New world order after Pittsburgh?

In the face of it, the 27 leaders of the European Union who gathered in Brussels last week in an informal meeting unanimously agreed on a common position to be presented at the G20 Pittsburgh gathering, in relation to bankers’ bonuses. The issue has a strong political content, because citizens are very keen to see that the culpable parties, for the ongoing world economic crisis, are punished. In any case what is under discussion in the EU and the US regarding bankers pay does not seem at all like a punishment. The “worst” bankers may face, if the G20 agrees, is a loose correlation of their extra remuneration to a multi year profit variable. But let us take one thing at a time.
The EU informal meeting of heads of states and governments in Brussels last Thursday agreed on a text headed as follows, “Agreed language for the Pittsburgh G-20 summit”. From its very title the text cries out that it is not binding. The EU countries which are also members of the G20 group, participate in it as individual entities and not as representatives of the EU. On top of it the text agreed in Brussels also states, “The commitments agreed at the London Summit must be implemented.” Everybody knows that the London Summit of the G20 ministers of economy did not produce anything resembling an agreement on bakers bonuses. Alistair Darling and Timothy Geidner, ministers of economy of the UK and the US explicitly declared in London two weeks ago, that they oppose a compulsory scheme of controls on bankers remuneration, as their French and German counterparts had asked. Last but not least the American president Barack Obama has already described his position on the issue, by saying that he opposes strict controls on bankers pay, because he considers it as contrary to the free market principle.
In real life such restrictions are very difficult if not impossible to be effectively imposed, due to the multi national character of the large banking firms. Incidentally the five year period which is considered as pertinent to correlate bonus and profits, appears too long. Firstly just because a new major credit crisis may occur in the between and secondly because bank employees may change “horse” before the five term expires.    
The British-American position on this issue says that restrictions on bankers pay should be loose. What they mean is that banks cannot, or rather should be refrained from making large short term profits. On the contrary, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel insist on imposing strict controls on bankers bonuses, not because they have anything against this... profession but rather because their two countries did not participate in the lavish profit taking by American and British banks some years ago, a practice  that led the world to the present crisis.
It is even more important to observe that now French and German banks are once more out of the same “game,” played by New York and London banks. Instead mainland Europe is currently hinging the recovery of its economy on industry and services, while the US and Britain seem far away from a real economy revival. In short those two Anglophone countries have no other sector to rely upon for a new growth period than their banks, being probably bank... addicts.  
In reality it is not the bankers’ bonuses which are at stake but the very profitability of banks themselves, along with the way those profits are being produced. The risk taking is actually the very issue here, as well as the time horizon of it. It seems that the “capitalist system” in the US and Britain is being changed from the traditional industry based wealth accumulation to a consumption and financial economy. Main land Europe on the contrary still relies much more on manufacturing.
Obviously in Pittsburgh the two sides will be looking for a new modus “vivendi”, but this will not be an easy compromise to attain. In any case the future of the world economy relies on it.