On air: The G174

_45509344_obama2_afp226bBarack Obama’s arriving in the UK today and the build-up to the G20 is in full swing. Tomorrow we’ll be concentrating on what the twenty most powerful countries should be doing about the global economic turndown. But what about the rest of you? How do you feel being on the outside looking in?

Do you care what’s decided? And if you do, what decisions should be taken? And should your country be offered a place at the decision-making table?

67 Responses to “On air: The G174”

  1. 1 VictorK
    March 31, 2009 at 12:19

    Politicians cannot plan a global recovery. Markets are no more amenable to their strict control than the weather.

    Gordon Brown’s fatuous call for ‘global economic rules’ is a chimera, given the absence of a global economic body with the authority and power to enforce those rules against all countries (i.e. a system in which power passes from the government and people of the world’s countries, to an unelected and unaccountable set of…international bankers?!).

    They should address themselves to practical, local initiatives by regulating their own national financial sectors, especially in better aligning risk-taking and risk exposure.

    Inaction should also be an option: many of the banks that were saved should have been allowed to fail; increased govt. expenditure is often futile.

    Obama & Brown’s belief that you can borrow and spend your way out of debt is economic insanity.

  2. 2 Chedondo, Johannesburg
    March 31, 2009 at 12:31

    If I were to make a request it would be for the third world to receive a ‘development stimulus package’. This package has a name – it is called education. Speaking as an African, I do not see how many of the nations on this continent can make a meaningful contribution to the world economic problems gievn the level of education of its people – and there is a distinction between literacy and education. So to answer your question Africans can ask UNESCO to define for them a good ‘education stimulus package’ – maybe in 20 years we will have something to say to the world. Right now, lets just stop the silly little wars we are so fond of.

  3. March 31, 2009 at 13:14

    yes! other countries should be involved in the summit….

    they might be looking very small but having very stable economies that move the world, we never knew if japan and china would feature above other super powers.

    i believe in small countries because if given the mandate they can do more good.

    i only believe the issue of G174 countries is just a mere word, they only eat from the small countries to develop the economies of their countries.

    take of libya in Africa its amazing and wonderful how its moving…. sky is the limit for it is doing marvelous in its economy.

    this are just countries eating from the economies of the small ones.

    i remain loyal to my small country.

  4. March 31, 2009 at 14:13

    Rich countries still have the means to redress the current economic downturn, not without sacrificing millions of jobs as it is unlikely that all can be fixed with the strike of a magic wand.

    In this dire economic crisis, despite the outward concern for the global economy, each country will have the motto of “charity begins at home.”
    Poor countries are likely to suffer most as their economies are mainly based on exporting raw materials and international aid.

    It’s hopeful that the world leaders at G20 can come up with a new Marshal Plan that can save all the countries, poor and rich.

    G20 will have no meaning if it is going to be remembered just as a moment of outspoken rallies by those disenchanted with the failures of capitalism and reassurances by politicians without tangible results that can put the world economy on the right track.

  5. March 31, 2009 at 14:14

    Since most economists agree that infusions of government investment are the best (and perhaps only) way to mitigate the effect and duration of this recession, I want that investment to focus on the future… green programs such as mass transportation and renewable energy, education, smart technology (low tech and high tech), and everything else that will result in long term, positive benefits from our investment. If we are “mortgaging our children’s future income possibilities”, then we must invest that mortgage in a future that will be better for them and assure they have the tools to solve the next generation of problems.

  6. March 31, 2009 at 14:28

    Let’s hope a few of these representatives understands what has happened. With all the high tech tools at our disposal and all the great minds, that each one of these 20 countries has…….let’s hope someone has something worthwhile to bring forward to the tumbling house of cards that all the greedy and selfish people have figured out how to legally get away with stealing wealth and stiffing the majority of the lowly, but very decent average citizens of each one of these 20 nation……now in nebulous circumstances.

    troop….on the Oregon Coast

  7. 7 gary
    March 31, 2009 at 14:29

    So, if the G-20 agree an economic recovery plan then the world restarts and the rich / poor wealth gap and environmental destruction grow at their usual rate; but if they don’t, the biggest economies go protectionist and the really poor fall entirely off the curve. I don’t like this game; it makes cheering extremely difficult.

  8. 8 Martin
    March 31, 2009 at 14:39

    Perhaps it would be better to speak of the G1194+N with “N” covering the list of contested states such as Taiwan, Palestine, Kurdistan, etc.

  9. March 31, 2009 at 14:41

    Coming to Terms with G20!
    TEHRAN – Iran desperately needs to establish ties with the outside world. Iran needs a $50 billion package to keep afloat and service its oil and gas industries. Washington wants to talk to Tehran but nothing will change as long as the US Fleet is stationed in the Gulf and its troops are deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

  10. March 31, 2009 at 14:42

    Third world countries as a whole have failed to create economic functional blocs, with few exceptions like ASEAN. Third world countries are just dreaming of becoming economic blocs as they have just names. One example isthe Arab Maghreb Union whose purpose since its creation in 1989 was to create economic integration between North African countries ( Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya). So far there is little economic exchange between these countries compared to their potentials and complementaries and geographic proximity.
    Not to mention the dream of the United States of Africa.

    In short poor countries should work out the means to integrate their economies and to consider their economic exchanges with rich countries as one of their priorities and THE priority.

  11. 11 Anthony
    March 31, 2009 at 14:43

    The “G174” mostly depend on the G20, so what ever is best for the G20 will more than likely be good for the “G174”. I feel that anything the “G174” (with the exception of a few countries not part of the G20) would be minor.

    It would be the equivalent of the parents figuring out finances and the kids coming to the table wanting to be part of the process.

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  12. 12 Ron S. from Ft Myers Florida
    March 31, 2009 at 14:59

    In a perfect world, world leaders should sit back and take notes, while the people they govern over have THEIR say..THEIR voices heard. Sadly, 1-on-1 face to face communicating is fast becoming a lost art. It is time. Perhaps if the world leaders listen, rather than speak, there would be less chaos and more cosmos.

  13. 13 Steve in Boston
    March 31, 2009 at 15:12

    In my neck of the woods, other than the decline in the stock market, there is very little evidence of a recession.

    I personally know of no one who has lost a job, and in fact my son who just graduated from college last spring as well as all his friends have found jobs in either health care, administration related to health care, engineering, and computer technology. My friends employed in the financial world see no downturn of activity.

    The stores and restaurants are busy and the rush hour traffic as bad as ever. Foreclosures are very rare except in the poorest, blight-stricken neighborhoods, and real-estate–always cyclical–has picked up quickly in the last week or so. A small handful of local banks that I never heard of have had to be rescued by the FDIC, but most of the others have plenty of cash to loan and are in great shape. People are saving a bit more and spending less on junk, but that’s just a return to normalcy.

    I’m wondering if this so-called recession even exists outside of the auto industry and the two areas that saw ridiculous real-estate growth: Nevada and Florida. I also wondering if the whole thing has been blown out of proportion by the media looking for a crisis to create.

    Things here are a LOT better than when I got out of school in the early eighties.

    Based on what I’m personally seeing, there’s really nothing that needs to be done by government that hasn’t already been done or at least started. The rest of the “problems” seem to be limited and should be self-correcting.

  14. 14 mel UK
    March 31, 2009 at 15:40

    An estimated 27,000 (twenty seven thousand) young children across the globe die EACH DAY from preventable causes – poverty, hunger, disease, and a lack of health care, clean water, sanitation etc.
    Not only is the world economy out of balance, but its priorities also.

  15. 15 Aren Trinidad And Tobago
    March 31, 2009 at 15:41

    both developed and and small countries feel the effects of the economic crisis.people are losing their jobs all over the world but especially in the larger countries. ithink Mr. obama’s plan follow the basic principle that should get us out of this crisis.Spending money within the economy would cause it to grow, andthose who object dont have any alternative. I hope we dont go back to the days of batering, so get the economy working again.

  16. 16 globalcomedy
    March 31, 2009 at 15:54

    Unfortunately, nothing substantive will happen. It will be photo ops, press releases and various intl. reporters “analyzing” this.

    But also, many countries are still furious at the States for causing all of this. There’s a growing protectionist trend worldwide. And, all of these leaders know that endlessly printing your currency only devalues it and causes hyperinflation. However, will any of them publically admit that (and commit political suicide)? Not a chance.

  17. 17 Archibald in Oregon
    March 31, 2009 at 16:00

    The main problem I see is that industrialized nations are still trying to “grow” a new economy when they have already failed at managing the existing one. Size is still paramount and this global financial paradigm is blind to the prosperity that comes from smaller, more efficient business’ that can sustain themselves and their workers, albeit at a lower level than current overblown standards, still reeling from recession. If wealth was less the emphasis than overall prosperity, globally , all nations might have a chance at a truly flourishing and sustainable economy. Think of the global economy in terms of a small rural community, where those who have provide enough for those who do not, in the form of jobs, hand me downs, etc.. If you eliminate the urgency to perpetually grow (capitalism), we might find that the value of improved quality of life outweighs monetary gain.

