Poor naive George W. Bush! For all his shambolic presidency, his dreadful mistakes, and the horrors of aggressive imperialism, his last couple of months in office could end up being the most disastrous for the world.
Bloomberg reports:
The leaders of the U.S., France and the European Commission will ask other world leaders to join in a series of summits on the global financial crisis beginning in the U.S. soon after the Nov. 4 presidential election.
President George W. Bush, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and European Commission President Jose Barroso said in a joint statement after meeting yesterday that they will continue pressing for coordination to address “the challenges facing the global economy.”
The initial summit will seek “agreement on principles of reform needed to avoid a repetition and assure global prosperity in the future,” and later meetings “would be designed to implement agreement on specific steps to be taken to meet those principles,” the statement said.
Just how bad this could be is already showing. The report continues:
Sarkozy and Barraso are pressing Bush for a G8 agenda that includes stiffer regulation and supervision for cross-border banks, a global “early warning” system and an overhaul of the International Monetary Fund. Talks may also encompass tougher regulations on hedge funds, new rules for credit-rating companies, limits on executive pay and changing the treatment of tax havens such as the Cayman Islands and Monaco.
Just what has the continuation of the OECD nations’ campaign to plunder smaller states and institute globally uniform (high) taxation got to do with the market crash? Nothing. Executive pay? Irrelevant, too, save in the politics of envy. Mainstream banks, not hedgies, were the ones that crashed after playing iffy games with CDOs, and governments helped pump-up house prices – with enthusiasm. Where this agenda comes in is as an opportunity to kick the resented “Anglo-Saxon” model of capitalism while it is down – even, and especially, in those places where it is not down yet. (Are we missing Commissioner Mandelson yet?)
Mr Bush has lost the thread entirely if he really thinks a transnational “reform” of the financial system can do other than damage “free markets, free enterprise and free trade”. He may have a patchy record on liberty, and a bad record on limited government. His guests in November will have no interest in either. They will tempt him (have tempted him) with the mantle of world saviour, and will try to get him to bind his successors. We shall have to hope that his successor, either one of whom would be well to the economic right of the self-selected ‘international community’, depressingly enough, is more wily and far-sighted.
Meanwhile, where is there left to run?
There is nowhere left to run. We’re in the end game now. Either you join the party or you drop out. Neither is pretty.
Guy — the one-note media is pretty depressing, but let’s not forget the strength of the US model of government.
Unlike Britain, where Broon can do what he damn well pleases, in the US any international agreement by the President (“treaty”) has to be approved by 2/3 of the US Senate. Makes for a slow & difficult approval process.
Also, don’t swallow the media characterization of Pres. Bush as a lame duck. He is President until he is not. And don’t believe the media that Barrack is being elected Emperor — he is not, and almost anything he wants to do has to get majority (or super-majority) support from 535 preening, self-important members of House & Senate.
Bottom line — situation is not as dire as the BBC and the Guardian would love you to believe.
He is President until he is not.
That’s what I’m worried about.
Guy — I guess that I just don’t understand your concern.
If you are worried that Pres. Bush will cave in to a bunch of testosterone-free Euros, relax! Whatever other faults may be laid at Pres. Bush’s door, he clearly does not give the proverbial rat’s rear end about the opinion of Euro leaders and media whiners. He will do what he believes to be right — up until the next President is sworn in.
If you are worried about the next president dropping trou & grabbing ankles for the amusement of those same Euro “leaders”, join the club. But by then the world will have changed, and Broon’s rescue of the global financial system may look more like a foolishly inflationary move than an heroically bold stroke.
I am afraid that Bush might want to go with something that he thinks improves his legacy…
He certainly freed more people, and if we factor where we were headed if Al Qaeda & Bin Laden could have managed their aura… we would be much worse.
The stuff from Sarko is boilerplate French capitalist-bashing. They want the return of Bretton Woods – except not a US version – they want exchange controls, capital controls, state control of banks, firms, everything. But quite how they can square this with the euro zone, is another matter.
Sarko should focus on keeping his Italian lady happy.
