By GottaLaff
Move over SNL. President Obama is speaking right now, live from the London Summit. I'm taking very rough quick-notes:
We have agreed on a series of unprecedented steps for growth:
We're committed to growth and job creation. All 20 nations have voted to act... The U.S. is partnering to clean out the legacy assets... leading directly to loans to businesses who depend on credit.
Plus... bold action to help developing countries.
We've rejected protectionism.
Multi-lateral commitment to trade finance. That's all on the growth front. Next, we committed to reform of the failed regulatory system.
We must end the bubble and bust economy.
Back in the States, we began with Geithner's approach to regulatory reforms. That enabled action with G20 partners.
We're extending supervision... to products, markets, including hedge funds. We'll expand and reform the IMF banks to make them more efficient, effective.
I'll work to provide assistance to vulnerable nations... double support to food safety... give tools to lift themselves out of poverty. Plus assistance to prevent humanitarian catastrophe. This isn't charity... these are future markets. I will work with Congress to provide $448 million in immediate assistance to vulnerable populations like Africa.
I'm pleased that the G20 has agreed to meet again this fall.
Meetings outside of G20: I met with leaders of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, India [I think I missed one in there]... productive.
Agreement won't be easy, results won't come quickly. But I'm committed to hearing opposing points of view. That's how we made progress in the last few days. A new Era of Responsibility shouldn't end at our borders. We should work together to solve common challenges.
Questions:
Q: How have you done so far? [couldn't hear the whole question]
A: Uhhh... I think we did okay. I came here with the intention of listening and learning, but also providing American leadership. I think the document that has been produced, as well as the concrete actions that will follow, reflect a range of our priorities. We had a strong regulatory response. It was important to strengthen our international financial institutions...
Q: Chuck Todd: What concrete items can you tell the U.S. families...what happened here that helps them?
A: We have a global economy. If we take isolated actions in U.S. that are contradicted overseas, we'll only be halfway effective, or less. There's a decline in U.S. exports... Caterpillar, for example... So, to get them back on their feet, and other export companies... we have to make sure the global economy is successful. This document encourages the openness of markets... will be helpful to us.
Q: BBC: In the spirit of openness ... give us insight into something that you compromised on.
A: If you look at the language of the document, there are probably some areas where it wasn't so much a sacrifice as not our number one priority, but it was important to other actors. I don't want to specify, but each country has its own quirks or issues that a leader may think is non-negotiable. We tried to accommodate those issues in a way that didn't hamper the effectiveness overall. Keep in mind... this kind of coordination is historic. If you imagined 10-30 years ago that you'd have the leaders of Germany, France, China, Russia, Brazil, S. Africa, a president named Obama, former adversaries, or former mortal enemies, negotiating this swiftly, you'd say that's crazy. Yet it happened with relatively few hiccups. This alone is not enough. The actions that each of us take are absolutely vital. We have a set of principles that will help prevent the kind of financial crisis we've seen. That doesn't entirely solve [problems]. How well we execute the respective stimulus programs is important. The quicker, more effective they are, the more all of us will benefit. Bureaucracy, mismanagement, corruption will hamper it. It lays the foundation so that if it does NOT succeed, should we still see freezing of credit, etc. we've created a foundation to take additional steps.
Q: How do you and Bush have a different view of the world?
A: I didn't accompany Bush on his summits, so I don't know how he was operating. I won't warrant a guess on that. I try to communicate the notion that America is a critical actor/leader in the world, we shouldn't be embarrassed about that, but we lead best when we listen, when we recognize that the world is a complicated place, that we have to partner with others, lead by example, when we show some element of humility and recognize that we don't always have the best answer, but support and encourage the best answer. We come in in extraordinarily challenging times, which calls for this type of leadership even more. Ultimately, we won't know how effective we are until we look back 3 years from now and see if it worked. Hopefully, we've set a tone internationally where people give us the benefit of the doubt. There will be tough negotiations, and sometimes we'll have to walk away if we can't have a common accord. But at least we can start... by listening, work cooperatively to nations around the world.
Q: Australia Broadcasting Corp: Executive salaries/bonuses... who makes decisions as a result of today's agreement? Guided by principles or legislation?