  18. March 31, 2009 at 16:14

    I never got round finding out for sure what ‘G’ [as in G20, G77, and now G174] but I think it means ‘Great’. Whatever ‘G’ stands for, I think there is a major difference between the G20 that is meeting in London, and the remaining 174/175 who won’t be in London; so they can’t both be ‘G’s maybe the others should be ‘non-G174’.
    I think the gathering of the top 20 most industrialised nations is a wake up call to all of us (G174, as you call it) to look inward and see what we can do for ourselves. Yes there is the place of the G20 helping out, but beyond that, we got to sit up on our own. When Americans were fighting for there independence, or when the French were fighting of absolute monarchy and instituting republican rule, they were no G-anything summits where aids were voted for them to manage and mismanage.
    Also, the G174 should note that the G20 are able to, in their own way ‘help’ the G174 not because they don’t have needs in-house, but because they realised that ‘they’ cannot enjoy their development if ‘we’ continue to wallow in poverty. Therefore, the G174 should not wait to be admitted into the G20 before helping out the ‘wretched of the earth’; Africa especially should look at ways of solving its own problems such as Somali crisis, the Zimbabwean economy and the like without the G20.
    Should Nigeria be given a seat in the G20? Yes, if you are counting the 20 from the other end of the spectrum…But with great effort, we can catch up, Nigeria is working on surpassing one of the top 20 economies and becoming one of the top 20 Economies by 2020 (don’t ask me if it is feasible).
    In the face of the global economic meltdown, I will be following to see how the G20 will respond to the needs of the G174.

  19. 19 mel UK
    March 31, 2009 at 16:21

    P.S. ref my previous message: references.

    The number of child deaths based on UNICEF figures as outlined during broadcast Andrew Marr’s Radio 4 ‘Start the Week’ Monday 30/3/09 interview with philosopher Peter Singer detailing his research for his new book ‘The Life You Can Save’.

  20. 20 Anthony
    March 31, 2009 at 16:24

    @ Ron S. from Florida

    Thats the point of democracy…those who govern ARE the voice of the people. Unfortunatly in the U.S. the people are afraid of those who govern, when it SHOULD be those who govern are afraid of the people. Those in charge of the G20 need to do a good, fair job, or WE need make sure that any shinanagens are punished.

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  21. March 31, 2009 at 16:33

    The current economic mess was fundamentally created by Western financial institutions and the apparent total disengagement of Western governments until it was too late. It seems the rest of the world has to pay with them, especially oil producing countries, like Iran and Venezuela, which now have to reshuffle their domestic economic plans.

    But the fundamental question is, ” What can G20 do to help when corrupt leaders in third world countries simply squander the wealth assets of their countries to enrich themselves by impoverishing their already impoverished peoples?”

    Maybe rich countries can make things better in the long run. But countries suffering from corrupt leadership still need to clean their houses for general prosperity.

  22. 22 chidi (from Minneapolis, US)
    March 31, 2009 at 16:50

    I wish all the leaders a productive meeting, however I find it outrageously hypocritical that the countries that created this mess are now going into this G20 as if they had any moral credibility left. I think the emerging and underdeveloped nations should have allot more say as to how this problem should be solved seeing as when its all said and done they will suffer the most.

  23. 23 VictorK
    March 31, 2009 at 17:16

    G20? G174? Same difference: markets stop working when government attempts to control them. There can be no ‘planned’ recovery, only a recovery based on measures that remove impediments to properly functioning markets.

    A crisis should shock us out of our fantasies, not send us into deeper reveries about re-inventing/replacing ‘capitalism’. A free market is simply economic democracy: producers, through the price mechanism, supply what consumers demand. That’s why markets are so much more innovative & wealth-producing than any other system.The key regulation needed is that which provides the necessary context within which a market can operate: security of & respect for private property, the rule of law (which includes making it possible for buyers and sellers to take each other to court in cases of fraud, non-payment, etc), & ensuring that those who enjoy the rewards of risks can’t shift their penalties onto others (the apparent root of our present troubles). It’s the absence of these three essentials that accounts for the poverty of the third world.

    State control, interventionist organisations like the IMF (abolish it), centralisation, socialism, planning etc will only plunge us further into economic misery.

  24. 24 Snorri-Iceland
    March 31, 2009 at 17:17

    I don´t think the G20 will achieve much as most countries are emphasising the need to buy and sell local. Unfortunately the world will end up more divided when this downturn finishes and the G20 will reflect that. There will be curteous chats and respectful comments made but in the end, nothing will be achieved and no amount of countries included would have been able to change that.

  25. 25 MIGUEL
    March 31, 2009 at 17:19

    Under developed nations and third wold countries are in this position due to their own corrupt leaders who have received money from other nations as aid and have stolen that money instead of using int for the purpose that was given in the first place.

