- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by EladarYou mean the conservative ideas that gave you the massive deficit in the first place.
The Obama system isn't any better. The liberal system in the US isn't any better. If the US would implement conservative ideas, then it would be better.
The republican method of paying for war by not accounting for it and just using the national credit-card.
The republican ideas of not doing stuff that even they used to support until Obama supported them like building infrastructure.
Yeah, the conservatives really know what they are talking about.
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo, it was the mixture of the conservative ideas and liberal ideas that created the problem.
You mean the conservative ideas that gave you the massive deficit in the first place.
The republican method of paying for war by not accounting for it and just using the national credit-card.
The republican ideas of not doing stuff that even they used to support until Obama supported them like building infrastructure.
Yeah, the conservatives really know what they are talking about.
George Bush is the perfect example of what you are describing:
Expand spending programs and cut taxes at the same time!
That kind of working together to get what each side wants doesn't work.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by EladarOk then show me a situation where the liberals got everything they wanted and implemented a program of their
No, it was the mixture of the conservative ideas and liberal ideas that created the problem.
George Bush is the perfect example of what you are describing:
Expand spending programs and cut taxes at the same time!
That kind of working together to get what each side wants doesn't work.
choice where they didn't have to compromise because the conservatives used the filibuster to prevent majority rule.
Incidentally Bill Clinton balanced the budget and developed a systematic surplus before GW blew up the deficit.
Also, no it wasn't a mixture of conservative and liberal ideas that blew up the deficit.
It was bush tax cut 1, 2, Medicare part whatever, and the wars.
All not supported by the democrats. None of which were paid for.
All benefiting the rich and or big corporations.
If one side never gets to implement their ideas because the other side NEVER plays ball then you can't claim that their
ideas don't work, they never get tried.
On the other hand the republicans do rail road their ideas through on a regular basis and evidently don't work.
Moreover you can see the implementation of some of the ideas that the republicans claim don't work in other
countries or other times in history were they patently do work.
The republicans are just lying hypocrites who will do anything to win and prop up the big companies and billionaires who
finance them, and the religious right who vote for them.
And anything to stop the democrats regardless of how much damage they do to the country or those who work for a living.
Incidentally how do you defend the republicans attack on voting rights specifically aimed at stopping democratic voters
while claiming it's their to stop (near non-existent) voter fraud all at great expense to the tax payer?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt certainly is mystifying how a thread about the dire state of some European economies derailed into a discussion about the failures of the "liberal system in America" and the implementation of "conservative ideas".
Ahh, one-dimensional politics. Good for describing a one-dimensional world.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI'll try to answer the spirit of the question without derailing much more:
Ok then show me a situation where the liberals got everything they wanted and implemented a program of their
choice where they didn't have to compromise because the conservatives used the filibuster to prevent majority rule.
Incidentally Bill Clinton balanced the budget and developed a systematic surplus before GW blew up the deficit.
Also, no it ...[text shortened]... it's their to stop (near non-existent) voter fraud all at great expense to the tax payer?
I like Clinton when he had a Republican Congress. He leaned more conservative. I've said it many times, I'd rather see Clinton pandering to the conservatives in office than GW.
Originally posted by SleepyguyBanks would keep lending them money with an annual budget deficit at 15% of their GDP right after they default?
Well no it's not a magic bullet, but it's not really clear is it? If the Greeks simply defaulted on their debt and went back to their own currency, banks may indeed lend them money. That's what banks do after all, and hey, they wouldn't have any other debt so no problem!
The position of not letting the people vote on an issue because politicians know the people won't vote the way they want them to just doesn't sit right with me.
Gee, can I have the name of one of these banks? I'd like a new Lexus.
Originally posted by sh76Maybe try one of the banks that have lent money to Argentina? They have 41.2% of GDP in public debt, after defaulting on their debt less than a decade ago.
Banks would keep lending them money with an annual budget deficit at 15% of their GDP right after they default?
Gee, can I have the name of one of these banks? I'd like a new Lexus.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraPublic debt is not the issue. Debt of 41.2% of GDP is relatively low, at least by today's standards. Greece's is almost 150% and the US' is about 100%. I'm talking about annual budget deficits of 15% of GDP, which is what Greece has, and which is exceedingly high.
Maybe try one of the banks that have lent money to Argentina? They have 41.2% of GDP in public debt, after defaulting on their debt less than a decade ago.
Europe is pretty diverse and trying to bracket Greece with Germany, Ireland with Britain, Norway with Portugal, is never going to permit an intelligent or even amusing debate.
Greece has emerged from decades of military government with a poorly developed democracy and lack of responsible governance generally. By all means that seems to include excessive government commitments to spend matched by a lack of sensible economic policies and a very limited manufacturing or productive industrial base.
Italy is a corrupt nation with, again, weak democratic and public accountability. Maybe a factor has been the post war American protection of a semi fascist government in order to exclude the Italian Left from power but it is hardly that simple. The massive role of the Mafia is relevant. The lack of development in the South and the failure really to integrate the country is important, since unification was really achieved through the dominance of the North. The tradition of family businesses is (I think) rooted in the policy of not requiring them to pay tax, so they tend to have networks of (tax avoiding) family businesses evading public scrutiny. Overall the country is quite weird though much loved. Just when you think they are doing something right, they let you down again.
