No end in sight

[IndyBrit]

[quote=""wicked_assassin""][quote=""IndyBrit""][quote=""Sporting_Lisbon""]Yes, europeans shouldn't trust so much in the american government right? :p[/quote]

Europeans should not trust the U.S. government. They should also not trust the European governments.[/quote]

The us goverment = untrustwhorty for any european. it doesn't matter what president they have. Ecomical crisis is also for the larger part the fault of the american fincancial sector. So american institutions = don't trust them.

i'm not speaking about the common american of cource

indy you can't really begin to talk about a person opinions who existed 2000 years ago. The information about chirst is to limited.[/quote]

American institutions are created by Americans, so although you don't mean to be, and although individual Americans don't like the responsibility, you are talking about "common" Americans.

The American government seems untrustworthy to many Europeans because they often put us in that position. The Europeans don't want to do something, but they know America will do it, so they let the Americans step in to do it and then denigrate them for doing it. I'm not talking about the common European, of course. I would like to hear your view on what is so untrustworthy about the American government as far as Europeans go. My history books are not replete with America screwing Europe, but that's probably just the biased text I got from my American government school.

I'm curious to hear the argument that the economical crisis is the fault of the American financial sector. I know that's what the news says, but the news is largely crap (can a Briton let me know if I spelled that correctly ) and a news report is not evidence. How exactly is America responsible for the global crisis?

Agreed about the Christ bit - it's pretty much flagrant speculation from here. I would note that I didn't "begin" the Christ speculation.

[LaZy]

[quote=""IndyBrit""].. crap (can a Briton let me know if I spelled that correctly )..
[/quote]

Not being a Briton I had 2 ask 4 help

shyte
shyt
crap
crap

hope this helps

out

PS Im glad that this post has ended in crap

[huGGy]

The thing i'd like to add is: There is no "the American" or "the European". Every medal has two sides. Definitely something went horribly wrong in the finance sector in the US (which translated to all other countries). But without allowing people to get cheap credits there wouldn't be such a strong export from the European Countries into the US (especially Germanys export benefit from it). Also you can't compare the United States with Europe or in my case Germany. German people usually save their money and are really doubtful when buying new (expensive) things like cars or so. The cheap credits in the US obviously made some people believe that it's worthwhile leasing 2 or 3 cars, they couldn't really pay in a long term (This is just an Example to make you understand what i wanted to point out here). I don't say A or B is better, but the thinking of some people is different. Also if Germany piles up depts, it's getting watched by whole Europe. So the country can't do or offer as much as the United States. I'm still not sure if it's good to support the economy with so much money like planned now. Giving money always lowers the value of a currency in the long run, but maybe it's better than doing nothing. What really sucks is the fact that some well payed bank-managers don't want the state to interfere in their business, but as soon as everything went down (after firing 10.000 of people of course), they are crying for help. I'm not really down with Adam Smith here. I think the state should manage banks who proved they couldn't handle so much responsibility.


"I'm curious to hear the argument that the economical crisis is the fault of the American financial sector. I know that's what the news says, but the news is largely crap (can a Briton let me know if I spelled that correctly Razz ) and a news report is not evidence. How exactly is America responsible for the global crisis?"

It's not only the American financial sector, but it's the strongest, so their mistakes weigh way (hrhr) heavier than others. The stocks went high, because people bought a lot of things (cheap credits), but the employment didn't grow with it, because the goods were made in Asia. People couldn't pay their credits back, so the banks lost money they speculated with. Someday the whole selfmade stock-bubble exploded and the banks and other big companies lost a lot of money. And because the stock exchange is an international thingy everything broke down.

I'd like to write more detailed, but my english sucks. Therefore i'm sorry if some words aren't correct or hardly understandable.

[Soccerman771]

[quote=""IndyBrit""][quote=""wicked_assassin""][quote=""IndyBrit""][quote=""Sporting_Lisbon""]Yes, europeans shouldn't trust so much in the american government right? :p[/quote]

Europeans should not trust the U.S. government. They should also not trust the European governments.[/quote]

The us goverment = untrustwhorty for any european. it doesn't matter what president they have. Ecomical crisis is also for the larger part the fault of the american fincancial sector. So american institutions = don't trust them.

i'm not speaking about the common american of cource

indy you can't really begin to talk about a person opinions who existed 2000 years ago. The information about chirst is to limited.[/quote]

American institutions are created by Americans, so although you don't mean to be, and although individual Americans don't like the responsibility, you are talking about "common" Americans.

