Foto: Joyce N. Boghosian – White House

President Bush Attends Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy
National Building Museum
Washington, D.C.


Foto: Eric Draper – White House

2:11 P.M. EST

PRESIDENT BUSH: Welcome. Good afternoon. We just had a very productive summit meeting. Thinking about three weeks ago, when I was talking to President Sarkozy and Barroso at Camp David – some of you were there – I don’t think we could have predicted then how productive and how successful this meeting would have been.

The first decision I had to make was who was coming to the meeting. And obviously I decided that we ought to have the G20 nations, as opposed to the G8 or the G13. But once you make the decision to have the G20, then the fundamental question is, with that many nations, from six different continents, who all represent different stages of economic development – would it be possible to reach agreements, and not only agreements, would it be possible to reach agreements that were substantive? And I’m pleased to report the answer to that question was, absolutely.

One of the things we did, we spent time talking about the actions that we have taken. The United States has taken some extraordinary measures. Those of you who have followed my career know that I’m a free market person – until you’re told that if you don’t take decisive measures then it’s conceivable that our country could go into a depression greater than the Great Depression’s. So my administration has taken significant measures to deal with a credit crisis. And then we worked with Congress to deal with the credit crisis, as well.

We’re beginning to see some positive results. One of the things people around the table were interested in is, are you beginning to see the results of your actions? And our credit markets are beginning to thaw, having been severely frozen; businesses are beginning to get access to short-term credit. It’s going to take more time for the measures we have put in place to take hold. No question about that. As a matter of fact, we just started, for example, on the $700 billion fund to start getting money out to our banks. So it’s going to take more time.

But I was pleased to tell the folks around the table that the significant actions we’ve taken are beginning to work. All of us committed to continue to work on pro-growth economic policies. It’s phrased different ways – fiscal plans – but the whole point was, was that we recognize that, on the one hand, there’s been a severe credit crisis, and on the other hand, our economies are being hit very hard. And so there was a common understanding that all of us should promote pro-growth economic policy.

We also talked about broader reforms – so in other words, the discussions were focused on today and what we’re doing about it, but what are we going to do to make sure it doesn’t happen tomorrow.

One of the key achievements was to establish certain principles and take certain actions for adapting our financial systems to the realities of the 21st century. Part of the regulatory structures that are in place were 20th century regulatory structures. And obviously, you know, the financial industry went way beyond them. And the question is, how do we establish good regulatory structure without destroying the incentive to innovate, without destroying the marketplace.

Our nations agree that we must make the markets – the financial markets more transparent and accountable. Transparency is very important so that investors and regulators are able to know the truth – considered improving accounting rules, so that investors can understand the true value of the assets they purchase. We agree that we need to improve our regulations and to ensure that markets, firms, and financial products are subject to proper regulation and oversight.

For example, credit default swaps – financial products that ensure against potential losses – should be processed through centralized clearinghouses. That’s a significant reform. Heretofore, the credit default swaps were traded in over-the-counter, unregulated markets.

Yesterday the Working Group on Financial Markets, which is – which is obviously associated with the White House, announced an initiative to create these kinds of clearing houses. And I know that other nations are working on them as well. This process will help expedite credit default swaps and other types of instruments not being traded in unregulated, over-the-counter markets.

By bringing greater stability to this important sector, we will help with liquidity, but also mitigate risk.

Third, we agreed that we must enhance the integrity of the financial markets. For example, authorities in every nation should take a fresh look at the rules governing market manipulation and fraud to make sure that investors in all our countries are properly protected. We agree that we must strengthen cooperation among the world’s financial authorities. There was a lot of discussion about the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, for example.

Leading nations should make regulations consistent. As well, we should reform the international financial institutions. Again, these institutions have been very important – the World Bank, IMF – but they were based on an economic order of 1944. And so to better – we agreed that to better reflect the realities of today’s global economy, both IMF and World Bank should modernize their governance structures. They ought to consider extending greater voting power and representation to developing nations, particularly those who have increased their contributions to the institutions.

All this is an important first step – in other words, this is a beginning of a series of meetings. People say, well, why don’t you have one meeting and, you know, call it Bretton Woods II. Well, Bretton Woods I took two years to prepare. I don’t know what you want to call this one, but whatever name comes from this meeting, it took three weeks to prepare. And so it makes sense to come out of here with a firm action plan – which we have.

