Topaz Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Listen to this economist who has been right before and do you agree with him? http://www.infowars.com/peter-schiff-u-s-is-in-worse-shape-than-europe/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 That's pretty hard to say, economists are like weather men often getting it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 OP. do yourself a big favour and do not ever link to infowars again. It makes everybody more stupid, seriously. To answer the question, I say 'no'. The EU has a giant ball and chain economically, which is their social contract. It is very hard to get away from, downsize or modfify in any meaningful way since the folks have naturally learned to have a serious case of entitlement. With revenues waning, they have few outs. On the other hand, the US burden is mostly in military spending, which they can whack more easily than the Europeans. The US also has more in the way or resources and commodities within their borders. Both places suffer greatly from ineffective leadership, but the US has a massiv edge in that politically they are far less scattered than the many layers of contradictory, competing interests in Yurp. Overall, I'll bet on the Yankee devils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Since Peter Schiff has been right on the economy for years I am more willing to agree with him then someone like Ben Bernake or anyone on this site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 ....Overall, I'll bet on the Yankee devils. Canada always has.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 OP. do yourself a big favour and do not ever link to infowars again. It makes everybody more stupid, seriously. I concur absolutely. If that site should ever link to something substantial and acceptable then you can link directly to that source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Canada always has.... No, not entirely. We went to two world wars when you did not, a huge commitment of materiel and lives that the US didn't until much later. And right now we are at a crossroads where we are not choosing between US and Europe, we looking West not South or East. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 No, not entirely. We went to two world wars when you did not, a huge commitment of materiel and lives that the US didn't until much later. Huge for Canada, not the United States, which dwarfed such efforts even with a "later" start. And right now we are at a crossroads where we are not choosing between US and Europe, we looking West not South or East. In the past, Canada has chosen the US over Europe economically. This may change, but America already has more trade with the EU than Canada, which still exports more than 75% to the "south". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Huge for Canada, not the United States, which dwarfed such efforts even with a "later" start. In the past, Canada has chosen the US over Europe economically. This may change, but America already has more trade with the EU than Canada, which still exports more than 75% to the "south". You could have just retracted your assertion that Canada 'always has' chosen the US. Because they have not, and looks like they may not in the future. That is good for Canada, having options for a major commodity can be profitable for the supplier, not so good for the end user, like the US. It will be interesting to see the impact of Obamas choices on Keystone in 10 or 20 years. The US imports a lot of oil and has now jeopardized their most secure supply. That might prove to be very expensive when they again need the energy security they lack now. Previous presidents Clinton and Bush Jr were pretty clear they wanted Canada to be a big part of that security, Obama is indictaing it is less important. Hope that works out for our friends and neighbours. Coupled with a reduced ability to act militarily around the globe(which must be inevitable given the US economic situation), relying on Libya, Iran and Venzuela for petroleum seems kind of dumb. It is doubly odd when it appears that presidential re-election is Obamas to lose. The Republicans are in disarray with nobody as a charismatic candidate. His green constituency wasn't going anywhere, so why would he get involved in turning down a project that will happen anyway? What is there to gain, politically? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 What Obama has to gain is to make his voting base happy in an election year. I concur with your assessment, turning down Canadian oil will only hurt the US in the future. And if Canada gets as far as starting construction of the northern gateway pipeline, there will be no turning back. I think obama is putting his hopes on things like the Chevy Volt. Recently GM apparently recalled every single one for a battery issue. After side impact crashes, the 400 lb battery starts to leak, and a fire ensued about 2 weeks later! Total sales thus far? 8000. According to the Washington Post, the government did not force GM to make repairs to the car, even though three Volt batteries caught on fire last year at government testing sites. The fires occurred seven days to three weeks after side-impact tests were done. The crashed caused the plastic battery pack to become damaged, and then caused coolant to leak. An electrical short resulted because of the coolant, and then the fires sparked. And if electric cars get popular, just how, Mr. Obama, will the electricity to charge the cars be generated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) You could have just retracted your assertion that Canada 'always has' chosen the US. I think it has in the past, in a broad economic context. The cultural struggle was going that way too. Quebec fights it the hardest. Because they have not, and looks like they may not in the future. That is good for Canada, having options for a major commodity can be profitable for the supplier, not so good for the end user, like the US. I agree, and never understood why Canada put so many of its eggs in the USA basket while pretending otherwise. It will be interesting to see the impact of Obamas choices on Keystone in 10 or 20 years. The US imports a lot of oil and has now jeopardized their most secure supply. That might prove to be very expensive when they again need the energy security they lack now. Previous presidents Clinton and Bush Jr were pretty clear they wanted Canada to be a big part of that security, Obama is indictaing it is less important. Correct...the present administration wants to bend the import curve and total consumption. America consumes less oil today, albeit for economic reasons. Canada's oil was part of a larger diversification strategy, and as we have already discussed, the Americans invested heavily in its development, refining, and distribution. Hope that works out for our friends and neighbours. Coupled with a reduced ability to act militarily around the globe(which must be inevitable given the US economic situation), relying on Libya, Iran and Venzuela for petroleum seems kind of dumb. No dumber than relying on Saudi, Nigerian, or Mexican oil. I think this narrative is just a continuation of what shock some Canadians felt when the invasion of Iraq proceeded with or without Canada, and the realization that Canada is/was not America's closest ally. The EU is now America's largest trading partner. This is good for Canada in the long term, but will be painful as those old {false} assumptions are realized. It is doubly odd when it appears that presidential re-election is Obamas to lose. The Republicans are in disarray with nobody as a charismatic candidate. His green constituency wasn't going anywhere, so why would he get involved in turning down a project that will happen anyway? What is there to gain, politically? There is plenty to be gained politically, starting with Obama's base of supporters, which needs something to keep the faith after several setbacks on the road to Hope & Change. Big Oil is an easy target. Edited January 24, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.