The American government seems untrustworthy to many Europeans because they often put us in that position. The Europeans don't want to do something, but they know America will do it, so they let the Americans step in to do it and then denigrate them for doing it. I'm not talking about the common European, of course. I would like to hear your view on what is so untrustworthy about the American government as far as Europeans go. My history books are not replete with America screwing Europe, but that's probably just the biased text I got from my American government school.

I'm curious to hear the argument that the economical crisis is the fault of the American financial sector. I know that's what the news says, but the news is largely crap (can a Briton let me know if I spelled that correctly ) and a news report is not evidence. How exactly is America responsible for the global crisis?

Agreed about the Christ bit - it's pretty much flagrant speculation from here. I would note that I didn't "begin" the Christ speculation.[/quote]

A friend I went to High School with that now lives on an U.S. military base in England says that they don't even teach about the American Revolution over there.... I guess it didn't happen.

[Hydrovert5]

I personally think the United States government gets involved in far too many European issues. Not only that, but the British government is willing to follow them on almost every situation.

When the United States went to war with Iraq, it was claimed that it was due to speculaton that Iraq had WoMD - This was never proved. It was/is also well-known that at the present time the United States has problem with oil reserves, and Iraq is a motherload of the stuff. Not to mention that the United Kingdom walked blindly into the war without reason, aside from the relations with the United States.

Now I don't watch politics TV channels or anything, but to this day I still don't understand why the UK follows the US in relation to wars, etc.

[Soccerman771]

[quote=""Hydrovert5""]I personally think the United States government gets involved in far too many European issues. Not only that, but the British government is willing to follow them on almost every situation.

When the United States went to war with Iraq, it was claimed that it was due to speculaton that Iraq had WoMD - This was never proved. It was/is also well-known that at the present time the United States has problem with oil reserves, and Iraq is a motherload of the stuff. Not to mention that the United Kingdom walked blindly into the war without reason, aside from the relations with the United States.

Now I don't watch politics TV channels or anything, but to this day I still don't understand why the UK follows the US in relation to wars, etc.[/quote]

Because we bailed you out of this little skirmish that happened about 60 years ago. As an American, it actually feels nice to know that we have at least one world power we can count on to "have our back".

You know, we may not have found WMD's in Iraq after 2003, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have them and/or use them against people in the past. Plus that was only 1/3 of the cause for 1441 and the reason for removing the regime.

There's also the very interesting theory that they were moved prior to invasion. [link]http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... shtml?s=lh[/link]

If they were infact moved then that would state why Russia and France were against the invasion since that's some of the origin of the WMD's, allegedly.

Agree or disagree - doesn't matter to me. We may not like how it was handled and what is going on over there now, but the world will be a better place in 20-30 years without Saddam being over there and with free elections in the middle east. Also, someone please tell me the last time a major government was overthrown by means of war and the casualties of the invading army (coalition) were less than 10,000....

[Hydrovert5]

Actually, the US did very little in regard to World Wars 1 & 2.

During #1, they only helped out at Juno/Sword beach in Normandy, and were quickly driven back by the Germans.

During #2, They helped Britain with regards to supplies and munitions but even then the cost was sky-high because of the Wall Street Crash ten years earlier, the US was still recovering by then.

So yes, the United States did help back then, but not by a great deal.

[Soccerman771]

[quote=""Hydrovert5""]Actually, the US did very little in regard to World Wars 1 & 2.

During #1, they only helped out at Juno/Sword beach in Normandy, and were quickly driven back by the Germans.

During #2, They helped Britain with regards to supplies and munitions but even then the cost was sky-high because of the Wall Street Crash ten years earlier, the US was still recovering by then.

So yes, the United States did help back then, but not by a great deal.[/quote]

Without the US, you would have lost both . Maybe not WWI as we entered far too late, but we helped decide the outcome.

I cannot believe you don't think the US had a MAJOR part in winning WWII. From supplies to intelligence, to strategy and then pure man-power we did just as much to win the war than anyone else in Europe (actually, we did a lot more). Many of the European armies were bolstered simply from our maintaining and increasing the supply-lines to feed the front-lines (which is actually what won the war - the bad guys ran out of gas and bullets). Just think of it this way - we had more vils and less idle vils than the bad guys.

[danno527]

[quote=""Hydrovert5""]Actually, the US did very little in regard to World Wars 1 & 2.

During #1, they only helped out at Juno/Sword beach in Normandy, and were quickly driven back by the Germans.

