Bretton-nomics

The Europeans always seem to be calling on the Americans to put their house in order by reducing their trade, or budget, deficits while Washington always wants the rest of the world to increase domestic demand (and thus buy more American exports). The Europeans tend to believe in international arrangements (such as fixed, or targeted, exchange rates); the Americans do not want any constraints placed on their domestic economic policies.

So in the early 1970s, the Bretton Woods system broke down because the Americans (to European eyes) neglected their responsibility to maintain the value of the dollar relative to gold; in contrast, the Americans felt they bore an unfair burden because Europeans had the option to devalue their currencies which the US did not. In the 1980s, the Americans saw their deficits as the short-term consequences of pro-growth, tax-cutting policies; rather than being forced to cut back, they wanted other countries (and particularly the Japanese) to adopt the same approach. Jump forward twenty years and the cast has changed, but the script remains the same; Washington now wants the Chinese to play the role of consumer of last resort.

According to the Economist

Sounds like a build up to "reforming the truly global institutions" (read - build up for setting up scapegoats out of the WB and IMF so that the US has leverage to help close out the Doha talks.)

Back then in took 2 years to complete - thanks in no small part to the painstaking research contributions by the concerned - coming on the cusp-end of a war (generally a good economic time).

Now, amidst the global, cross industrial "bailout banshee" everyone wants a "2-minute Maggi" solution - while karoke-ing "Washington Consensus"-nomics.   Smells like a Drucker-Russia all over again!

Can you say - neo-world systems approach?