    If any money is given to this nations a clear and sound system has to be put in place to monitor spending and to make sure that the money reaches its destination, Transparency and Accountability is the answer, but all African and Latin American countries refuse to put this systems in place because they will not be able to steal money.

    So if they are corrupt countries and do not have polices of transparency and accountability they should not be able to participate and be help in any way by the G20

  26. March 31, 2009 at 17:21

    It is my opinion the resulting financial crisis is due mainly to two factors 1) the breakdown of the banking system in the United States mainly due to the very loose lending in the way of mortgages to the housing market, whereby houses were bought and sold with little or no equity so that speculators were encouraged to borrow and buy properties as housing prices kept going up which in itself was a bubble due to burst, furthermore overseas banks were also greedy overlending in their own countries and also lending billions to institutions in the United States which in turn took a nosedive. As a consequence the United States are printing trillions of dollars based on its vast resources, trying to rejuvernate its economy. The rule of thumb should have been to borrow money on a property the buyer must put a deposit of at least 33 1/3 % in cash to qualify for a mortgage, not 5 or 0% as was the case, even though his income could pay for the mortgage.

    2) The huge export of manufacturing jobs from many industrial companies in Europe and the United States to China and India because of their cheap labour costs and cheap exchange rates greatly influenced manufacturing in those countries which created a huge loss in the home countries in employment. One only need to visit retail stores and see that about 90% of goods sold are made in China.
    Unless the above two points I have made can be rectified all the money being injected to stave off recession, is money poured into a bottomless pit.

  27. 27 Chris stevens in Oregon
    March 31, 2009 at 17:22

    Ibrahim is hitting a very important point. The most powerful countries already have the propensity to generalize the lesser countries when they make major global decisions. But if this is our approach, as ibrahim said, then entire regions, or continents in his case, will be misrepresented or overlooked completely. Can this ultimately be beneficial? Most especially economically?

  28. March 31, 2009 at 17:22

    Actually I am expecting the best out of the current G20 meeting, because what soever the outcome, I will be affected directly. Today, I like to include my personal story as an International Student in Japan. As you all know this economy crisis has affected all countries around the world including Japan. So many of the international students here including myself have lost our part-time jobs and so things are worst with us even more the ordinary citizens. How do we get our basic need in order to keep like everyone here? So we hope things will improve as the result of the positive outcome of the G120 meetings.

    I really care about what’s decided, so I do not wish for G20 leaders to go at logger head with each other. I would like for each and everyone of them to think about the people who are living below a $ a day. Things are really going beyond repair for those people. So it will not tell well if the sit up their and argue among themselves without common accord. It is time for positive actions instead.

    Right now it does not matter to me, which country is represented at the decision making table, because this issue is a global one. Besides, l am not expecting competition at that table, but common understand and will to work out ways to prosperity for all.

  29. March 31, 2009 at 17:29

    I never got round finding out for sure what ‘G’ [as in G20, G77, and now G174] but I think it means ‘Great’. Whatever ‘G’ stands for

    G stands for “Group of…”

  30. March 31, 2009 at 17:35

    March 31, 2009 at 17:21

    That is what you would call ”De-regulation”, that all started with, but not exclusive to, Reagan, Thatcher and others who believe in ‘Free market economics that will regulate themselves’ – they never did really understand the greed of humans who will always go for the quickest buck.

  31. 31 Pat, Portland,OR
    March 31, 2009 at 17:36

    I hear people like David say that government does cause growth and only steals wealth all the time, but I never hear any true evidence of this. It seems to me the governemt must play the role of laying the foundation for economic growth, and that private industry should take the role of creating new niches on top of that foundation. I can’t any examples of a country that has a weak government and a strong economy. The internet , plastics, computers, aerospace industry were all created by government research and investment – if WW2 and the space race never happened I doubt private industry could have created any of these industries without gov’t investment In fact I would like to hear examples of industries that were not created by government – the only things i can think of are simple consumer products like toys and sporting goods- and even growth in these industries are just niche outgrowths of the foundations layed by NASA and DARPA to create plastics and other materials. Even the Japanese auto industry was created by US military demand for vehicles during the Korean war.

  32. 32 Simon
    March 31, 2009 at 17:37

    What we need is WORKING diplomacy. Regional summits that include the powerless and the people who are capable of affecting change.

    174 heads screaming for their share of the world’s pie will work no better than 20.

    I applaud Obama at least this, in less than 100 days, he has significantly bolstered the U.S. State Department. Now, let’s see the talking begin.

