Comments on: The G-8: A lot of talk, no real action

By: Vas

Vas — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:46:59 +0000

The issue here is if they are going to remain G8 or G9 or G7 or G4…

By: Darwin

Darwin — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:14:08 +0000

Victoria, I can understand your emotions on this subject (paying not to grow), it is indeed a controversial sounding headline but, as any impartial ecconomist would grant, it was at it's inception a critical policy, and, possibly still is. The famines endured over the last few centuries, (wealthiest nations not excluded) instigated seroius thought on how to secure a reliable and constant food supply. Now, as we all know that, generally speaking, mankind is not in the habit of putting it's neck on the block unless a risk premium is attached to the deal, and so, farmers, existing and new, were financially coaxed to go all out and produce untill it came out of their ears; western governments of the last forty or fifty years could not and would not allow famine in their own countries to become a topic at issue. There came a point when the farming machine, thanks to, inter alia, technological advances, became over efficient and hence the butter mountains and the milk lakes. Now what happens? The price a market will pay for one hand full of grain is not the same it will pay for ten. Meaning that, the gluts of produce flooding the markets raised, at times, less than production costs and even subsidies were proving little comfort. So, what are governmets to do now; risk losing producers and face the prospect of food shortages, possibly a return to the bad old days of famine? No way. They decided to compensate and lure them to stay on their farms effectively paying them not to grow. This allowed the ecconomics to stabalise – I know a little about the fresh produce industry and believe me, tomatoes at ten pence/cents a pound/kilo in the long term benefits no one. There is of course another option, Yes! Let's buy from those poorer nations, Africa, India......We can get a good price from them and at the same time help them out; if only it were that simple. The scale of corruption and mis management in some of those countries is beyond belief. To name one small example of what can occur, for example, in Kenya – a corrupt security oficial at the airport would not allow ten pallets of green beans to be loaded on a British Airways cargo hold unless he was paid a handsome sum. This is an incident I became aware of quite some years ago and was assured at the time that it was normal practice although not always subdued to – on more than one ocassion tons of produce were left to rot in airport holding bays – it did not occur to airport officials that it could have been a relative of his braking his/her back picking those delicate little green beans and then placing them soldier file into those little two kilo boxes.

Yes, I know, it seems a silly example but it gives a little of what is the essence in these countries where personal gain exceeds any priority of what may be nationally important – I do believe that one or two african leaders in the past, and present, are testament to that.

And now, our beloved Financial Times as well as the Ecconomist suggest that Spain, Brasil, India and China should form part of the 'G' nations. I end this little piece by saying that, although corruption is prevelant in all nations, (to a certain degree), in the above four (not totally sure about Brasil) it is a national pastime.

Hope I don't offend, but that's just how it is.

And before we continue to blame the superior nations for the current state of world affairs (I don't think things are that bad), we, the public ,are to blame for the financial crisis, for the housing bubbles and every other little occurence that flitters by – my bank manager most certainly did not put a gun to my head and say "Go ahead, punk, don't take this mortgage and make my day". But I had to buy a bigger house – just think how much this five bedroom mansion will be worth in a couple of years time. As did not the car salesman when offering finance on a petrol guzzling super sleek, but not totally necessary, new car (not totally necessay if you exclude the jealousy incurred on my neighbours). Actually, I can't remember the last time anybody putting a gun to my head; I guess it's all down to the momentum of my own greed and senseless gluttony that really provoked the current state of affairs. Add my sins to the millions more around the world and what do you get?

By: Victoria

Victoria — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:41:47 +0000

It's not a complete waste of time. It's huge progress to have Bush even admitting publicly anything about the climate issues – it might hep finally sway those in the US who are still denying the science. But most summit meetings are time-wasters.

You've been mentioning something important – the fact that farmers are paid money not to plant crops. I'd love to see CNN go in further to this. A special, explaining *why* this is done and what the effect is. You could even have a number of people discuss it on Larry King Live! For those farming subsidies will stay in place until there's more media attention.

At least the expensive food is getting those Afghanis to plant food instead of opium.

By: T

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:19:51 +0000

Even if the G8 sumit produced an agreement would there be any real impact to the climate? Reality is the planet has been getting warmer since the last ice age. If the planet begins to cool then we will have real problems.

By: Franklin Strum

Franklin Strum — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:09:53 +0000

The G8 summit is nothing more than the rich countries showing how rich and powerful they are, and using so called talk about issues like global warming, the food crisis, and humanity violations as a front. The G8 never accomplishes anything and never will. Poor nations like in the continent of Africa are not important to them because of no capital interest. Global warming is not important because the nations' presidents love controling the resources. Humanity violations are not important because the people are not the "right people" to them.

By: Expat in Egypt

Expat in Egypt — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:14:58 +0000

I agree with Todd, waste of time and more delays. Can somebody compute the amount of carbon emissions that were produced to run this wasteless summit? The countries should all be charged some sort of entry fee which should then be donated to an environmental cause!

By: GarthK

GarthK — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:30:16 +0000

The G8 is a northern hemisphere "old boys club".
However most of the issues being discussed there also affect/effect those of us that live in the south
I live in South Africa, and strongly feel that the inclusion of the RSA would be a bad idea – given our serious social and crime problems – Australia would be a better idea
We are a 3rd World country with a fairly sophisticated 1st World component but not worthy of membership at this stage
Oz would get my vote

By: tinaguenther

tinaguenther — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:44:19 +0000

I try to add a little more optimistic spin to the logic of G8 summits: In recent years, the G8 summit always came up with topics of world social relevance and managed to switch the main issue from one G8 summit to the next. Last year's G8 summit in Heiligendamm/Germany had environment, this year its is crude oil, renewable energy and the food crisis – will they manage to switch to a new topic next year, again? But the media and ordinary citizens around the globe prove their good memory, increasingly resist to forget. The G8 – as a global forum – will be held accountable for too little action, ignoring interdependencies between interrelated problems or not keeping their promises sooner or later, and they certainly kwow it. And many more problems of the same type will pop up and add to to the issues that the G8 have to deal with, and attempts at distracting will fail. In addition to the above comments about the nation states that should be sitting at the G8 table, I think a major obstacle for getting to good results a principal agent problem. The people and public of nation states represented at the G8 table are the principles, the heads of government are the agents, and they have their own interests, e.g. the next election. It will be hard to hold them accountable personally for what they do.

By: Ayan

Ayan — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:39:35 +0000

I agree with you!! G-8 meeting is a big show, it's to make it look like they are dealing with the problems, and their solutions is always one of two; one, it's somthing they already know will not happend and then they can say "ohh we tried" or two, emty promises!! I don't think the that the G-8 needs to promise to spend more money on africa I think they need to actually keep the already made promises and use the money efficient.

If the G-8 is going to actual have an impact then brazil, india and China need to be in it to. A problem doesn't disappear because you choose to ignore it, and that it exactly what they are doing. Ignoring everything china is doing; Taiwan, Tibet, CO2, etc.

What do guys thing?

By: Friend

Friend — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:15:48 +0000

July 8th, 2008 801 GMT
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

It’s interesting to know that some of us still don’t understand the intensity of the global problems we face.

Excluding major countries that have these problems continually exposes the whole world to some kind of inevitable crises most of which the world faces today.The so called G8 countries should hurry and wake up to the reality that there’s nothing like superpower countries anymore.

It’s obvious that every country needs each other,where the so called developed world’s resources are continuosly beign depleted and there’s an urgent need of resources certainly from the countries considered “Not Developed”.I can’t just understand why the G8 can’t swallow their pride and let other countries live, buy making fair trade deals instead of trying to invent new ways to exploit the so called “Developing countries”.

The exploitation Age is over,and everyone should realize that,inother to survive,simple Fair trade deals have to be made,otherwise the G8 will be fooling themselves.Eventually,even face more problems on food and Fuel.

Everyone knows that Africa,Asia and South America are the Major Fuel and Food suppliers of the West and Europe.
So why all the Bla!Bla!Bla’sss…..

G8 has just on option to recognize these continents and give them what they want.It’s Business, simple.
They can’t simply have it all forever,guess they didn’t think they would.

And who is talking about China’s emission.
That’s nothing compared to the DAMAGE THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE CREATED WHILE THEY WERE DOING THERE OWN DEVELOPING TRANSFORMATION.

I suppose ChinA is waiting when more Developed countries ride bicycles to work,then, They(CHINA) Might consider reducing it’s negative environmental effects.China Rode Bicycles for decades and They were called developing.They’re tired of beign Laughed at.

Well,I GUESS THE G8 SHOULD”Practise what they preach!” Except from trying to invent means of how to exploit other people unnecessarily and then Turning round and calling Them “POOR”.

I guess most countries have had enough of being reffered to as “DEVELOPING COUNTRIES”,While the fact is that they have always played an important role in the development of the so called G8 countries without beign Appreciated or even Recognized.

It’s time “WE” All work together.

There’s No Developed and Developing Country in our world Today.
We have a global crises and that is what everyone needs to realize.

AFRICA ,ASIA ,AND SOUTH AMERICA HAVE MOST OF WHAT IT TAKES TO HELP REDUCE THESE PROBLEMS AS WELL AS THESE SO CALLED “DEVELOPED COUNTRIES=SHOULD PAY FOR THEIR CONSUMPTION”AND NOT GET IT FOR ALMOST FREE,BY USING SANCTIONS.

G8 SHOULD HAVE AN OPEN TRADE DEALS AND LET OTHERS LIVE.
Then we see there’s no DEVELOPING COUNTRY.
Leave Your Comment