Kw-logo-smaller

G20 Meeting

The leaders of the richest countries in the world have agreed on a number of ideas at a big meeting in London to try to solve the world’s economic problems.

Those countries have agreed to spend almost $1 trillion on a series of plans to make things better.

The world leaders of the 20 richest countries in the world, called the G20, are in London for the meeting.


Most of the money will go to a special international bank that lends money to countries when they really need it.


The sum of money they're talking about, $1 trillion, is so big that it's pretty hard to understand.


It's the same as one million times one million (1,000,000 x 1,000,000), or one thousand times one billion (1,000 x 1,000,000,000).


Another big chunk of the cash – $250 billion – has been put aside to help companies and countries around the world buy and sell things to each other.


As well as the agreement to [KWLINK 873]spend the money, the world leaders have agreed on a number of other ideas to improve things:

  • New rules on what banks can and can't do that will be the same all around the world.
  • Controls on the amount of money people working in banks are allowed to earn.
  • Tougher rules on the way some banks make money.
  • The world's poorest countries will get extra financial help.

  • While there is no quick fix for the world’s economy, the countries represented at the meeting do seem committed to doing what they can to help make things better, together.

    Related Stories:

  • How To Save Your Money
  • Credit Cards
  • Your First Summer Job
  • The Recession
  • 0 Comments

    latest videos

    F1067448135562

    What Do You Save Your Allowance For?

    • A big day out with your pals.
    • Video games and computer stuff.
    • Clothes, clothes and more clothes.
    • CDs or posters of my fave musicians.

    related stories

    Random in the forums

    Boysrock50
    Boysrock50 posted in Debating:
    "-Karpov-" wrote: "Boysrock50" wrote: I think animal testing is only acceptable if it is really necessary and if it's going to benefit us. I can't really object to it as I don't know a better alternative to testing it's safety before human trials. If it's likely to cause more pain than gain then there's no point doing it just 'to make sure'. As it is now do you think it's ok to continue doing it?   I'm not sure how it is done right now, give me some time to read about it, not really a topic I've bothered about before. All you tend to hear is protests against how horrible it is, but people seem to be fine with it on a whole tbh >>hmm it's unpleasant but I think most of it is necessary. I would say it's acceptable at the moment but we should try to find alternatives, e.g. testing on lab-grown tissues. And only test on animals for the things that have no alternatives
    reply 17 minutes
    -Karpov-
    -Karpov- posted in Debating:
    "Boysrock50" wrote:I think animal testing is only acceptable if it is really necessary and if it's going to benefit us. I can't really object to it as I don't know a better alternative to testing it's safety before human trials. If it's likely to cause more pain than gain then there's no point doing it just 'to make sure'. As it is now do you think it's ok to continue doing it?  
    reply 19 minutes
    Armygirlfriend
    North America. 
    reply 21 minutes
    Armygirlfriend
    When you truly love someone, no distance or amount of time can tear you apart. Sure it would be easier to move on, but being with anyone else would just be settling. The days are lonely and the nights are worse but when you have a love this strong never let it go. It may be hard, but God knows it'll be worth in the end. It's my favorite quote because I'm dating a soldier. I live in the state and town we met in but we've been together for four months and he's away at bootcamp right now but I love him. And this quote truly speaks about what we're going through. 
    reply 23 minutes
    Boysrock50
    Boysrock50 posted in Debating:
    I think animal testing is only acceptable if it is really necessary and if it's going to benefit us. I can't really object to it as I don't know a better alternative to testing it's safety before human trials. If it's likely to cause more pain than gain then there's no point doing it just 'to make sure'.
    reply 30 minutes

    play online games