Comments on: G20 summit's revealing wine list

By: kingwho

kingwho — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:39:21 +0000

Pathetic as usual – let the rest of the peasants go hungry while we the chosen few drink $500 bottles of wine

By: Cheryl,Flint

Cheryl,Flint — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:31:35 +0000

If we are firing CEOs, then lets get rid of the CEOs of Fanny Mae, Fanny Mac, AIG and all the banks we have bailed out.

By: lauro silva

lauro silva — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:05:41 +0000

No public financial help as well as any bailout should be provided to any institution when people have not any help at all and besides that may have lost their jobs.

By: lauro silva

lauro silva — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:48:07 +0000

the present crisis is not more than a direct consequence of especulation for many years perpetrated by everybody all of the world. The only way now is to let it pass away and restart all again.

By: lauro silva

lauro silva — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:44:47 +0000

the current crisis is not more than a direct consequence of a generalized speculation for many years, perpetrated by everybody all of the world. The only way now is to absorb it and let it pass away and after that restart all again.

By: Maria

Maria — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:45:27 +0000

We can look at it and justify it in many ways but the simple truth is that it's morally wrong. If you wish to spend your cash on an expensive bottle of wine, by all means do so, but would you consider using the money that belongs to your neighbour and which he entrusted to you, specially when you know that he is short of cash and has a big family to support? And more poignantly: would you spend the money in a party or a get-together that you have offered to talk about those cash problems, problems that you were paid to prevent in the first place?

Any ideas how many mortgages in arrears could have been paid with the money that must have been spent on drinks? Any ideas how many lifesaving vaccines could have been bought with the money spent on just one of those bottles? Should etiquette rule over reason? Do we need, as a collective, to put on a show to cover our own inadequacies? Is it just a matter of "class" or a reflection of the different universes we inhabit? What is more embarrassing for a government: an average bottle of wine on the table and money redirected to tackle a slopping economy, or a superb bottle with a fine bouquet and an astounding price tag while those who have paid for it struggle with unpaid bills?

Are we to assume that whatever breakthroughs took place (and we are still waiting to see them come to light) would not have materialised if a different choice of drinks had been made? I , for one, would like to think that delegates' brainpower and goodwill are not dependent on the extravagant choice of drinks made on their behalf, and that the respect for a government is not born out of the goods they freely lavish on you but the soundness and fairness of the policies they implement.

We can laugh it off but, really, a degree of restraint should always be exercised, specially during troubled times. Leaders must lead by example. At present, they are not offering the right one. Admittedly, it must be hard to keep yourself on your toes when you deal with such huge amounts of capital, but they should try to visualize every dollar they spend, as if it was coming out of their wallet. Because it is, from their wallet, yours and mine.

By: Diana Davidson

Diana Davidson — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:58:46 +0000

First, the CEO's of Big Three automakers arrive to Washington D.C., via Private Jet(s), hats in hands, asking me(its my tax$$, right?) to bail them out. The husband tells me, "those guys just don't get it."

Now, the fellow we address as 'Mr. President,' serves $500 dollar a bottle wine to the G20 participants, while we're all eating 'cake.' Again, the husband observes, "Bush just doesn't get it."

What I want to know, is when did the husband get so darn smart!!?

By: Denis Brown

Denis Brown — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:31:23 +0000

What they eat or drink I am not in the slightest bit interested in, more importantly is the discussions and the proposals that come out from it in resolving the current issues we're facing on a global scale.

It's more about stepping back from the big picture seeing what needs to be tackled and implement changes swiftly. Talking is only so good up to a point, then it's all down to action that is the deciding factor or whether we remain in this downward spiral.

Money isn't always the answer. Sometimes its about making brutal decisions which will inevitably affect the lives of many for the short term but in the long term will bring stability and see growth and development, and hopefully people will take onboard the lessons we need to learn from this to ensure we never have a repeat of this.

One can only hope that the leaders will take the necessary action required in seeing the situation take a u-turn.

By: R. Mayer

R. Mayer — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:49:36 +0000

My Question is :
If all the people are still alive, all the industries in place, cars, ships, planes moving, why the hell, can't they keep moving ?
After world war II, things were a little bit more difficult – and people in Germany worked 12 hours/day to build up their country.
The actual probllem is a pure financial mess grewn over years whilst different advertations were made public about the growing bubble.
Is Mr. Greenspan still playing fool and saying "I am so shocked!" ??
Every day, looking at his mirror, he (and others too) may repeat the same sentence.

By: david lulasa

david lulasa — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:00:21 +0000

the only thing left now in this world is to do away with this aspect of putting people in different classes ie middle class,first,third etc.this is just the same as the backwardness seen in indian cast systems...its because of NATOs not so true classifying themselves from others that could bring a big financial crisis in the near future.
i think bodies of people from the west dont have tens of litres of blood inside.

tambua,hamisi,kenya.