It also makes sense to say to people that there is more work to be done and there will be further meetings, sending a clear signal that a meeting is not going to solve the world’s problems. A meeting will help begin a process so that we can say over time that we will have a regulatory structure in place that will make this less likely to happen in the future.

And so we’ve directed our finance ministers to work with other experts and consult with officials in other economies and then report back to the leaders with detailed recommendations. Whatever we do, whatever reforms are recommended, we need to be guided by this simple fact: that the best way to solve our problems and solve the people’s problems is for there to be economic growth. And the surest path to that growth is free market capitalism.


Foto: Grant Miller – White House

Leaders at this summit agreed on some other matters of importance. One is to reject protectionism and refrain from erecting new trade barriers. This is a very important part of this summit. The temptation in times of economic stress will be to say, oh, trade isn’t worth it, let’s just throw up protective barriers. And yet that attitude was rejected, thankfully. And matter of fact, not only rejected, there is a determined effort to see if we can’t complete the modalities for Doha by the end of December.

One of the things I stressed as well is that the United States, in the midst of this financial crisis, will not abandon our commitments to people in the developing world; that the HIV/AIDS initiative, known as PEPFAR, will remain strong and vibrant; that our deep desire to significantly reduce malaria deaths in countries on the continent of Africa will not be diminished; that our obligation to help feed the hungry will not stop; that in the midst of all this turmoil and financial crisis, we will meet our obligations. These obligations are in our national security interests and our economic security interests and they in – are in our moral interests.

And so I will tell you that I thought this was a very successful summit. And they’re going to meet again. I keep saying „they” because some of you may not have heard yet, but I am retiring. But I told the leaders this: that President-Elect Obama’s transition team has been fully briefed on what we intended to do here at this meeting. I told them that we will work tirelessly to make sure the transition between my administration and his administration is seamless. And I told them that I hope he succeeds, that it’s good for our country that people see a peaceful transfer of power. And I hope it was good for them to hear that even though we’re from different political parties, that I believe it’s in our country’s interest that he succeed.


Foto: Eric Draper – White House

So I want to thank you for giving me a chance to come and visit with you. Thanks for covering this summit. Goodbye.

END 2:23 P.M. EST


  1. Get-Finance.co.uk » Blog Archive » G 20 SUMMIT - GLOBAL REFORM AND STILL AMERICAN WAY Says:

    […] Read the original post: G 20 SUMMIT – GLOBAL REFORM AND STILL AMERICAN WAY […]

  2. octavpelin Says:

    Sper,ca leaderii europeeni,care s-au intinit la summitul G20,vor respecta planul global de reforma propus de G.W.Bush jr.,de iesire din recesiunea economica ,propus de America,altfel,ai dreptate Europa va deveni sinucigasa ,daca nu respecta calea americana a planului anticrash!

  3. Marius Mina Says:

    Bush shit , sum mit, same shit 😉

    The worse is yet to come!

  4. Draghi Puterity Says:

    Discursul lui Bush seamana pe undeva cu cel a lui Farfuridi:

    ori să se revizuiască, primesc! dar atunci să nu se schimbe nimica; ori să nu se revizuiască, primesc! dar atunci să se schimbe pe ici pe colo, şi anume în punctele… esenţiale…

    Domnului Bush nu ii place protectionismul. El crede in legile pietzei. Dar asta nu il impiedica sa dea lui Ford si GM 50 de miliarde.

    Aceeasi politica a standardelor duble si „doublespeak”-ul cu care ne-a obisnuit. NWO-ul, in viziunea americana, nu e ceva bun pentru toata lumea. E buna pentru ei si e rea pentru altzii. Ma tem ca si noi ne aflam la capitolul altzii…

  5. Roxana Iordache Says:

    @octavpelin. America îşi revine, de noi va fi mai rău. 🙂

    @Marius Mina. Da, dar trece.

    @Draghi Puterity. Încearcă să gândeşti raţional şi să-ţi dai seama cât de importantă este industria auto pentru o economie. Şi cum de economia Americii depinde economia lumii, e şi în interesul nostru ca FORD – mai ales că are pui la noi – şi GM, care sperăm că va avea pui şi la noi – să se redreseze.

