A "leader" (British for editorial) in the Economist cheers the idea that members of the Group of 20 nations will "subject members' economic policies to 'peer review.'" Says the Economist: "These reviews may prove toothless, but the commitment to them is a step forward." How is it a step forward to give China or Saudi Arabia -- undemocratic countries -- a formal right to review America's economic policies? Or, as the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Bob McTeer, puts it:
It's not just that the debate will be over different degrees of government intervention into areas of business not normally under government jurisdiction. More scary is the idea that we might be morally bound, or even influenced, in such matters by the other 19. I didn't get to vote for those guys. How did they get a vote on my banker's pay?
Not only didn't Mr. McTeer get to vote for these guys; the Chinese and the Saudi Arabians didn't get to vote for them either.
