Has there ever been a major economic summit where a U.S. President and his Treasury Secretary were as thoroughly rebuffed as they were at this week's G-20 meeting in Seoul? We can't think of one. President Obama failed to achieve any of his main goals while getting pounded by other world leaders for failing U.S. policies and lagging growth. The root of this embarrassment is political and... [more]
Has there ever been a major economic summit where a U.S. President and his Treasury Secretary were as thoroughly rebuffed as they were at this week's G-20 meeting in Seoul? We can't think of one. President Obama failed to achieve any of his main goals while getting pounded by other world leaders for failing U.S. policies and lagging growth.
The root of this embarrassment is political and intellectual: Rather than leading the world from a position of strength, Mr. Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner came to Seoul blaming the rest of the world for U.S. economic weakness. America's problem, in their view, is the export and exchange rate policies of the Germans, Chinese or Brazilians. And the U.S. solution is to have the Fed print enough money to devalue the dollar so America can grow by stealing demand from the rest of the world.
But why should anyone heed this U.S. refrain? The Germans are growing rapidly after having rejected Mr. Geithner's advice in 2009 to join the U.S. stimulus spending blowout. China is also growing smartly having rejected counsel from three U.S. Administrations to abandon its currency discipline. The U.K. and even France are pursuing more fiscal restraint. Only the Obama Administration is determined to keep both the fiscal and monetary spigots wide open, while blaming everyone else for the poor domestic results. . . .
The American failure was most acute on trade, as the U.S. and South Korea couldn't agree on a bilateral pact that the two countries had signed three years ago. Mr. Obama had campaigned against that pact in 2008, let it languish for two years in office, and now suddenly wants the South Koreans to agree to new terms.
But the Koreans aren't pushovers, and they want new concessions from America in return. They also see a less urgent need for a trade pact with the U.S. because, while Mr. Obama has fiddled, the Koreans have been negotiating other trade deals with all and sundry—not least a pact with the European Union that carries nearly identical terms to what the Bush Administration negotiated in 2007. Mr. Obama's negotiators left Seoul empty-handed.
Meanwhile, China and other Asian economies see first-hand that rather than spurring more U.S. growth (on which Asian exporters still depend), U.S. monetary ease has flooded the developing world economies with dollars they're not able to absorb; produced exchange-rate turmoil to the detriment of the region's traders; and sent the world's dollar-denominated commodity prices climbing. . . .
The world also rejected Mr. Geithner's high-profile call for a 4% limit on a nation's trade surplus or deficit, which would amount to new political controls on trade and capital flows. This contradicts at least three decades of U.S. policy advice against national barriers to the flow of money and goods. We don't like to see U.S. Treasury Secretaries so completely shot down by the rest of the world, except when they are so clearly misguided.
***
None of this should be cause for celebration, because a world without American leadership is a more dangerous place. The U.S. is still the world's largest economy, the issuer of its reserve currency, and its lone military superpower. No other nation has the will or capacity to lead the way the U.S. has for 70 years, so faltering American influence will produce a vacuum in which every nation can seek narrow advantage.
If Mr. Obama wants to restore his economic leadership, both at home and abroad, he needs an urgent shift in priorities. Strike a deal with Republicans to extend the current tax rates across the board, pursue the spending cuts proposed by his own deficit commission, end the regulatory binge that has constrained America's animal spirits, stop trying to direct capital toward political mirages like "green jobs," and press Congress to pass the Korean and other trade pacts.
The world will follow American leadership again only when it sees policies that restore robust U.S. economic growth.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575609770024501384.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop[less]
Response by Riversider
about 15 years ago
Posts: 13572
Member since: Apr 2009
When Presidents have trouble at home, they leave the country and hope to achieve success overseas. Guess that didn't work this time.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by ncy10025
about 15 years ago
Posts: 198
Member since: Feb 2009
its the LIC loser again!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
Mission Accomplished!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
Bring 'em on!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
I'm the Decider!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
Don't misunderestimate me!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
Mushroom clouds!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
"Deficits don't matter!"
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
Weapons of mass destruction!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
Sadam Hussein is an imminent threat to the US.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
"The world will follow American leadership again only when it sees policies that restore robust U.S. economic growth."
"No public money for Lehman!"
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
Deregulation!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Wbottom
about 15 years ago
Posts: 2142
Member since: May 2010
i think ill give angela merkel a lil neckrub during this here G5 meetin--soften her up a beet
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
Nothin' like The Old Soft Shoe waiting for John McCain to arrive at the White House!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
Did I mention "misunderestimate"?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by bronxboy
about 15 years ago
Posts: 446
Member since: Feb 2009
But the world was in awe of George Bush weren't they? Too funny.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by rb345
about 15 years ago
Posts: 1273
Member since: Jun 2009
Obama's policies and leadership are so bad it makes me wonder if Osama bin Laden is still
the operationel head of Al Qaeda.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
"operationel" - a Bushism meaning "operational," or French for "operationelle," which is the part of a cell that works.
