EDITORIAL: "Redesigning global finance: Government leaders cannot rewrite the rules this weekend. But they can still do some useful things," The Economist, 15 November 2008. BRIEFING: "The global economic summit: After the fall; On November 15th world leaders are due to sit around a table in Washington DC to fix finance. They have their work cut out," The Economist, 15 November 2008.

Believe it or not, I am finally caught up on my blog pile of clipped articles! We have a huge backlog of posts, which Sean will dish out over the next few days. Got to these just now, and they're instructive to read regarding the Core's future efforts. No, it's hard to get too disappointed about the summit, because Obama took an FDR-like pass and so nothing much could happen except for the G-20 to feel revitalized and somehow credentialized in a new manner. And those are good things in and of themselves. The Economist calls "nonsense" any talk about creating a Bretton Woods sequel pronto, because the original required two years of intense planning. Still, the Economist is enthused to see the G20 step up a bit in its self-awareness, especially since the IMF is so tiny, resource-wise, compared to today's global economy. Yes, competing rule sets lead to "regulatory arbitrage." And all those emerging markets, having stocked up on foreign currency reserves (mostly dollars) to protect themselves from speculative runs, did help trigger the global credit bubble (a one-bad-thing-leading-to-a-good-fix-and-then-a-new-problem, as I argue in Great Powers). So rather than any great scheme, says the Economist, better to work on bolstering transparency wherever possible on inter-market financial flows. Simply put, the agenda right now is too vast and there are two many competing great powers for any one solution to apply. So expect a boom market for new rules over the next few years, but no one great pact. Viewed in this light, you take the meager results of the recent summit in stride.