  33. March 31, 2009 at 17:39

    A quick reference on how to take it when someone from the Cato Institute (as well as Hoover, in this case) says they have a lot of evidence for their position:

    The Cato Institute placed a full-page climate change denier ad in the New York Times on Monday, 2009.0330, presenting manipulative, anti-factual rhetoric to support that position.

    As an editor myself, I feel this is an important point. The world cannot move forward – as we truly need to – unless paid corporate propagandists are noted as such, and their presentations discounted accordingly.

    It is really a waste of our time, and frankly, an impediment to honest conversation, to subject us to the deceptive, discreditable cant delivered by representatives of the Hoover and Cato Institutes.

  34. March 31, 2009 at 17:40

    What we are all witnessing is the inevitable collapse of Socialism. The gathering of all the Socialist leaders will be a historic event as this will be their last stand against the return of gold as the world’s foremost currency.

    We are now already inside the financial Schwarzschild radius and will soon be sucked into the black hole of zero interest rates which is stripping companies of their capital causing a tsunami wave of bankruptcies that will envelop the whole world. This is necessary to rid the world of freedom destroying Socialism and open up the pathway to Capitalism Democracy and the return of the golden ages.

    What’s happening now last happened in the 6th century with the collapse of the western Roman Empire and gold went into hiding for a thousand years. We call this period the Dark Ages. The Renaissance saw the return of gold and the golden ages. The destruction of the Bretton Woods gold agreement by the Americans and the emergence of the fiat US dollar as the world currency and the subsequent arrival of world wide Socialism are all linked together. Capitalism only works with gold. Socialism only works with irredeemable paper monies.

  35. 35 Emmanuel Mgbemene
    March 31, 2009 at 17:45

    Honestly, I have no confidence in this summit.Do those heads of states actually know how I feel ?.Are they going to fix the economic crisis by making decisions and walking away ?.
    They should spell out the exact solution to this crisis now.
    Emmanuel Mgbemene

    Port-Harcourt , Nigeria.

  36. 36 Bert
    March 31, 2009 at 17:46

    It would be unseemly for countries who habitually come to the G20 with hat in hand to expect to help direct the economic recovery to these G20.

    Also, let’s not everyone accept the “common wisdom.” In the US at very least, the recession started because government regulation made it such that lending institutions did not see the risk to themselves of making overly risky loans. These overly risky loans were government guaranteed. Does that sound like a problem of not enough regulation?

    If the remaining 154 countries feel left out, then that is what the UN is for. The UN exists 365 days a year. Not just one week now and again.

  37. 37 Tom D Ford
    March 31, 2009 at 17:48

    Ah the story of the Unicorn of the Conservatives is brought out once again. The mythological beast called the “free market” that magically cures every ill, makes everyone rich, and makes it so no one has to do actual work, everyone just collects their capital gains, dividends and interest.

    But of course in reality, the most capitalistic of all markets is also the most regulated of all markets, the stock markets.

    The most recent example of a free market is that of Derivatives, which Conservative Republicans prevented from regulation or oversight with the law they pushed through in 1999 and which has subsequently brought the world economy to a stop and which we are suffering from in our Recession.

    Even the God of Conservative Free Markets, Alan Greenspan, has admitted that his belief in Free Markets was a mistake, that they don’t work out!

    But that disproved Free Market Unicorn just won’t die the death it deserves, it keeps getting repeated like Goebbels advised so that the ignorant masses continue to believe it is true.

    The G20 needs to Regulate the markets! They need to stomp down especially hard on everything to do with Derivatives!

  38. 38 Allan, OH
    March 31, 2009 at 17:49

    I believe that the countries that hold the strongest currency in the world, should attend this meeting. I don’t think it matters by what size of the nation.

  39. 39 Susan in Houston, Texas, USA
    March 31, 2009 at 17:50

    When I was in graduate school we did an exercise where we played the roles of richer countries and poorer countries trying to engage in economic negotiations. It was very frustrating to take on the role of a poorer country, knowing that people are literally dying every day because of lack of basic nutrition, shelter, and healthcare. The richer countries simply said to us, “Why should we negotiate with you? You can’t do anything for us.”

    Sometimes a wealthy country can make a simple change that can make a dramatic difference in the life of a poorer country if the richer country were only aware of the impact of their policies. Poorer countries should at least have a voice, if not a vote, so that the richer countries can be aware of the impact of their policies.

  40. 40 Dale in Oregon
    March 31, 2009 at 17:50

    Keep the meeting participation where it’s at. If other nations want participation, they need to earn it. If you let every backwater nation into the meeting, it would become irrelevant. What’s stopping the G 154 from meeting on their own. They’re aren’t included because they can’t get their act together and bring their people into the industrial world, so why should they have a say in what we do next?

