A Quick G-20 Scorecard

刚刚闭幕的二十国集团(G20)峰会上，与会各方不择手段地试图在政治上得分。让我们快速地看看得分情况。一种看法是：各方都取得了一定的成功，包括奥巴马总统。在各方联手致力于扩大经济刺激支出方面，他获得的比希望的要少（是有一些有益的表态，但是没有实际行动）；在新的全球监管计划方面，欧洲人获得的比希望的要少（是的，我们会监管对冲基金，会增加金融透明度，但没有详细说明美国人一定会达到欧洲将达到的水平）。不过，双方都取得了一些成绩，足以在一定程度上满意地离开。闭幕公报提出避免保护主义，这一点是有益的，或许简短得可以说是一笔带过，不过假如重启多哈回合世界贸易谈判的工作有了一个明确时间的话，意义就不止如此了。各方都会同意：增强国际货币基金组织(IMF)放贷和向发展中国家注资的能力是好事，为促进全球贸易而提供的2,500亿美元资金也比预计的多很多。在闭幕式后的新闻发布会上，奥巴马可能让一些美国企业领导松了一口气，他说他处理高管薪酬争议的理想方式是赋予股东更多权力，让他们就高管薪酬进行投票表决，这与立法限制薪酬水平的做法大相径庭。Gerald F. Seib 本文涉及股票或公司document.write (truthmeter('2009年04月03日09:44', 'AIG'));美国国际集团英文名称：American International Group Inc.总部地点：美国上市地点：纽约证交所股票代码：AIGdocument.write (truthmeter('2009年04月03日09:44', 'GM'));General Motors Corp.总部地点：美国上市地点：纽约证交所股票代码：GMdocument.write (truthmeter('2009年04月03日09:44', 'C.XX'));Chrysler Llc总部地点：美国


So what's the quick, down-and-dirty political scorecard from the just-completed Group of 20 summit?Here's one way of looking at it: A modest success for all, including President Barack Obama. He got less than he wanted on allied commitments to increase stimulus spending (some useful words, but no real action), and the Europeans got less than they wanted on new, global regulatory schemes (yes, we'll regulate hedge funds and have more financial transparency, but not enough details that the U.S. will have to go to the levels the Ruoepeans will). But both got enough to go away somewhat satisfied.The closing communique's words on avoiding protectionism are useful, and probably the minimum necessary to make the point, but they would have meant more if there had been a date certain to resume work on the proposed Doha world trade agreeement. Everybody can agree that adding to the International Monetary Fund's campacity to lend and to inject liquidity into developing countries is a good thing, and the $250 billion fund to finance more global trade is considerably bigger than expected.Oh, and at his closing press conference, President Obama may have relieved some American business leaders by saying that his ideal way of dealing with executive compensation controversies would be to give shareholders more power to vote on executive pay a far different approach than legislating pay levels.Gerald F. Seib