Just call it an endorsement of a collective security policy where 'you go first.'
That was how one economist characterized the G-7 group of finance ministers' stance toward the
U.S. Treasury Department's proposed $700 billion intervention to stabilize the financial system.
In a conference call statement, the G-7 - - Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, Italy, Canada, along with the U.S. - - said, "We strongly welcome the extraordinary actions taken by the United States to enhance the stability of financial markets and address credit concerns, especially through its plan to implement a program to remove illiquid assets that are destabilizing financial institutions,"
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday(
subscription required.)
However, none of the other six G-7 members will adopt a program similar to the U.S.'s, German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck told reporters in Berlin after the call,
Bloomberg News reported Monday.Economist Peter Dawson told BloggingStocks Monday the G-7's stance is half-hearted, in his interpretation. "In its general statement, the G-7 is on-board with the [U.S] Treasury's program but [German Finance Minister Peer] Steinbrueck's comments are disappointing. Steinbrueck, or another G-7 representative should have followed up with 'and we stand ready to assist the United States and other nations with fiscal measures to support the above goals, if needed, etc.,' " Dawson said. "Right now, the G-7's tone is 'go forth U.S., but we're not getting in the pool right now, the water's too cold.' Given the G-7's complicity in causing the problem and their systemic interest, a more-engaged statement should have been issued regarding fiscal policy options."
Cites AIG's 'interconnectedness' For example, Dawson said the G-7's corporate involvement in
American International Group's (NYSE:
AIG) is evidence item 'A' for stronger G-7 involvement. "G-7 companies, banks, and institutional investors benefited from AIG's credit default swaps and related products, and would be hurt by a systemic failure. Since they are parties to the problem, they should also bear some of the costs of the reforms and bailout," Dawson said. "But right now their stance is 'Go ahead U.S. We back your spending your money, but not ours.' That's an inadequate response from our G-7 associates."