Tue Jun 29th, 2010 at 04:22:15 PM EST
The G-20 meeting of finance ministers in Canada was its expected police provocateur marred on the outside, Hooverville economics on the inside event, but what about the G-20 itself? Why that particular 20 in an organization that may now become very important (European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet "views the G-20 as being the main forum for steering the global economy")? And why so many Western European representatives when the EU and its central bank appear to determine economic (especially financial) policy for Eurozone countries?
Well, apparently the G-20 was chosen by the G-7 (in particular the 1999 U.S. and Canadian finance ministers), and that's anti-democratic, of course, and as you'd expect 'The West'-centric. Is it possible, instead, to choose the G-20 transparently and objectively? Well, maybe. Going along with the ostensible, official purpose of the G-20, to gather together finance ministers representing power over the largest chunk possible of the world economy, why not simply call together the finance ministers representing the largest chunk possible of the world economy (sorry, but minus Taiwan)?
Using the CIA list of countries ranked by GDP as measured by purchasing power parity (PPP), here's how that would look:
Not so many changes, nothing too scary (other than IRAN!?) for 'The West', really. And so much fairer and more transparent than the present good ol' boys arrangement.
[Update: Sorry for the big mistake of including the entire European Union economy in the lists above. That double counts the UK and so on. Should just say Eurozone, and I should've manually gathered those nations' GDP PPP numbers together for the total.]