Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
scientists disagree on the G-7While political analysts were quick to declare the end of the G-7's coherence, integrity and usefulness, markets were unfazed.Representatives of the United States accused the other G-7 members of "unfair trade practices," which they claim have disproportionately harmed the U.S. economy and its workers.Here, all other G-7 members agree that America's grievances are legitimate, and that they are being harmed as well.The failed G-7 summit dealt a very public blow to a once-powerful grouping that had already been challenged by global economic re-alignment, the emergence of the more representative G-20, and new forms of regionalism.More fundamentally, markets have been conditioned to postpone significant price adjustments until there is overwhelming evidence of negative economic and financial effects.That is likely to be the right approach for the G-7 summit, too – and not just because the body's impact on global outcomes has diminished in recent years.The G-7 has not been dealt a fatal blow; it still can and will play a role on the global stage – albeit a less important one.
How Western economies can avoid the Japan trap
Dialectic of global trade policy: A window of opportunity
Revamping Davos so it starts looking forward
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE