With the potentially important London Summit next week, I thought this article was interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7954532.stm

However, many academics who have studied such negotiations draw another lesson.
They argue that meaningful international agreements are only possible when there is one dominant country that has the economic and political power to enforce a deal.
This was the case in 1944 when the US put through the Bretton Woods deal which created the IMF and World Bank, and in the 1950s when it initiated world trade talks.
But during the Depression, a weakened US had neither the economic power nor the political will to replace Europe as the organiser of the world economy.
With Europe even more divided now, the same issue could shape the G20 summit - whether the US, weakened by its own problems, really wants to take a leading role in sorting out the world's problems as well as its own.
So, 76 years later, the fate of the world economy is again at the mercy of world politics.

With Europe even more divided now, the same issue could shape the G20 summit

How so and compared to when? 1944? Europe....please correct me if I am wrong since I don't live there, seems to be more united than its ever been. It was even achieved without some grand Neopoleanic/3rd Reich-esque military campaign. Granted there are the usual holdouts, such as Switzerland and the UK to a lesser degree but isn't continental Europe at the very least united economically if not politically with Brussels as the capitol?

This was the case in 1944 when the US put through the Bretton Woods deal which created the IMF and World Bank

Interesting. There has been alot of talk about re-inventing this system. That or making a new world currency. The collapse of Bretton Woods has been blamed for some of today's problems.

So, 76 years later, the fate of the world economy is again at the mercy of world politics.

Our country is too busy bickering on a partisan level. Plus we are broke. We have no right advising anyone on monetary issues. If Europe is bickering and so on, China is going to be the one taking charge on this.

They hold most of the cards now since they have the largest reserves of both dollars, euros, T-bills etc. They buy everyone's debt and they are even buying alot of the bad mortgage backed securities which means they are poised to become the single largest residential land-holder in the US, if not the world, sitting on it long enough for the rebound and then making a windfall later. The imbalance of trade is so huge now that they have to do this to keep everything going so it works out well for everyone, just like what the US did back during the reconstruction of Europe at the end of the war. Their only concern is if the US prints more dollars or some other inflation causing method so they are going to be laying everything out on the table to make sure that all that debt they bought turns them a profit instead of causing them to tank. If not, they will probably dump dollars and refuse to buy our T-bills and other instruments and kill the recovery process. Hence the big push for the creation of a global reserve currency called the Special Drawing Right backed by US dollars, RMB, Euros, British pounds and Yen as primary with 185 other currency types in the mix as well. It would be used for large international transactions, with local (as in national currency) pegged to it. It would, in a way, reinvent the gold standard with a fiat currency based on global economic output rather than the United States or the EU. it is in a way, ingenious....and it will probably happen.

Halo,

Whats the deal with this Hannan dude? Conservatives over here are having an orgasm over him.

is he the czech pm? dude, its the czech republic, no one gives a shit.
edit: if hannan=czech pm, wtf are they having an orgasm over? from what i know, what he basically said was: splurging money everywhere doesnt solve anything, it has to be followed with real regulation in the financial market.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,615488,00.html

Wiggo, I think you're thinking of Mirek Topolanek, the Czech PM (whose government just lost a confidence vote and has collapsed) who is currently serving as president of the EU. He's a lame duck (already resigned as Czech PM, leaves the EU presidency in June) who has nothing to lose politically and who has been chastised for making some choice comments this week about the Obama administration's response to the financial crisis (see the linked article). Some sources have stated that he was very much in the pocket of the Bush administration, as he had a very cozy relationship with George W. and was spearheading the drive to place components of that administration's proposed missile defense shield in that country, and may have been predisposed to speaking out against the Obama administration in retaliation for those plans having been put on hold. Be that as it may, I think his comments are not without a grain of truth (re spending ourselves into hell ;) ) and while the major European powers were quick to distance themselves from his remarks, privately I suspect that many of them agree with him and are very wary of getting suckered into massive spending measures by the US themselves...