  41. March 31, 2009 at 17:50

    The people on your show today perfectly demonstrate WHY they only want the top twenty countries.

  42. 42 Isaac
    March 31, 2009 at 17:50

    I have a question for David, who advocates less regulation. Would you explain how less regulation would have prevented the Credit Default Swap problem? Instead of talking about less or more economic regulation, maybe we should be talking about smarter regulation…

  43. 43 Kacey in Alabama
    March 31, 2009 at 17:51

    While the sovereignty and condition of all countries must be respected, those existing on foreign aide funds should not have a say in how the countries that raise those funds regulate and govern.

  44. 44 Yancey in Indianapolis
    March 31, 2009 at 17:52

    I own and operate a business with just over 100 employees in Indianapolis, Indiana. I have 12 yrs experience in my industry and sometimes think I’ve seen it all. New employees with no experience always offer ideas about how we could do things. 99% of the ideas have been tried or considered before, but 1 in 100 ideas make us reconsider how we do business and several have created major changes in our company’s culture. There is no reason to believe that countries outside the traditional G20 couldn’t bring revolutionary ideas to the table and change the world’s economy.
    Perhaps the 20 nations in the G20 could each moderate a town hall type meeting with a number of non-G20 countries and look for those new ideas.

  45. 45 Prajwal from Nepal
    March 31, 2009 at 17:52

    Yes countries in the G-20 are the countries causing all the economic mess. They better come up with something good to finish this dance nicely.G-20’s decsion for a country like Nepal is like looking at the stars and hoping to get some light to read a newspaper at night

  46. 46 James from Vancouver, Washington
    March 31, 2009 at 17:52

    Though I am not wholly in support of each country in this year’s G20, I am glad to know that economies, like Nigeria and Venezuela, which are largely dependent on wavering oil prices and production, to determine anything for diplomatically elected governments when this is a crisis of spending. Their oil is like a prepaid credit card with an unknown amount of revenue, leaving them up one year, and down the next.

  47. 47 Halima Brewer, England
    March 31, 2009 at 17:53

    Listening to the comments of the caller from America and some of your guests, I am now puzzled, when they argue about more regulation or less regulation – I know want to know what do the 2 sides mean by “regulation” because it sounds to me like the “moral code” mentioned by the American is lacking, and I was under the impression that more regulation would curb the lack of moral code or downright cheating, whereas the American seemed to be under the impression that less regulation would bring more moral code. – I can’t help but thing, hang on here, what do you mean?? I want to understand this.

    I have to say the caller sounded like he comes from a libertarian utopian point of view which I distrust, but want to understand exactly why.

  48. 48 Darren Houser, Santa Cruz, California
    March 31, 2009 at 17:54

    Chazes is living off rising oil prices, without it he’s just another dictator similar to those in Africa who are known for vile corruption. If oil prices fall Chavez will use undemocraric means and viloence to enhance his own narisitic view of Venezuela.

    Countries which want to attend the G 20 and actually weild influence should remember that the G 20 Spends far more to keep undeveloped countries a float. When those uninvited countries can actually stay afloat without financial aid from the G 20 then they should be invited to participate.

  49. 49 Yogesh Raja from Aylesbury, U.K.
    March 31, 2009 at 17:55


    To unite countries which abide by certain conditions G20 should help them to boost their tourism trade which is like multi-vitimin since it will provide foreign exchange, jobs and business opportunities to locals and most of all expose their country to international community who would be inclined to give further assistance in improving infra structure etc. This would be better than giving these countries money. For example by hiring farming equipment at nominal price would make farmers produce more and hence get richer probably by exporting their produce.

    I hope this makes sense.

  50. 50 Glory Jaffe, NC, USA
    March 31, 2009 at 17:55

    I’m embarrassed by the comments made by other americans and the arrogance of the David Henderson who is a guest on your show. I think every country has a right to attend. I don’t think capitalism works here in the US. In capitalism, money talks, and it has been a long time since the majority of Americans have been able to afford to choose where they shop. Also, the majority of people have no clue that the stores they frequent and the brands they choose are the loudest statement to both the government and big business. Socialism is not a dirty word.

    I think the input of countries who are not part of the G20 would most likely to bring new ideas to the table.

  51. 51 Mohammed Shanur
    March 31, 2009 at 17:56

    Hello there,

    I would like to say that it is not in that table that results can be met, we find that the world leaders do like to talk alot. This is a fact but however not much action takes place.

    Having looked through the IMF comparison table of the economic downturn i can say that countries that have been most effected are those who i call are war criminals.

    These so called war that they went to, has had detrimental effects on the worlds economy.
    In simpler terms the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

    The powerful countries bully thier way to the weak and hopeless who have a very litttle to survive.

