By: Bob9999

Bob9999 — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:44:00 +0000

The G20 matters because it provides a regular forum for meetings by world leaders. Even if the G20 does nothing, the fact that these meetings take place means that they can serve as an opportunity for communications between various leaders, through discrete side conversations where appropriate. This is similar to the value provided by the United Nations, whose principal value is the very thing for which it is criticized — it may be nothing more than a debate society, but it provides an infrastructure for communication.

By: Eideard

Eideard — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:14:06 +0000

“People will respect what works” – well, that eliminates Congress.

By: johnvos

johnvos — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 03:55:16 +0000

At some point in the future, probably sooner than later, sovereign peoples will take back the power that they have long ceded to the elite. Never forget where real power lies.

By: Wantunbiasednew

Wantunbiasednew — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 01:42:56 +0000

G20 is new G7/G8 that reflects more precisely current balance of power. Maybe it is my ignorance but i don’t understand last 2 paragraphs of the article. What legitimacy ? You mean US President should discuss with both Houses and NGO’s the topics discussed ?. I do not remember this occuring before G7/8 summits.
Such meetings are about talking face to face and discussing. Hard deals are later polished by technocrats.
G20 is best forum since WWII: not to many countries and representative. Of course smaller blocks of countries with real alliances like NATO, BRICS, UE, NAFTA, ASEAN matter.

By: johnvos

johnvos — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:09:27 +0000

The G20 is irrelevant because it is ineffective. People will respect what works. It is even worse than that…the G20 is a major contributor to what DOESN’T work…advocating more debt (to save bondholders) when the people recognize that failing institutions (governments, banks, businesses, families) should be allowed to fail. THAT’S what works…and wonderfully well!

By: Ash-Roy

Ash-Roy — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:42:10 +0000

Terra, I like New School, but you are outdated. G20 not only matters, but it represents a larger viewpoint. Your last paragraph re accountability is totally correct. How many of the G20 (not G8) have you actually visited? A