Most of the communiqué agreed by the Group of 20 finance ministers over the weekend was utter fudge and drivel. Every second sentence seemed to end with “taking into account national circumstances”. Try, too, visualising a “multi-pronged framework”. Many are disappointed about the meeting’s failure to properly define economic imbalances. They – and the G20 – should stop wasting their time. Even if yardsticks could be agreed, no one would know what to do with them anyway. Such distractions are a pity because the G20 raised other issues just as important to the global economy but where there is a far better chance of building consensus.
One such area is concern over commodity prices. The communiqué asks for international organisations to report back to the G20 on the drivers of higher prices and to consider possible action. Actually, the International Monetary Fund has already made a start. In its latest World Economic Outlook, it concludes that metal price increases are because of scarcity (not, for example, nasty speculators) and that prices are only half way through the average 20-year trough-to-peak cycle seen since 1850. Similar work needs to be done for all commodities before responses, if any, are made.
The second area where the G20 has genuinely encouraged better