A: There is some accountability re: exec compensation. Theoretically that should be the shareholders, but ... the CEO has selected his board, and then the board in a cozy relationship, hires an executive compensation firm that thinks they should retain the best talent by paying millions a year... and that leads to habits that haven't served shareholders well... When I was a Senator, I worked on legislation for a "shame function". That principle is in these guidelines. Success based on not short term performance or flip quick profits, but based on sustained effective growth. That's what's embodied in these documents. It doesn't' mean the state micromanages [SNEEZED TWICE: "I've been fighting this all week"]. In America, we don't resent the rich, but we need mechanisms that hold people accountable.
Q: Jake Tapper: Can you say with confidence that these steps will prevent the world to avoid a depression? And Brown says we've reached a new consensus. What did he mean?
A: There are no guarantees in life or economic. The steps are critical for preventing a slide into depression, bolder and more rapid to date, to any international crisis. They'll have a concrete effect for each nation to create, save jobs, grow the economy, loosen up credit, restore confidence. I think the steps were necessary. Sufficient? We gotta wait and see. But I'm confident, given the common commitment, that if we see other inklings of panic, that this group will respond as needed. You got a sick patient, apply the right medicine, the patient is stabilized, but there are wounds that still have to heal, emergencies can arise... but good care has been applied.
Consensus in Washington: That's a term of art ... cookie cutter model... that was popular, and was led by some of our leading economists in Washington... There's always been a spectrum of opinion about how unfettered the free market is. Some believe in fierce regulation, others think the market is always king. We've learned here... that the market is the most effective mechanism for creating wealth, distributing resources, but goes off the rail sometimes. It needs regulation. We just went through a couple of decades of artificial complacency. We now have to put in some common sense rules, without throwing out globalization benefits.
Q: China TV: Catchphrase of your own. And politics is local, despite global solution. How can you make sure that local politics won't affect global?
A: I'm terrible with sound bites and catch phrases. If you have any suggestions, let me know. In terms of local politics: I'm the president of the U.S.. not of China, Japan, other participants, so my responsibility is to my constituents. I'll be judged by my effectiveness in meeting their needs. But in an era of interdependence, it's also my responsibility to lead America into recognizing that its interests are tied up with a larger world. If we neglect those who suffer in poverty, not only are we depriving ourselves of markets, but that despair may turn to violence. ... Americans' self interest is tied in with yours. Sometimes short term interests will differ... [He went on at length about this]
Q: Jonathan Weisman: A diminished power of the U.S. over the last decade... what evidence did you see? Is the end of Washington consensus evidence of this?
A: I didn't say that some of that loss of authority was inevitable, I said it was traced to Bush decisions that lowered our standing in the world. It was also the opinion of many in the world. You're starting to see some restoration of America's standing in the world... although I always mistrust polls. But international polls indicate more hope about America's leadership. We remain the largest economy... the most powerful military on earth... our production of culture... our politics, media... still have (I didn't mean to say that with such scorn, guys, I'm just teasing) influence. We have important things to contribute. We can still lead. We must forge partnerships rather than dictating solutions. That's not a loss for America, it's an appreciation that Europe is now rebuilt and a powerhouse, same with Japan, China, India. That's good. That means billions are working their way out of poverty, which leads to peace. Leadership helps guide the process of orderly integration, yet it's only as good as the benefits of individual families... America can lead for a very long time based on those standards.
Q: Times of India: What is America doing to help India [fight] terror from Pakistan?
A: We didn't just discuss terrorism emanating from Pakistan. We spoke more broadly. We also spoke about, that in a nuclear age, and poverty being the biggest enemy, that it may make sense to create a more effective dialog between India and Pakistan. We discussed energy. And that U.S. must reduce its carbon footprint so we can forge agreements with China and India. Our European counterparts have moved more quickly than we have, but they know it's not easy.
Q: Chip Reid: There's sentiment that the U.S. was a cause of the meltdown. Did that come up a lot? Was it hard for others to accept our advice?
A: My colleagues were gracious... They continue to express the desire to work with the U.S., admiration... There were occasional comments, wedged into other topics... that this started in America... or Wall St., or w/ particular banks. What helped was my willingness to acknowledge, and it's hard to deny, that some started on Wall St. ... Regulators were asleep at the switch.. But they didn't give me TOO hard a time is because Asian and other banks had their own issues. Given global financial flows, unless we have more effective coordinated regulatory strategies/standards, this will occur again. Overall, there was a constructive approach. I'm excited about healing the economy and making progress on a sustainable mode of economic growth not relying on bubble and bust.
.jpg)