HAHAHAHA!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by LICComment
about 15 years ago
Posts: 3610
Member since: Dec 2007
steve, thanks for all the stupid off-topic comments. You seem to like those.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
Off topic? You misunderestimate me:
"The root of this embarrassment is political and intellectual: Rather than leading the world from a position of strength, Mr. Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner came to Seoul blaming the rest of the world for U.S. economic weakness."
Whereas George II was BRILLIANT! Mushroom Clouds!
What a maroon.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
You should now clearly see why you got the name "LICCdope" - fits.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by LICComment
about 15 years ago
Posts: 3610
Member since: Dec 2007
Thanks for proving my point over and over again- steve used to think he was intelligent, and has now gone insane due to my consistent exposure of his lack of understanding of even the simplest of concepts.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
"and has now gone insane due to my consistent exposure of his lack of understanding of even the simplest of concepts."
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.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
I apologize for being new to this story only, but this strikes me as an example of Obama being truly Naive. Yes, Presidents switch to an overseas agenda when they have domestic problems(Nixon did it too!) but you don't go overseas to convince your trading partners of an issue, fail and look stupid to the world. You have these issues negotiated privately behind closed doors so you can be guaranteed of success for when you go in front of the television camera.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
The more I read you Teabaggers, the more I'm certain of how dumb you are.
It wasn't all that long ago that US President Barack Obama could take credit for having repaired a trans-Atlantic relationship that had taken a hit under his predecessor, George W. Bush. Early in his first term, some 78 percent of Germans saw the US as "a country that could be trusted."
This week, though, following revelations of large-scale US spying in Europe and vast Internet surveillance, that trust has taken a hit. A survey released late on Thursday found that only 49 percent of Germans now view the United States as trustworthy, the lowest level since Bush was in the White House. It also marks a plunge of 16 points relative to a survey taken in December 2011.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by greensdale
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3804
Member since: Sep 2012
What is the relevance of German citizens' trust of the US?
What is the approval rating for Congress, and once you answer that question, what is the relevance of the figure?
'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
When Presidents have trouble at home, they leave the country and hope to achieve success overseas. Guess that didn't work this time.
its the LIC loser again!
Mission Accomplished!
Bring 'em on!
I'm the Decider!
Don't misunderestimate me!
Mushroom clouds!
"Deficits don't matter!"
Weapons of mass destruction!
Sadam Hussein is an imminent threat to the US.
"The world will follow American leadership again only when it sees policies that restore robust U.S. economic growth."
"No public money for Lehman!"
Deregulation!
i think ill give angela merkel a lil neckrub during this here G5 meetin--soften her up a beet
Nothin' like The Old Soft Shoe waiting for John McCain to arrive at the White House!
Did I mention "misunderestimate"?
But the world was in awe of George Bush weren't they? Too funny.
Obama's policies and leadership are so bad it makes me wonder if Osama bin Laden is still
the operationel head of Al Qaeda.
"operationel" - a Bushism meaning "operational," or French for "operationelle," which is the part of a cell that works.
HAHAHAHA!
steve, thanks for all the stupid off-topic comments. You seem to like those.
Off topic? You misunderestimate me:
"The root of this embarrassment is political and intellectual: Rather than leading the world from a position of strength, Mr. Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner came to Seoul blaming the rest of the world for U.S. economic weakness."
Whereas George II was BRILLIANT! Mushroom Clouds!
What a maroon.
You should now clearly see why you got the name "LICCdope" - fits.
Thanks for proving my point over and over again- steve used to think he was intelligent, and has now gone insane due to my consistent exposure of his lack of understanding of even the simplest of concepts.
"and has now gone insane due to my consistent exposure of his lack of understanding of even the simplest of concepts."
MUSHROOM CLOUDS!
What a maroon.
57 states......obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
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.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
http://baselinescenario.com/2010/11/13/g20-profound-and-complete-disappointment-for-the-us-treasury/
http://www.breitbart.tv/abc-news-obama-asia-trip-fails
I apologize for being new to this story only, but this strikes me as an example of Obama being truly Naive. Yes, Presidents switch to an overseas agenda when they have domestic problems(Nixon did it too!) but you don't go overseas to convince your trading partners of an issue, fail and look stupid to the world. You have these issues negotiated privately behind closed doors so you can be guaranteed of success for when you go in front of the television camera.
The more I read you Teabaggers, the more I'm certain of how dumb you are.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-trust-in-us-lowest-level-since-bush-years-after-nsa-scandal-a-909584.html
It wasn't all that long ago that US President Barack Obama could take credit for having repaired a trans-Atlantic relationship that had taken a hit under his predecessor, George W. Bush. Early in his first term, some 78 percent of Germans saw the US as "a country that could be trusted."
This week, though, following revelations of large-scale US spying in Europe and vast Internet surveillance, that trust has taken a hit. A survey released late on Thursday found that only 49 percent of Germans now view the United States as trustworthy, the lowest level since Bush was in the White House. It also marks a plunge of 16 points relative to a survey taken in December 2011.
What is the relevance of German citizens' trust of the US?
What is the approval rating for Congress, and once you answer that question, what is the relevance of the figure?