    Protecţionismul înseamnă altceva şi ştii foarte bine. Lumea e un mare sat,

  6. Draghi Puterity Says:


    Daca-i tradare, tradare sa fie, numai sa stim cu totzii.

    Eu nu contest importantza industrei auto pentru o economie. Ce puneam in discutie era „tradarea” principiilor economiei de piatza, si standardele duble. Daca americanii au voie sa isi sustina astfel economia, noi de ce nu avem? De ce nu am avut?

    Modul in care procedeaza SUA in cazuri de genul asta (si povestea nu e noua, gandeste-te numai la uriasul buget al apararii, care e de fapt tot o forma mascata de subventzii) arata ca SUA recomanda (citeste impune) altora solutzii pe care e insasi nu e dispusa sa le respecte.

    Cu alte cuvinte ce e bun pentru tine nu e bun pentru si pentru mine, insa te oblig sa o faci, pentru ca a) pot si b) imi convine. Cum era bancul ala cu felatzia? Depinde de care parte a obiectului te afli.

  7. Roxana Iordache Says:

    @Draghi Puterity. Nu ai înţeles! Protecţionismul se referă la raporturile economice internaţionale, nu la cele interne. Protecţionismul înseamnă obtuzitatea economiilor închise – ca şi cum ar mai fi posibil şi benefic aşa ceva. În rest, America nu recomandă şi nu impune nimic, în afară de libertate economică, deci contrariul constrângerilor. De când lumea situaţiile excepţionale impun măsuri excepţionale.

    Am impresia că tu nici n-ai citit documentele-alea şi nici mesajul preşedintelui Bush.

  8. Draghi Puterity Says:


    Stiglitz, laureat al premiulu Nobel pentru economie in 2001, e de alta parere decat tine. Dar nu mai dezvolt ideea. Daca e cineva interesat il poate citi aici.

    Iar despre ce spune Bush si cine ce intelege, diferentza dintre noi e ca tu nu (vrei sa) recunosti double-speak-ul. Ti-am mai spus, citeste-l pe Chomsky, iti decripteaza foarte bine lucrurile astea. Sau daca te irita Chomsky, ca ti s-a spus ca e de stanga (si ma intreb ce o fi insemnand de fapt cuvantul asta pentru tine), incearca cu acest dictionar de double-speak. Nu de alta, dar vorbesti si tu limba asta, din cate se pare fara sa iti dai seama.

  9. Draghi Puterity Says:

    Ce faci Roxana? Imi stergi mesajele? Daca te deranjeaza parerile mele, de ce m-ai rechemat aici?

  10. Roxana Iordache Says:

    @Draghi Puterity. Asta vă strică pe voi! Cred că e cam a 50-a oară când repet că anti-spam-ul opreşte automat la moderare mesajele cu mai mult de un link. Uneori şi pe unele cu un singur link – nu ştiu după ce criterii de alertă. Merg să văd la spam. 😦

    P.S. Şi nu te-am rechemat, pentru că nu îmi place să impun nimănui nimic. Tu m-ai interpelat – simpatic – pe blogul lui Adrian Năstase şi eu te-am anunaţat că nu te-am scos din blogroll şi dacă vrei să participi la un sondaj. Nici o constrângere!

  11. Roxana Iordache Says:

    @Draghi Puterity. Voila!

    Diferenţa e că eu nu vreau să impun nimănui nimic, pe când tu şi foarte mulţi alţii vreţi să îmi impuneţi opiniile voastre, şi îmi faceţi şi procese de intenţie.

    De regulă, premiile Nobel se dau în funcţie de apartenenţa politică. Arată-mi om de dreapta laureat Nobel pentru pace sau economie. Laureatul din acest an a fost ales tocmai pentru că este anti-Bush. În altă ordine de idei, dacă tu faci parte din categoria celor care îl substituie pe Dumnezeu, cu Chomsky, e dreptul tău. Dar n-ai dreptul să-mi impui mie gândirea lui, drept adevăr absolut şi nici măcar relativ.

    Să ştii că dispreţul nu e o formă de superioritate. Ci doar de aroganţă.