    Finally this has caused these invaded countries to live by surviving on a daily basis.
    Whilst these powerful countries aim is to pile up the materialism and wealth.

    Hope this view is heard.

  52. 52 Tom D Ford
    March 31, 2009 at 17:57

    It’s getting so that the Conservative Republican comedy act is just hilarious! The Cato propaganda Institute, the Hoover propaganda Institute, and the rest of that ilk just keep repeating their old lies that have been thoroughly disproved over the last few decades!

    I just laugh my butt off when they come on and spout their Free-Market ideologies!

  53. 53 VictorK
    March 31, 2009 at 18:02

    What people ought to resist are global solutions, agreed on by a few to be imposed on the many. Firstly, there are no global solutions, and secondly such global economic imperialism means the end of national soveriegnty and the freedom of nations and peoples to determine their own fate. I’d have thought that left and right would agree on saving us from world government by bankers.

    Your Nigerian guests made me smile. Can anybody name a single brand product manufactured in Nigeria and exported to the world (‘419’ doesn’t count)? This isn’t about massaging the egos of failed (because socialist or socialistic) third world economies. Local/national markets are the only solution – i.e. letting ordinary people solve the problem through their aggregate buying and selling decisions.

    Your South African guest also gave me some good laughs. It’s not the ANC’s socialist programme that’s made a difference in that country, it’s the first world economic legacy inherited from the Apartheid regime. But when did socialists ever bother with reality?

  54. 54 Jessica in NYC
    March 31, 2009 at 18:03

    Since the US is at the table, I could only listen to the concerns of those not invited. However, I can’t say that any of today’s WHYS speakers proved that their country would provide a benefit to the G20 discussions.

  55. 55 Russell Jones
    March 31, 2009 at 18:05

    I agree with the gentleman talking about the Cato institute corporate cheerleader David. His “facts” are totally bogus, and his “idea” about the FDIC being the problem is absolutely ludicrous. It wasn’t people who were concerned about 100,000 dollars that caused the problem, it was those that were set free by the blind eye of the Bush Administration. They were being prodded by the greediness of the Bush Admin to increase profits at any cost in order to pay for their lobbying in washington, and to try and offset the ridiculous cost of the Iraq war.

  56. 56 Elasto Mecha in Nairobi
    March 31, 2009 at 18:14

    The coming g20 meeting is worthles if its members cant shed their ego first.

    Most people are optimistic only because a new us president is in office.its otherwise a waste of time to give hope to developing countries that they will benefit.let them find the cause and solution for their own problems.

  57. 57 Marija Liudvika Rutkauskaite
    March 31, 2009 at 18:19

    I liked the comment of Steve from Boston and those of a few other Americans but I wish successful initiative to government representatives of those countries which foresaw the approach of the present state in finance and economies. I am not so sceptical about the power of Governments. Once they have started the bailout of banks and the stimulation of the economies, the Governments of the powerful twenty might pave a way to a partnership with the financial and economic sectors. They might negotiate for honour code and seek ways of investment in production for the institutions funded from the budgets. The budget funds are simply received and spent, and this is not profitable. A part of the funds might be allocated by every institution thus funded to be invested in production and every institution could thus multiply its funds in the long run. I have been familiar with how physicists and engineers, who are directly connected with production, contribute to the budgets of their institutions and faculties. I have always worried how professionals in the humanities might earn a revenue on their funds from the budget. The present situation might give an opportunity to negotiate with the sectors of production and finance for the treatment of the institutions of science, learning and education with respect and for helping them in the turnout of their meagre funds. This would not mean regulation of free market nor would it involve Governments directly in industry. This is an untested idea from the mind in a small and poor country. Perhaps representatives of the powerful twenty might seek minimal ideas themselves. Thank you. Marija Liudvika Rutkauskaite

  58. 58 Dalitso
    March 31, 2009 at 18:40

    Some our leaders wil not contribute anything to the meeting but just allowances from our poor economics. So just 4get about them.

  59. 59 Rob Walsh
    March 31, 2009 at 19:01

    I agree with what Jordi said on your programme; capitalism is the problem, socialism is the solution.

    Everyone is talking as if 20 countries are represented at the talks and 174 countries are left out. It is worse than that; banks, big business and political elites from 20 countries are represented whereas working people and the poor of ALL countries are unrepresented.

    These capitalist politicians are gathering simply to talk about damage limitation whilst preserving the very system that caused the crisis. What is needed is a complete change to public ownership and democratic control of the means of producing wealth.

