G20 and its impact

So, world leaders have agreed on tighter regulation and a trillion dollar programme of funding to help economic recovery. The US and UK seem to prefer injecting vast funds to encourage lending, investment and spending. Germany and France prefer to restrict spending and strengthen regulation - a more conservative approach which the Anglo-Saxon countries consider will restrict growth and 'competitiveness'.

One question this raises is to what extent the affluent countries need additional growth? Of course, there are large numbers of poor people in rich countries and the rich can never get enough, but do we really need to keep growing our economies?

When is enough enough? Even lower income groups in the UK have a far higher standard of living than a large proportion of people in developing countries. I realise I am fortunate in having a decent home, a car and many luxuries that others are denied through no fault of their own. However, as a result, I have limited needs to keep spending on more things simply because I feel I have enough and am convinced that many others in the UK are in a similar position. Surely, now is a good time to take stock, ask what constitutes an adequate standard of living and how we can focus efforts on realising such benefits for a far larger proportion of the human family.

Another side of the coin is that many people seem to have far more than they know what to do with. As a result, redistribution through progressive taxation seems to deserve a higher priority than growth, especially given the impact we are collectively having on the environment. So, I agree with the German and French approach to tighten the regulatory controls over banks rather than trying to spend our way out of the crisis. The primary focus of expenditure and investment should be on boosting energy efficient technology and a massive home insulation programme. What do you think?