The ascendence of China and multilateral trading blocks could eventually spell the doom of the G20 and U.S. global dominance, as Pepe Escobar explains.
Although the G20 still retains its potential to support the global economic stability, there is an impression that its mission is coming to an end. If this trend is not reversed, then, a summit or two from now, we might see the return of trade wars and competitive devaluations of national currencies. In that case, the current G20 format, built around the US leadership and hegemonic in nature, will not work at all. The nature of the G20 is that of an international forum, not an international intergovernmental organization.;;;Valdai
Clapper also explained that all seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies do not have the capabilities.They signed off on what they could not themselves confirm?
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, blasted President Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, saying Americans should be skeptical on how hard Trump pressed Putin on Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
“The American people can be forgiven for a healthy skepticism about just how hard Mr. Trump could have pressed the Russian autocrat, given that the President publicly cast doubt on Russian responsibility and the probity of our intelligence agencies only the day before,” Schiff said in a statement.
The meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Hamburg is vital to creating a direct relationship that would lead to ending the US hostile approach to Russia, according to Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Executive Director Daniel McAdams.Sputnik International
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met face-to-face Friday for the first time, with several topics like Syria and North Korea purportedly up for discussion.
But after the two-hour meeting, two key people in the room for the Trump-Putin talk gave differing accounts of what happened when one particular issue — Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election — came up.
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that Mr. Trump opened the meeting by addressing concerns over Russian meddling in the 2016 election, adding that Trump “pressed” Putin on the issue “on more than one occasion” during the conversation.…
One problem? Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a different takeaway.
Lavrov told reporters after the meeting that Trump had actually accepted Putin’s assurances that Russia didn’t interfere in the 2016 election.
“President Trump said he’s heard Putin’s very clear statements that this is not true and that the Russian government didn’t interfere in the elections and that he accepts these statements. That’s all,” Lavrov is quoted as saying, according to CNN.
The White House, however, denied Lavrov’s claim that Trump had accepted Putin’s denial, an administrative official told the NewsHour.PBS NewsHour
The meeting, which was initially planned to last 30 minutes, went on for over two hours.
The leaders discussed many topics, including Ukraine, Syria, cybersecurity and fighting terrorism, according to Putin, who spoke at a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe right after his meeting with Trump.
Putin apologized to Abe for making him wait for about an hour.
"Both I and [the US president] owe you an apology," he said.
Meanwhile, Trump and Putin had "positive chemistry" during their first meeting, Tillerson said, adding that there was “so much to talk about" that neither leader "wanted to stop." The two "connected very quickly," said Tillerson.
First Lady Melania Trump was sent into the meeting at one point to see her husband and "get him out," Tillerson also said. "Clearly, she failed," the top US diplomat joked, adding that the meeting went on for another hour after that....RT
According to an International Monetary Fund paper titled “From Bail-out to Bail-in: Mandatory Debt Restructuring of Systemic Financial Institutions”:[B]ail-in . . . is a statutory power of a resolution authority (as opposed to contractual arrangements, such as contingent capital requirements) to restructure the liabilities of a distressed financial institution by writing down its unsecured debt and/or converting it to equity. The statutory bail-in power is intended to achieve a prompt recapitalization and restructuring of the distressed institution.The language is a bit obscure, but here are some points to note:
Wait. It gets worse.
- What was formerly called a “bankruptcy” is now a “resolution proceeding.” The bank’s insolvency is “resolved” by the neat trick of turning its liabilities into capital. Insolvent TBTF banks are to be “promptly recapitalized” with their “unsecured debt” so that they can go on with business as usual.
- “Unsecured debt” includes deposits, the largest class of unsecured debt of any bank. The insolvent bank is to be made solvent by turning our money into their equity – bank stock that could become worthless on the market or be tied up for years in resolution proceedings.
- The power is statutory. Cyprus-style confiscations are to become the law.
- Rather than having their assets sold off and closing their doors, as happens to lesser bankrupt businesses in a capitalist economy, “zombie” banks are to be kept alive and open for business at all costs – and the costs are again to be to borne by us.
The Latest Twist: Putting Pensions at Risk with “Bail-Inable” BondsWeb of Debt
The Eurozone countries and Japan are now falling back into recession/depression and deflation, and their public debt levels are grossly excessive, and still rising. The deepening economic crisis in these two large economic blocks could have serious implications for other G-20 countries, as aggregate demand is already weak globally.
Nonetheless, based on the advice of their officials, G-20 Leaders will soon begin arriving at this month’s G-20 meeting in Australia believing that all monetary and fiscal policy options have been exhausted. Based on that understanding, they will announce around 1000 supply-side structural and infrastructure policies: a display ─ like fireworks ─ that will greatly impress the public.
However, while microeconomic reform and infrastructure spending have their place, such policies cannot possibly provide the locomotive power needed to sufficiently lift aggregate demand and steer troubled economies to safety.…
Should G-20 Leaders not address demand deficiency directly, they, and their advisers, should never be forgiven.Economonitor
The G20 structure is part of the problem and given its current ideological outlook will never be anything but.
It is just an excuse for well-paid officials, most of whom are being supported by the public purse, to swan around the world, wine and dine in opulent hotel and resorts, talk a bit, and do virtually nothing that delivers any benefits to people at large.
Like the IMF and the OECD, the whole institutional structure of the G20 should be abolished.
The multipolar nature of today’s international system will again be on display at the upcoming G-20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico. Global problems are no longer solved, crises managed, or global rules defined, let alone implemented, the old-fashioned way, by a few, mostly Western, powers. Incipient great and middle powers, such as India, Brazil, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and South Africa, also demand their say.Read the rest at Project Syndicate
Some of these powers are still emerging economies. Politically, however, most of them have crossed the threshold that has long limited their access to the kitchen of international decision-making. The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the “P-5”) still defend their right to veto resolutions, and their military power is unmatched. But they can no longer dispose of sufficient resources, competence, and legitimacy to cope with global challenges or crises on their own.
Bipolarity is a thing of the past, and it is unlikely to re-emerge in a new Sino-American “G-2.” It is equally unlikely for the foreseeable future that any one club of countries, such as the G-7 or G-8, will again assume a quasi-hegemonic position. Even the G-20 in its current composition may not really represent the forces that can and will shape the twenty-first century.
