Did the G20 just pee on our environment?
Summary: Here's what one British critic thinks of the G20 plan to spend a trillion through the brilliant IMF. Here's an American press report on the G20.
Here's what one British critic thinks of the G20 plan to spend a trillion through the brilliant IMF. Here's an American press report on the G20. Here's a Canadian version. Here's a European wire service account.
Here's Reuters' version of Obama's version of the G20 outcome.[poll id="110"] Hey, even the dour French went home triumphant. Wait'll we get the reaction from tax havens from Switzerland to Monaco to the Bahamas.
The G-20 members, in alphabetical order: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the U.S., the U.K. and the European Union. Spain and the Netherlands were also present. The G20 plans to meet again in New York in September.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
RE: Did the G20 just pee on our environment?
As long as "green" technology has to be subsidzided
We need to fix the economy first or the greens will chase away more jobs than they create.
UNLESS, the subsidy is provided
IT WOULD ALSO REMOVE LIBERAL CONTROL AND RESTORE CONTROL TO THOSE WHO RISK THEIR OWN MONEY IN THE BUSINESS, rather than allowing a few LIBERAL POLITICIANS to risk our money on faulty business plans. ANY BUSINESS PLAN THAT REQUIRES A TAXPAYER MONETARY SUBSIDY IS FAULTY.
RE: Did the G20 just pee on our environment?
- High and rising taxes on energy has not had a negative effect where I live. Instead energy consumption has become more efficient. For example better isolation. - But alas much is still wasted in unnecessary transportation.
- The G20 meeting has been much about render confidence in the financial market. Big amounts of money are spent, yes, but the amounts are still just "a pee in the ocean" when it comes to the world wide distribution of money.
Where you live, WOW
What does the "world wide distribution" of money have to do with the quality of life? It seems to me that the quality of life has more to do with availability of necessities and then luxuries, rather than the distribution of money world wide.
The higher costs associated with increasing taxes has the direct result in a reduction of charitable gifts and the subsequent loss of availability of these very necessities to those in what we call "under developed countries."
Private charitable organizations have proven much more efficient in improving quality of life than any government in history.
Taxes improve the lifestyle of the ruling class at the expense of those who not in this class.
Who do you think you are?
money and not yours, if you want some...make a
product that we want to buy. Don't use the G20
socialist fascist politics to steal what you
should earn. GTH to you and the horse you are
riding!!!
RE: Did the G20 just pee on our environment?
But not by talking about other matters -- the fact is that our insane spending of money that we don't have has trashed much of the world's economy and definitely the US of A. Once we get out "government owns all" rules passed everywhere, serious ecological trashing will start.
The only hope the tree huggers had was that technology could find ways to heat and build without denuding thousand year old groves. Our populations are ballooning and when that happens, you have Haiti -- a generation ago a rich source of wood, now a desert where every tree and bush has been cut down to set on fire to boil water. It is not the rapacious bankers you have to worry about, they and their techie friends create the means to leave the green stuff alone.
But the eco-terroists have stupidly linked commerce with messing up the environment, when it is the opposite. But, I guess it is cooler to go whereverr there is a big world meeting, break windows and get a little TV time than to encourage the technology that will save the planet. A hunded years ago Vermont was 30% forested -- now it is like 80% -- and technology there sure didn't go backwards.
So yeah, the "peed" on something -- our world economy.
AMEN !!!!(no further text needed)
RE: Did the G20 just pee on our environment?
RE: Did the G20 just pee on our environment?
RE: Did the G20 just pee on our environment?
1. Have the greatest need. The poor should not be taxed so the rich can avoid responsibility for their incompetent management of a company and an economy.
2. Those who actually create jobs for people. If you close a factory and ship jobs to a third world country with terrible human rights abuses, you should NOT be rewarded.
3. Those who actually create something of value; food, clothing, goods, healthcare, etc. and not bullshit paper ?investment instruments?
For decades now the far right has been feeding us a line of crap about how if we just let the rich have all their money, some of it will trickle down to the rest of us. However, it seems that money only ever trickles UP. Enough. I hope the G20 nations can agree on sensible regulations that allow economies to function without leaving room for the type of abuses that got us into the current economic mess.
AMEN!!!!
Tell me...
not pay taxes?
Obama talked mainly about this...
.
Basicly saying, stop bantering & bashing others.
.
Something else,... When it comes to taxes, I believe, the only new taxes we need, is taxes on Polititions.
Here's a starter list...
*_ $1.00 per word.
*_ Running for office tax, $10,000
*_ "Tally their votes" tax, $1.00 per vote.
*_ Go back on their word, tax. $1,000
*_ Flip-Flop adjenda tax. $100,000
*_ "I'm not in the office right now, please leave a message" tax. $1,000 per call.
And the main one...
*_"LIE" tax. $100,000 per lie!
.
Got any more?
I believe we could balance ANY budget in record time.
RE: Did the G20 just pee on our environment?
RE: Did the G20 just pee on our environment?
The world is in desperate need of leaders with balls!