G20: Profound and Complete Disappointment for the US Treasury
Sunday 14 November 2010
by: Simon Johnson | The Baseline Scenario | News Analysis
Early Friday I went through the G20 communique for the Wall Street Journal; a marked up copy is available on-line.
It is hard to imagine how the summit could have gone any worse for the US Treasury and the president. The spin machine is now working overtime – and you'll see big efforts to get more positive stories over the coming week – but on all fronts the outcome is very bad.
- There was no substantive progress on anything to do with exchange rates. The "indicative guidelines" to be agreed next year are just a way to kick the can down the road. The Chinese are digging in hard on their exchange rate; this is headed towards a mutually destructive trade war.
- There was less disagreement at the summit regarding the "regulation" of global megabanks – but only because this had been gutted so effectively by the bankers' lobby and officials who bought their specious arguments. There is nothing here that will prevent or limit the impact of another major worldwide financial crisis.
- On IMF governance, over which there was substantial fanfare in advance, it turns out there has been a major step backwards. The Europeans have apparently signaled they are no longer willing to give up the job of Managing Director – they have always controlled this job and this is a major reason why IMF legitimacy remains weak. Unless and until an emerging market person gets this position, no one (outside of Europe) will want to rely on the IMF in an emergency. As a result all countries will want to "manage" their exchange rates – to the extent they can – along Chinese lines, aiming for a significant current account surplus (so as to build up foreign exchange reserves). See point #1 above for the likely consequences of that.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
I say we use the Thom
Sun, 11/14/2010 - 16:53 — Leigh (not verified)I say we use the Thom Hartmann
and Thomas Friedman models
Simon Johnson's
Sun, 11/14/2010 - 20:00 — V.E. Perkins, Ph.D. (not verified)Simon Johnson's comprehensive understanding
of world economic affairs tells me that what he
says should be taken very seriously indeed.
We need to recall that the run-up to WWII was
dominated by "beggar-thy-neighbor" trade
wars and struggles over the currency (of course,
we were on the gold standard then. See LORDS OF
FINANCE on the latter issue.
Short and to the point - I
Sun, 11/14/2010 - 20:19 — Anonymous (not verified)Short and to the point - I like that!
I guess I'm looking at
Mon, 11/15/2010 - 14:57 — Anonymous (not verified)I guess I'm looking at Johnson's analysis like there is a gargantuan and glaringly obvious pink elephant in the room surrounding all of it. Rather, that in fact the G20 is actually pursuing an opaque agenda which is purposefully mitigated by a false and overtly expressed and widely published narrative to obfuscate the tandem agenda track.
How else would you explain such utter nonsensical behavior on these world leader's parts whilst recession continues to grip much of the world, not experienced since the great depression?
The question and a comprehensive analysis still remains: what is the G20 actually pursuing as their economic agenda?
No, Leigh: Friedman models
Mon, 11/22/2010 - 14:43 — Frances in California (not verified)No, Leigh: Friedman models are what got the entire world into a mess.