  12. Draghi Puterity Says:


    Inteleg ca atunci cand vorbesti de arogantza te referi la mine, insa nu stiu unde vezi tu aroganta sau dispretz in postarea mea. E doar dorintza sincera de a defini un limbaj comun bazat mai mult pe realitati si mai putin pe perceptzii si emotzii pentru a vorbi serios despre anumite lucruri. Pentru ca evenimentele de acum sunt serioase si ne afecteaza masiv pe toti. Nu le putem trata cu lozinci.

    Eu nu vreau sa iti impun tie nici o opinie. Dar daca sesizez contradictzii in ceea ce spui sau perceptzii diferite de ale mele, ce sa fac? Astepti de la mine sa tac? Nu cred ca asta e ideea unui blog. Un blog e ca o oglinda cu mii de fetze in care iti vezi imaginea reflectata de fiecare in mod diferit. Si prin asta te vezi pe tine insuti mult mai complet. Iar ca efect colateral invatam cu totzii unii de la altzii.

    Eu am facut doar trimitere la niste oameni inteligentzi care s-au preocupat serios de aceste lucruri. Stiglitz sau Chomsky si altzii m-au convins in primul rand prin argumentele lor, prin explicatiile lor paluzibile si logice, prin modelele lor care fac previziuni verificabile, si nu prin apartenentza lor politica. Care, apropo, transcede conflictele artificiale si puerile de tipul stanga-dreapta, democrati-republicani, s.a.m.d. Acestea sunt doar circ pentru a distrage atentia maselor de la adevaratele probleme.

    De ce incerci sa manipulezi cu texte de genul „il substituie pe Dumnezeu cu Chomsky” sau relativizand tot ce nu se potriveste vederilor tale? Nu e fair. Daca nici acum in plina criza, cand e clar ca tot ce au spus acesti oameni s-a intamplat exact asa cum prevazut ei, nu ii luam in serios, nu stiu ce sa mai zic. Chiar nu e clar ca festinul s-a terminat si vine nota de plata. Si ca adoptand pozitia strutzului riscam sa sa ne trezim ca o platim noi pe toata in urmatorii zeci de ani?

    P.S. Legat de filtrul tau antispam. M-a contrariat faptul ca initial mesajul aparuse dupa care a disparut. M-as fi asteptat ca daca e filtrat automat sa nici nu apara. In alte bloguri de pe wordpress asa functioneaza.

  13. Roxana Iordache Says:

    @Draghi Puterity. 1st: când mai constaţi că nu-ţi intră mesaje din prima, să nu-ţi faci complexe: eşti reţinut automat la moderare din cauza linkurilor care inhibă postarea. Mă anunţi când se întâmpă, fiindcă verific mai rar spamul.

    Scuză-mă, dar nu te cred că apăruse iniţial mesajul. Probabil, apăruse cu textul – „mesajul tău aşteaptă aprobarea” sau aşa ceva, cum îmi apar şi mie iniţial mesajele pe blogul lui Adrian Năstase, până le dă drumul. Eu nu am moderare ca el şi ca atâţia alţii, dar antispamul reţine automat la moderare mesajele cu mai mult de un link, uneori şi pe cele cu un singur link sau fără, în funcţie de criterii care ţin de IT. Sper că nu va trebui să repet asta – am scris-o de zeci de ori – dar nu-mi fac iluzii, probabil vor mai fi şi alţi vizitatori în situaţia ta.

    2nd. Poate că intenţia ta nu a fost să-mi impui ceva sau să fii dispreţuitor (de genul „ţi-au spus că Chomsky e de stânga”), dar ţi-a ieşit involuntar.

    Conflictele dreapta-stânga nu sunt nici puerile, nici artificiale. Ci reale. De fapt, nu conflictele, ci diferenţele. Conflictele sunt de multe ori induse.

    Aşa vezi tu lucrurile, dar ele nu s-au petrecut aşa cum au prezis ei, ci cum AU PREMEDITAT mentorii gen Soros. Ei doar au scris ce au scris ca să pară retroactiv preziceri. Că tot e plină lumea de profeţi cu nume de rezonanţa alor lor.

  14. Draghi Puterity Says:


    Vrei sa spui ca Chomsky e un discipol a lui Soros? Vorbesti serios? OK, sunt amandoi evrei, dar cred ca e singurul lucru pe care il au in comun.

Lasă un răspuns

Te rog autentifică-te folosind una dintre aceste metode pentru a publica un comentariu:

Logo WordPress.com

Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

%d blogeri au apreciat: