Just who is the G-20 trying to kid?

INTRO

"US President Obama's negotiation skills surprised many leaders" - a caption appearing under Blacque Obammer's* photo, which appeared in an April 3, 2009 article from MercoPress: South Atlantic News Agency.

The "set up"

I wasn't surprised when hearing of Obammer's* previously unsuspected "negotiation skills." How could anybody be surprised, after taking a moment to think about the circumstances? The G-20 conference was about to end and Obammer* makes a dramatic overture which leads to an agreement between Hu of China and Sarkozy of France.

QUOTE:

Heading into the summit's final hours, however, it appeared that the group would fail to reach a consensus, as French President Nicolas Sarkozy pushed to have the G-20 spotlight offending tax havens based on a list published Thursday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and China objected, largely because it doesn't belong to the OECD.

That was when Obama, long a champion of ending or curbing tax havens, decided to float a compromise and pulled Sarkozy aside ....

Obama proposed that the G-20 merely "take note" of the OECD list, thus opening the door to implicit but not direct endorsement of that list...

Obama then met with Chinese President Hu Jintao and Sarkozy in a corner of the summit meeting room, as the other world leaders waited.

Upon the trio's reaching agreement, the G-20 summit then agreed to note the list of tax havens.

Sarkozy, who'd threatened days earlier to walk out of the summit if he didn't get his way, said the final agreement represented "great progress."

:UNQUOTE [see Footnote 1]

My contention

I contend Sarkozy never had any intention of walking out of the summit. He merely postured so as to provide Obammer* with a chance to look good. Even though we Americans are stuck with an inexperienced and naïve president, the summit realized:

"For better or worse, we're also stuck with this guy, so we'd better make him look as good as possible."

And why not? The richest economies in the world wanted to project an aura of unity with a suave, masterful, unifying force at the helm. The name of the game is con: As in building up the confidence of the major financial players and markets of the world.  But I mean con in another way: As in conning the common citizens of the G-20 into thinking, "These guys know what they're doing - you'll see, everything will be coming up roses. They look so confident!"

No doubt about it: The whole game plan was to make Obammer* look good and to fool the masses of simpletons who earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow.

The need for transparency - now more than ever

QUOTE:

The list on the OECD site is obviously the result of a lot of political horsetrading - would you believe for example, after all the recent hype, that the OECD does not list Luxembourg and Switzerland as tax havens? And how on earth did Chile get on the list - did you ever hear anything about offshore banking in Chile? While Hong Kong, a major offshore financial hub, escaped listing altogether, for fears of upsetting the Chinese.

:UNQUOTE [see Footnote 2]

Ah, that last sentence: "...for fears of upsetting the Chinese." I wonder if Chinese President Hu Jintao has any of his personal fortune socked away in Hong Kong. Perhaps that's why he objected as he did during the summit.

The nations of the OECD and the G-20 don't care about the financial well being of the planet. Like all monopolistic trusts, they care only about strengthening their market position. Especially if their posturings and policies provide max benefit for their political elites. This agenda does not bode well for anyone who isn't a member of the club - which is most of us.

Insist on transparency

I envision a world in which there are no secret bank accounts (sorry Switzerland) - where all financial information is mandated to be open, transparent, and accessible to any member of the public, foreign or domestic. This even extends to making all personal and business tax returns public.

Some will claim, "How much I make, how I spend my money, and where I put it is none of your business."

As things stand right now, that's true - but only as far as the general public is concerned. You can't tell a bank "none of your business" if you want a loan and your creditworthiness must be verified. We should put all the cards on the table - face up. That is, I advocate total economic disclosure starting with anyone who aspires for (or currently holds) political office. But - I do mean "total" and that would eventually include everybody.

The easy way to defend this: Consider such disclosure to be the cost of doing business. That is, in order to benefit from the economic web, disclosure and transparency should be considered the price that must be paid. But this is a price which, if paid, benefits everybody. For only with all the cards on the table can we get a handle on the overall health of the economy so as to better regulate and stimulate it. [How many times have professional economists been surprised when their projections are undermined by the unknown and hidden?]

I'm a very private person. But by that I mean, "in regard to my thoughts and feelings." I don't care who knows the extent of my "vast" holdings. The government, for sure, knows and I don't even like them. So why should I care if my neighbor (who I do like) knows? To those who would object to this kind of openness, I can only suggest that they weigh the alternative: We're running out of time and don't have the luxury of waiting and hoping for miracles that will make the debt bomb(s) go away and keep hidden all of our (sometimes dirty) little secrets.

I know my proposal won't win me many friends. Quite frankly, though, I don't see any other way.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"Not always, but quite often, it's been my experience: When someone asserts, "None of your business," he's hiding something; even if only insecurity and mistrust"   - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

Footnote 1: "G-20 reaches accord after Obama steps in to broker a deal"  = title of article by Steven Thomma of McClatchy Newspaper, dated 4/2/09: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/65353.html

Footnote 2: "The Complete OECD Tax Haven Blacklist," by Peter Macfarlane, Offshore Banking expert for The Q Wealth Report.

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.