wyly Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 I get the point Small C any country or federation that makes up 10-20% of the world economy (USA, China, EU. etc) will hurt every other country in the world if they do not correct the course they are on. In this case the USA righted the ship while the EU made the holes in the boat bigger. So it doesn't make a difference on the markets if the US is doing well because the EU and to a lessor extent China are crashing. ya, we're all dependent on each others markets in both buying and selling...one hurts, we all hurt... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 ya, we're all dependent on each others markets in both buying and selling...one hurts, we all hurt... Not in the case of Iran, or Cuba, or North Korea....or Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 I understood it the way punked just explained it. I just didn't reply because I didn't think the stuff in between was worth replying to. Especially since I'm sure we'll just hear how the EU isn't a country again, as if that matters to the argument at all. In a way it does matter, in relation to the original comment. But for the record, the EU isn't a country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 The current electoral system whereby the winner takes all of the electoral college votes emphasizes the federal nature of the US political system and that is just fine even though there can be an absurd result that the candidate with fewer votes gets elected. However, as the every state is given two votes on top of their proportional share of the population, that gives smaller states more weight than their population merits them. That favours the Republicans. On the other hand, as the population is moving more and more into big cities and there is ceaseless immigration, that favours the Democrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 The current electoral system whereby the winner takes all of the electoral college votes emphasizes the federal nature of the US political system and that is just fine even though there can be an absurd result that the candidate with fewer votes gets elected. However, as the every state is given two votes on top of their proportional share of the population, that gives smaller states more weight than their population merits them. That favours the Republicans. On the other hand, as the population is moving more and more into big cities and there is ceaseless immigration, that favours the Democrats. It doesn't "favor" either party; it gives the small states some equal footing with the large states. It helps to create a balance among the states, as all states are equal members of the union regardless of size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 the US doesn't exist in a economic bubble ...Greece had the potential start a chain reaction that could take down the EU, economically the EU is huge the US can not insulate itself from that size of economic catastrophe and neither can China... This appears to be where you guys got lost. Now here's a question for you: if the US economy had rebounded to full employment (5-6% unemployment), what effect do you think that would have on the EU economy and Greece's economy? Now what happens to government revenue and expenditures when the economy expands and the unemployment rate decreases? Now what happens to sovereign debt yields when a country's budget improves? Yes it all comes back to slow growth/recovery in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 The slow recovery in the US is a result of the situation elsewhere. The US started the problem, but there were problems in so many other places that made it impossible to recover quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Of course the U.S. started it. The U.S. is to blame for everything that happens in the world. Even though we aren't the strongest economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 The US federal government and central banking system was able to rescue itself without the bickering and infighting seen for EU nations. That is why it is not consistent to compare them as economic, monetary, or fiscal system equals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Of course the U.S. started it. The US did start the 2008 recession. That's not really up for debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Of course the U.S. started it. The U.S. is to blame for everything that happens in the world. Even though we aren't the strongest economy. Yes...the Americans forced the Europeans to invest in risky derivatives and mortgage backed securities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 There's no question that the same problems existed in Europe. The whole thing started to fall apart in the US, starting a chain reaction. Europe was never able to recover, as BC said, and so we still have problems today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Why did Romney lose? First, he was the wrong man for the times. Of all the candidates to pick, the Republicans chose a member of the Wall Street corporate elite who threw the country into recession in the first place; the least loved group in America right now. Second, all too many moderate and centrist Americans think the Republicans have moved too far to the right. The Tea Party with its absolutism and total disregard for compromise turns a lot of people off. And a lot of people could never buy a 20% across the board tax cut while the US is already running a massive deficit either. Moderates also didn't buy cutting the taxes for rich guys like Romney and Perry on the back of slashing medicaid, medicair, school lunches, home heating subisidies, education and pensions. And I think a lot of moderates remembered it was these guys who put the country into a recession four years ago through their inept