Spain and Portugal - still recently emerging from dictatorships. Obviously, Spain has the resources to do ok all the same. Portugal is more dodgy.
Ireland - quite a sensible industrial and economic development policy since the Seventies, supported with a decent educational system, all trashed by a wildy unregulated finance sector and criminally corrupt political class. Still, it shows prospects of getting sorted. Shame the Europeans panicked Ireland into supporting its commercial banks in the aftermath of Lehman Brothers' collapse - that could have been avoided and Europe owes Ireland for that suicidal act of collective responsibility.
Norway - sensible socialist governments have invested the wealth from North Sea oil in sovereign investment funds which will collectively benefit the people for generations to come. Collective responsibility has protected its fishing industry while the rest of Europe has virtually wiped out much of the fish stock in their waters. Superb social welfare provision and very equal society, hence low crime and good health.
Britain - largely wiped out a huge industrial base in the Eighties, allowed massive revenues from North Sea oil to wash through its economy and down the sewers, creating a nasty unequal society and trashing its post war accomplishments in welfare, health and education. A government party funded by the Financial sector and operating to benefit the City at the expense of the rest of the economy. Grotesque spending on weapons - not least totally useless and pointless nuclear asenal - and Quixotic affection for foreign wars. A fleet of aircraft carriers without planes.
Germany - reconstructed after WWII, continues to enjoy the benefits of a system of industral relations introduced (if not imposed) by the British, especially the Labour minister Bevin. Excellent worker participation and consultation lies behind a pattern of responsible wage and benefit negotiation, managed industrial change, stable ownership of major industrial companies etc. Fascinating that a country which asks the workers for their view can agree on later retirement, longer hours and moderated pay deals while rejecting finance led takeovers and acquisitions. Of course, excellent social welfare provision. Coped with the unification process heroically and seems only stronger for that.
France - powerful socialist and trade union movements, major state engagement with industry and commerce, excellent social welfare provision, one of the two most powerful countries in modern Europe. Depressing inclination still towards prestige driven military spending and interference in other countries.
Poland seems to be coming out of communism as a country with prospects, and the Chech Republic. I am not so sure about other post communist nations. In fact, this could go on and on.
Europe? Which Europe would you like to discuss?
Originally posted by sh76Spot on. The issue is deficits (revenue / spending) not total debt. The cause is (usually - there are exceptions) not spending by governments but the collapse in government revenues. Austerity measures exacerbate the problem. As Cameron's government slashes public spending, the economy is shrinking, revenue is shrinking, and guess what - he has to borrow even more because the deficit is getting worse instead of better. He has to add £111bn to his borrowing in the latest estimate and it will continhue that way until he stops slashing and starts building.
Public debt is not the issue. Debt of 41.2% of GDP is relatively low, at least by today's standards. Greece's is almost 150% and the US' is about 100%. I'm talking about annual budget deficits of 15% of GDP, which is what Greece has, and which is exceedingly high.
Someone tell these idiots - unemployment causes deficits, it does not solve them.
Originally posted by SleepyguyThat's been the pattern for quite a few decades. Once a default happens, it really isn't that big a deal to forgive the debt, after all it wasn't real money to begin with. Starting over enables the interest payments to keep flowing, and in banking that's what it's all about.
Well no it's not a magic bullet, but it's not really clear is it? If the Greeks simply defaulted on their debt and went back to their own currency, banks may indeed lend them money. That's what banks do after all, and hey, they wouldn't have any other debt so no problem!
The position of not letting the people vote on an issue because politicians know the people won't vote the way they want them to just doesn't sit right with me.
Originally posted by sh76" at least by today's standards."
Public debt is not the issue. Debt of 41.2% of GDP is relatively low, at least by today's standards. Greece's is almost 150% and the US' is about 100%. I'm talking about annual budget deficits of 15% of GDP, which is what Greece has, and which is exceedingly high.
With that caveat, how does any argument have a chance. You have a problem, just move the goal posts.
Originally posted by normbenignTry reading "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" by David Graeber. "His fascinating account of Sumerian debt amnesties shows how societies in which debt became unmanageable routinely resorted to general write-downs."
" at least by today's standards."
With that caveat, how does any argument have a chance. You have a problem, just move the goal posts.
Where would you prefer your goal posts?
Originally posted by normbenignBecause the banks also play by today's standards. I said that if Greece defaults, they won't get new loans considering that they have a 15% of GDP annual budget deficit.
" at least by today's standards."
With that caveat, how does any argument have a chance. You have a problem, just move the goal posts.
KN said: Well, Argentina defaulted and has a public debt of 42% of GDP.
I said "Well Greece has public debt of 150% of GDP and so Argentina is not a good comparison to how banks will react to Greece."
Explain to me again what was wrong with my argument, please.