Time to Scrap outdated and expensive G8 meetings?

[MadImmortalMan]

I agree with sask. They have to meet sometime, it might as well be this way. Besides, if they're off gallivanting about at summits they aren't at home passing laws. And that's just good for everyone.

[Zanza]

It's funny that he quotes Angela Merkel. Her modus operandi is to go for as many photo ops as possible, instead of actually doing any policy work. If it was up to her, they would have one of these meetings every few weeks so she can pose with the world leaders and show the Germans what a wonderful diplomat she supposedly is.

[The Brain]

sexiss

[Josephus]

I agree with sask. They have to meet sometime, it might as well be this way. Besides, if they're off gallivanting about at summits they aren't at home passing laws. And that's just good for everyone.

On that I agree 100 per cent. Especially when it comes to Harper.

[Habbaku]

Oh and the left never gets tired of beating the drum about how horrible globalization and free trade are.  Protectionism and provicialism seem to be their winning formula for a better economic tommorow.

Are you going to make up your mind about free trade, or is this one of this instances where it's okay for us to engage in protectionism, but not others?

[Valmy]

Are you going to make up your mind about free trade, or is this one of this instances where it's okay for us to engage in protectionism, but not others?

I would vigoriously defend myself here but I am not sure what you are talking about.  I am all about the free trade.

Is this where I mistakenly defended the American System as a infrastructure project forgetting the tariff angle and grumbler bashed me for it?  Because I sorta figured that would be buried in that thread and forgotten.

[Habbaku]

Is this where I mistakenly defended the American System as a infrastructure project forgetting the tariff angle and grumbler bashed me for it?  Because I sorta figured that would be buried in that thread and forgotten.

Yes.  And you were wrong. 

[Viking]

The G8 doesn't represent the world.  It represents civilization, although that weakened a bit once they brought Russia on board.  I suppose the G7 represents civilization, and Russia is there to speak for the barbarian world.

So you are saying that the G8 speaks for both the Civilized and Barbarian World? If so, who is there who is not represented? So why do you state that the G8 doesn't speak for the world?

[Valmy]

Yes.  And you were wrong. 

I know Languish has the memory of a herd of nerdy elephants.

I still think the infrastructure was good though.

[grumbler]

I agree with sask. They have to meet sometime, it might as well be this way. Besides, if they're off gallivanting about at summits they aren't at home passing laws. And that's just good for everyone.

+1

[Jaron]

The G8 doesn't represent the world.  It represents civilization, although that weakened a bit once they brought Russia on board.  I suppose the G7 represents civilization, and Russia is there to speak for the barbarian world.

So you are saying that the G8 speaks for both the Civilized and Barbarian World? If so, who is there who is not represented? So why do you state that the G8 doesn't speak for the world?

neil = owned.

[Siege]

Why is Italy irrelevant?
I thought they were a rich country.

[Monoriu]

The G8 is there for the interests of the G8.  Why is there an expectation that they somehow have to work for the good of the world?

[Barrister]

I agree with sask. They have to meet sometime, it might as well be this way. Besides, if they're off gallivanting about at summits they aren't at home passing laws. And that's just good for everyone.

On that I agree 100 per cent. Especially when it comes to Harper.

[Viking]

The G8 is there for the interests of the G8.  Why is there an expectation that they somehow have to work for the good of the world?

To make this clear.

The G7 is there to preserve capitalism and guide the free market. It there to make it possible for the largest free market economies to act in concert leading by example with a decision making procedure which has few enough voters to make every vote unilateral. The G7 is here to solve problems like the current credit crisis, and I must point out a de-facto "G-7" meeting was held in Washington in November 2008 where the G-7 plus 12 large trading economies (many of them market economies) did have a "G-7" style discussion about how to deal with the credit crisis. In effect the G-20 has superseded the G-8. This was done without "inviting" new members, but rather it was done by the relevant international players meeting. G-20 countries are 85% of the world economy and 80% of world trade.

The G-8 however is turning into a monstrous irrelevance. It has been rendered impotent by first of all inviting Russia to join hoping that membership would coax Russia into the direction of an open society, this has failed and since the G-# concept requires unanimity this make decision making impossible with a pseudo dictatorship in the group. But look above at what I said about the G-20, they have Russia in it, but they talk about things that matter like exchange rates and trade policy and tariffs. The G-8 has to deal with Bono and his Ilk talking about development and AIDS and Malaria and Clean Water and Global Warming. Which just results in meaningless pre-planned statements where the whole point of the exercise is to have a good photo opportunity and to look good when making a statement about something the politicians who rule when you are dead will have to deal with.

If anybody destroyed the G-8 it was Bono and the Global Warming/AIDS/Development etc.etc. activists who demanded that the G-8 members in unison did something they couldn't be arsed to do individually.