management of the financial industry, and so their complaints that Obama wasn't getting them out of that mess fast enough, and that they should be let back in again, fell on a lot of deaf ears. The Republicans need to move back towards the centre, but I don't expect them to. Nothing better illustrates the problems they're in than the way Richard Lugar was unseated in the primaries by a lunatic Tea Party candidate in Indiana. Lugar won with 87% of the vote last time around. This time the seat went to a Democrat. The people of Indiana evidently weren't thrilled with the new candidate the Republican party offered them. Edited November 7, 2012 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 The slow recovery in the US is a result of the situation elsewhere. The US started the problem, but there were problems in so many other places that made it impossible to recover quickly. That's backwards thinking. The problems in other places only arose because the US economy (ie. the global economy's engine) did not recover. Greece would not have a sovereign debt crisis if they weren't mired in negative growth for years. Greece`s growth is dependent on Eurozone and US growth. Realistically, they are interdependent. But you`re kidding yourself if you think the economy can`t correct itself without Greece solving its issues. Point is that the world economy could recover with or without Greece, but not without the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) That's backwards thinking. The problems in other places only arose because the US economy (ie. the global economy's engine) did not recover. Greece would not have a sovereign debt crisis if they weren't mired in negative growth for years. Greece`s growth is dependent on Eurozone and US growth. No, you're wrong. Europe had very similar and in some ways worse problems than the US ever did, and they didn't have a mechanism to fix it. The reason for the slow recovery is across the Atlantic. Realistically, they are interdependent. But you`re kidding yourself if you think the economy can`t correct itself without Greece solving its issues. Point is that the world economy could recover with or without Greece, but not without the US. It was never about Greece itself. It was about the chain reaction that Greece could cause. The US started it, then it went to Europe, and then it spread around the world, and back to the US. Absolutely none of that was Obama's doing. Without the stimulus and the bailout, it would have been worse. Edited November 7, 2012 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 I think everyone is still missing the point.... Yeah they are doing it intentionally SC. Dont worry, your point is not lost on the folks that actually made an honest attempt to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Yeah they are doing it intentionally SC. Dont worry, your point is not lost on the folks that actually made an honest attempt to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 No, you're wrong. Europe had very similar and in some ways worse problems than the US ever did, and they didn't have a mechanism to fix it. The reason for the slow recovery is across the Atlantic. It was never about Greece itself. It was about the chain reaction that Greece could cause. This is exactly right, and the real worry is that the exposure that the European Central Bank has to portugese, spanish, and greek debt is big enough to cause a debt crisis of the ECB itself, and that hits everyone. The system is real stability issues and anyone that still thinks of economies as being national is kidding themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 ...Realistically, they are interdependent. But you`re kidding yourself if you think the economy can`t correct itself without Greece solving its issues. Point is that the world economy could recover with or without Greece, but not without the US. Agreed....pre-Obama TARP funds did not come from the EU, or Greece, or Canada, but banks from all these places benefited from US action to keep credit markets alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 I saw some "highlights" from the FOX News coverage last night. Hilarious. They questioned the results like the questioned tHe polls or the Bureau of Statistics' unemployment numbers! So funny.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 I saw some "highlights" from the FOX News coverage last night. Hilarious. They questioned the results like the questioned tHe polls or the Bureau of Statistics' unemployment numbers! So funny.... I'm surprised they didn't claim victory and say Obama's win was just the liberal media's biased interpretation if the vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 The Republicans need to move back towards the centre, but I don't expect them to. Nothing better illustrates the problems they're in than the way Richard Lugar was unseated in the primaries by a lunatic Tea Party candidate in Indiana. Lugar won with 87% of the vote last time around. This time the seat went to a Democrat. The people of Indiana evidently weren't thrilled with the new candidate the Republican party offered them. Agreed. Republicans babbling about "legitimate rapes" and rape caused pregnancies being part of G-d's plan are in an alternate reality. They took down Romney who himself would have been a major asset to the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 Romney who himself would have been a major asset to 1% of the country. FTFY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 That's true of all people in every country for the most part, until it's not. Canadians like to be lied to just as much as Americans. Speak for yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 Romney's own uncaring attitude, lack of tax honesty and 47% comments sunk him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.