Regards,
Nydia

'How so and compared to when? 1944? Europe....please correct me if I am wrong since I don't live there, seems to be more united than its ever been. It was even achieved without some grand Neopoleanic/3rd Reich-esque military campaign. Granted there are the usual holdouts, such as Switzerland and the UK to a lesser degree but isn't continental Europe at the very least united economically if not politically with Brussels as the capitol?'

- LummusL, I think the article refers to divisions over the current economic crisis and what are seen as Anglo-Saxon stimulus plans that go against every economic principle most EU states stand for. If it were not for the various treaties of the EU (Lisbon, Rome, etc) most nations on the continent would be as protectionist as the French. A lot of European states are very much averse at pumping money into their economies, and many, like the Czech Republic, simply will not. One cannot tell yet whether this is on grounds of political economic principle, or suspiscion of Anglo-Saxonism finance (though yesterday's Parliament at Brussels certainly was a good indicator for the latter - see the Czech PM's rumbling about Obama and Brown). Either way, there remains a deep division as to how this downturn should be handled. And for once, the UK is taking a lead, maybe a decisive one, perhaps a chance for us to make up for lethargic leadership and lost opportunities from 2006's constitutional collapse in the French and Dutch republics (where Blair, busy with America and war, did very little to replace the French in the Franco-German EU leadership void that had resulted as a rejection of the constitution in those countries as a result of referendums). To say, of course, that these kind of divisions are as promonent as those that existed in the 30s and 40s is journalistic hyperbole, but things certainly are tense around here. It would be nice for the EU to agree on something, for once...

'If not, they will probably dump dollars and refuse to buy our T-bills and other instruments and kill the recovery process.'

- Haven't you heard? They are seeking to do exactly that as we speak:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7960620.stm

'Halo,

Whats the deal with this Hannan dude? Conservatives over here are having an orgasm over him.'

- Haha, yeah I figured someone soon would mention Hannan MEP. For some reason - and I really don't know why - he's getting a lot of attention across the Pond but very little here. He's a Little Conservative, overshadowed previously - and utterly - by Cameron and Osbourne, but for some reason he chose the perfect time, and the perfect *line*, to attack Brown at Brussels to some critical effect. While this is perfectly normal, indeed watch a live sitting House of Commons sometime, I'm sure you get it on BBC America over there, we have our very own hornet's nest of these guys - called the Conservatives - who spend entire sessions slagging Brown off to great roars of laughter and cheers. They utterly oppose the stimulus package without providing a Party alternative themselves. They run on opposition to Brown as a PM, not to strong party policy conflicts, and they do and offer very little else to the British or European public.
Yet they are, sometimes, incredibly fun to watch. Go on YouTube, for example, and type in 'Brown & William Hague' he's the Shadow Foreign Minister (very clever and one of the few Conservatives that you could find tolerable - he's also written an A-class biography on William Pitt the Younger which I read at Christmas), it's a bloody riot, but not on principles or policies, but good old fashioned Disraeli/Gladston personal politics.

Yet they are, sometimes, incredibly fun to watch. Go on YouTube, for example, and type in 'Brown & William Hague' he's the Shadow Foreign Minister (very clever and one of the few Conservatives that you could find tolerable - he's also written an A-class biography on William Pitt the Younger which I read at Christmas), it's a bloody riot, but not on principles or policies, but good old fashioned Disraeli/Gladston personal politics.

personally, i prefer the time when john prescott dominated hague.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBeOafTBoVs

Oh, Prescott is the man. Ever see the broadcast where he punched a guy in the face who threw an egg at him? Bloody classic.

Oh, Prescott is the man. Ever see the broadcast where he punched a guy in the face who threw an egg at him? Bloody classic.

haha, yeah. its quite amazing how the PMQ nowadays is pretty much purely entertainment and showmanship. was it always like this, or did it use to be a ground for legitimate policy discussions?

Always been like that. Well has been since Thatcher's day.

But back in the 19th century, especially under Disraeli and Gladston, it was a bloody riot. Some of the speeches and rebuttles are hillarious. You'd think no one could get away with that kind of talk - not even now.

When you get two long-running figures of animosity, like Brown/Cameron, politics in the House can be pretty fun.