  60. 60 Saut
    March 31, 2009 at 21:02

    One thing this global economic crisis taught me is to be wary of munafiq Western free-market practioners. These economic munafiqun speak of achieving greater ‘macro-good’ with synchronous deeds of realising ‘micro-benefits’. Adam Smith’s so-called ‘invisible hand’. Poignant example is the U.S. sub-prime loans debacle. A housing property bubble fueled by easy credit. Which as a matter of fact is ‘socialising’ the granting of credit through lowering the qualification requirements and underpricing the interest cost.

    Those free-market zealots of the financial institutions got overly involved only because they could ‘flipped’ the mortgages into derivatives for profits and bonuses. And this property bubble was epitomised as prosperity of the nation.

    Today we see the same dogma applied: save ‘those too big to fail’ and will get the economy going again. I reckon there is no ‘death in capitalism’ as long as there is ‘resurrection with socialism’. Why this obsession and subservience to the originators of our problems?

    Let us be bold and let the munafiq banks and ilk ‘die’. And each country have a centralised credit system for all loans from microfinancing, consumer loans, etc to infrastructure projects. After all every country’s currency is fiat money and the main hindrance has been the banks’ reluctance to grant credit. Unemployment in the banking industry can be mitigated by staff recruitment of the new centralised credit system. The economy of a country belongs to the people not a plaything for greedy few.

  61. 61 Bert
    March 31, 2009 at 21:46

    Marija, my response to your proposal:

    “… the Governments of the powerful twenty might pave a way to a partnership with the financial and economic sectors. They might negotiate for honour code and seek ways of investment in production for the institutions funded from the budgets.”

    is that only a select few in the West truly believe that governments are well qualified to fund institutions appropriately. I, for one, certainly do not. Socialists seem to have this delusion.

    As long as the government has taken on the role of doling out charity to corporations, which I trust will be a very short term anomaly, they have no choice but to make such decisions. But please note what started this mess in the US. It was government, with its government-guaranteed loans, that was promoting home ownership even to those who were clearly not qualified.

    This twisted the minds of the greedy bankers. They now had nothing to lose. So it was the idea that everyone SHOULD own a home that created the problem. The greedy bankers would never have been so lavish with their loans, had they been allowed to take the risk.

    The capitalist system can only work when the greedy have to suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And there’s no way the government can make business decisions as well as greedy people who are hanging way out on a limb. Why would anyone believe that civil servants are better qualified at taking appropriate risks than are the greedy bankers?

  62. April 1, 2009 at 07:18

    how comes we africans are risking our lives by getting out of the frying pan and into fire?we hear the developed world leaders tell us that their countries are going under with a financial crisis we never were part of?could it be possibly that we being neither part of them is the reason of what they are telling us?….and furthermore,isnt this a picture of how yemeni arabs rely on innocent somali lives but just to drown them into the shark infested waters…shylocks….EVERY DICK,HARRY,JANE,AMINA needs a life jacket now that they are all in the deep seas.
    i dont see how an african would want to risk his/her life by using dingy yachts to reach spain or france?or how asians could also use containers to reach NATO?


  63. 63 JOSEPH
    April 1, 2009 at 08:26


  64. 64 marilise saghbini - london/beirut
    April 1, 2009 at 09:32

    hmm…i listened to an interesting presentation yesterday about redefining prosperity. We have hit two walls globally – a financial crisis and an environmental crisis.
    Some people think that the G20 countries’ governments can spend their way back to a “healthy” economy.
    Over the past recessions, when the economy has hit the bottom – it is entrepreneurs who re-start things, through innovation, the creation of new jobs and new wealth.
    A real decision to be seen coming out of G20 would be a recognition and action in entrepreneurial policy.

  65. 65 sharon
    April 1, 2009 at 13:58

    I am amazed that the London Police let themselves be pushed around, most likely by people who do not really have any interest in sorting the worlds economy. What do people expect, if the politicans did nothing there would be more complaints. Most of these people are more likely to be only too happy to accept state handouts.They should bring the G20 to Spain, you do not want to josstle with a Spanish Guardia Civila.

  66. April 1, 2009 at 17:33

    Lets stop with the sky is falling propoganda. The environment is not falling around us. We should foucus on the economy and deal with “green” issues later.
    As an American taxpayer, I feel that my money (the stimulus package) should be used to fix my countries economy not those of other countries. I don’t see other countries falling over themselves to give the US money.

  67. 67 Dan, DC
    April 1, 2009 at 17:50

    Green energy provides a huge canvas for innovation, and it’s only through innovation that the world economy will regain some strength. We need economies based on something other than credit and securities. When green technology becomes accessible and fits into the current infrastructure of the biggest world economies, then we will be addressing both the financial and environmental crises.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: