G8? G20? Both? Neither?

This evening's poll question, which international consortiums do you think should exist and meet on a repetitive basis? Should there be just a G8 or just a G20? Should both exist? Should neither exist? I listened to Adler interview McParland tonight on this matter, and the general consensus was that major breakthroughs are few and far between at these events. I would say that it is extremely difficult to accurately measure the exact global economic benefit of these summits on the global economies, but that many, many trillions of dollars flow between these 20 economies every year.

Even if the leaders just pose for pictures (remember Mr. Prime Minister, if you require a bathroom break, try holding it for a few minutes), I would argue that there is a benefit to all these bureaucrats and stakeholders meeting and speaking, I just have no idea what the dollar value of that benefit is. A billion dollars? I don't know. It should facilitate a more efficient flow of commerce between these vastly interconnected economies, but good luck calculating that number.

I suppose the next question is if we support the existence of one or more of these institutions, do you want to see Canada host one or both of their summits? I am trying two G20-G8 poll questions simultaneously. Which should exist, and which would you like to see Canada host. I think that the costs are too high and I agree with Ignatieff that Toronto is not a good host for any major international event. Assuming the costs are reasonable, there should be a net benefit.

The costs are as high as they are because we are hosting both the G8 and the G20, which in hindsight might have been too ambitious. What can the G8 do that the G20 can't? Isn't every G8 member also a G20 member? I vote to scrap the G8 and just have the G20. Would I support hosting the G20 knowing it would cost us over a billion dollars? No. Would I support hosting if it cost 200 million dollars? Yes.