R.C. Longworth makes an excellent point in his July 12 Perspective piece
(”G-7 summits: Major hoopla, minor results”). These annual get-togethers of the leaders of the world`s economic giants provide very little tangible benefit despite their huge costs in time, money and expectations.
Continuation of these expensive chit-chats is justified by the ephemeral hope that there is something to be gained just by these leaders getting better acquainted with one another. While that may be true, the barely measurable benefits of ”getting better acquainted” cannot justify the costs of these glorified kaffee klatsches.
Sustaining the G-7 summits is symptomatic of a problem most governments have in determining how to expend the scarce resources of their taxpayers. Governments have a tendency to pursue and fund any project which promises even the smallest benefit, no matter what the cost. We therefore wind up with trade restrictions that protect a handful of jobs at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars per job; produce prices being driven through the roof as a result of the banning of insecticides that cause cancer only when forced into laboratory rats in elephantine portions, and expensive, obsolete military bases and programs being maintained in an effort to postpone necessary economic adjustments in affected communities.
Rather than shower taxpayers` money on every project with the remotest chance of providing some sort of benefit, politicians should subject projects, regulations and expenditures to rigorous cost-benefit analyses. Only those programs that realistically promise benefits exceeding their costs ought to be funded.