Alice,
My concern is that of luckylucky, the desire for legacy.
Jonathan,
Agreed about Sarko, but I don’t have much faith in more general EU adherence to open markets. An interior single market and free capital flows are not inconsistent with an ambition for a regulated international system with the EU as one of the great powers participating in it. It is entirely of a piece, in fact, with the idea of the EU as an ‘economic superpower’. You can’t be a superpower if you don’t have a means of exercising power. In a genuinely free-market, free-trading world, countries would not be in any sense economic powers. (Which is another reason the single market is part of the EU plan – it is seen as draining power from the states and passing it to the union. Which it may well do: cf the interstate commerce clause in the US.)
The mercantilist conception of states has never been effectively driven out of politics, and was already roaring back in numerous ways, often dressed-up as security or ecology, before the credit crash. And the idea that economics is the principal determinant of political structures, that economic interests determine political principles and thus economic management the legitimate prime concern of governments – “economism” if you like – has never been away from the forefront. Greens claim to offer a wholly new perspective, but their real focus is the inversion of economic values. Even among libertarians it is common to seek to justify freedom on the basis that it will make us rich.
I wonder whether we shouldn’t be grateful to the explosive Islamist movements for their exemplary indifference to economic welfare, national interest, and public international law.
Call me a empty headed optomist who sees the world via pink lenses Guy – but I do not believe that President Bush-brain will agree to the full collectivist agenda (World Governmnent regulations, banning “tax havens” and so on). This will be left to Comrade Obama next year.
“But Paul [some may say] the Senate must approve this stuff by a two thirds vote and a lot of it is unconstitutional anyway”.
The Constitution has long been ignored (see the two gold cases of 1935 and so on and so on……) and the Senate will go along with anything.
Remember what a state of mind the Republicans will be in soon – shell shocked from their massive defeat.
And the “mainstream media” (and the academia that produces it) will denounce any dissent as racist.
As for dissenting media – apart from a few computer blogs it will not longer exist soon.
The conservative part of talk radio will be easy to destroy – and as for Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, Rupert M. is a coward and will give way as soon as he feels in real danger.
Even if I am wrong and Rupert proves to be a hero – he will just end up in the next cell to Conrad Black (odd that he was destroyed just after the Chicago Sun Times started to attack the Chicago Machine – it does not do that now).
There are vast numbers of regulations (many of which are contradictory) it would be easy to put the main man of News International in jail for breaking some regulation (tax or other) – and he knows it.
So we are doomed – but not in 2008, it will be in 2009.
Sadly my comment has not turned up – and I do not feel like writing it all out again.
So I will be brief.
It will be 2009 (or even later) not 2008 (not Bush-brain, although yes his folly has opened the door, but Comrade Obama).
No the Senate will not be a problem – a few Senators (like Senator Shelby of Alabama) may resist, but most Republicans will be shell shocked by their defeat. And the mainstream media (and academia) will denounce any dissent as racism (if anyone thinks they would not do that you do not understand them).
As for the Constitution – that means relying on the Supreme Court (historically a weak reed).
As for dissenting media – most of it (apart from a few blogs and other such) will soon no longer exist.
The conservative part of talk radio will be the first to go.
As for the Wall Street Journal and Fox News – the main man of News International is no hero.
And if I am wrong and he proves to be a hero – it will make no difference.
He will just end up in the next cell to Conrad Black (odd how he was destroyed just after the Chicago Sun Times really started going after the Chicago Machine).
There are vast numbers of regulations (tax and other) and many of them are contradictory (if you obey one you, by definition, break another) so it will be easy to find things Rupert M. is “guilty” of.
He knows this.
Bush should be meeting with talented economists, not heads of state, regarding this matter.
Paul,
At the risk of sounding improperly-critical of your post, do you have any suggestions beyond rending my garments and then locking myself in the garage and taking a .40S&W aspirin?
I would feel proud also,if I were black,But I am not.I wonder If Hitler told all them jews the same lies that Obamma has told you fools out there,befor he led them to the gas chambers? Well, whats done is done ,so I`ll just say”, forgive them,lord for they know not what they have done”