During #2, They helped Britain with regards to supplies and munitions but even then the cost was sky-high because of the Wall Street Crash ten years earlier, the US was still recovering by then.

So yes, the United States did help back then, but not by a great deal.[/quote]

I'd say that is true for world war 1, the allies were on there way to winning by the time the Americans joined. The Americans joining in World Was 1 saved many thousands of Allied and German lives by hastening the end of the war, so i would say we can thank them for that.

BTW, The Normandy invasion was in WWII not WWI. The American beaches in the Normandy invasion were Utah and Omaha. Sword beach was a British beach and Juno was the Canadian beach(i might add the only one to accomplish all its objectives and get 15 km inland).

If the Americans had not joined in WWII it could have ended very differently. The Brits and co could not have handled the Japanese on there own. If the Japanese had not gotten distracted by the Americans the Russians would probably have been attacked and would have had a 2 front war ( you got to remember the Japanese had Nags which absolutely eat strelets for lunch). Even if it would have ended the same, it saved the lives of a lot of people by making the war shorter.

[huGGy]

Well actually Germany lost itself by attacking 3 borders the same time. The war was lost in Russia, where Russia managed to defend Stalingrad. The weather and the lack of supplies helped there. The german troops had to retreat and Russia started to attack. The US Troops definitely brang the war to an earlier end, but at this point nearly all the Ressources (military and human) were needed in Russia and North Africa. Nevertheless i'm glad the US interefered and helped to stop this massacre.

[Hydrovert5]

The Japanese never attacked the British.

Ever.

They simply left the League of Nations because they condemned Japan's invasion of Manchuria.

[danno527]

[quote=""Hydrovert5""]The Japanese never attacked the British.

Ever.

They simply left the League of Nations because they condemned Japan's invasion of Manchuria.[/quote]
On December 8 1941 the japanese attacked Hong Kong(British). They Japanese also sunk several Brithish warships in 1941/1942. Dont quote me on this but i think the Japanese captured Singapore which was a british colony.Plus i was talking to one of my friends Grandpa's recently and he seems to remember opening the bomb bay doors on the Japanese. He was in the RCAF which operated out of Burma with the British.

[quote=""HuggyPierre""]Well actually Germany lost itself by attacking 3 borders the same time. The war was lost in Russia, where Russia managed to defend Stalingrad. The weather and the lack of supplies helped there. The german troops had to retreat and Russia started to attack. The US Troops definitely brang the war to an earlier end, but at this point nearly all the Ressources (military and human) were needed in Russia and North Africa. Nevertheless i'm glad the US interefered and helped to stop this massacre.[/quote]
Absolutly right, the Nazis didnt take into account Germany's pop<Russia, Britain,Canada and all the other allies. They should have shipped palantine settlements

[IndyBrit]

Stock markets around the world don't collapse because the U.S. stock market collapses. Those stock markets collaps if the companies traded on those markets are similarly overvalued. The collapse of the U.S. market may be the trigger for those companies to be properly valued.

U.S. debt levels prior to our recent stimulus orgy in Washington were very similar to debt levels in European countries. I don't know exactly what European countries are doing, but given that they're joining us in the stimulus orgy I'm going to guess that will remain the case. If Germans are saving so much money, why are they in trouble with the rest of us? In fact, Germans save at similar rates to many other countries, they run a few points higher than the U.S., and they've tracked with the U.S. Japan's savings rates were the highest in the industrial world during their "lost decade" of the 1990s. (data: http://research.stlouisfed.org/publicat ... /cover.pdf )

The notion that savings rates are good indicators of economic health is popular but not necessarily factual. Personal savings are an indication of economic inefficiency. If people have nothing useful to do with their money, they save it. It's a great buffer to intermittent income streams that don't match up with steady expenses, but it's nevertheless inefficient. Therefore, savings can be too high if consumers are either inappropriately cautious or if times are dicey and consumers are appropriately cautious. Savings rates are going to soar during this crisis, and that will delay the recovery (although it will be a necessary step at the individual level), because saved money must filter through a middle man before true investment in the economy causing inefficiency.

The World is more like the U.S. than they care to admit. We become the poster child for bad behavior, but everyone is going into this with us because they practiced the same bad behaviors as us. European countries over-lent to bad creditors and had a housing bubble just like us, it's not our housing bubble they are suffering through it is their own.

Japan, the second largest economy in the world, had an enormous crisis in the 90s without anyone following along, so it doesn't follow that country A crashes dragging country B along with it, even with extensive ties between A and B.

[IndyBrit]

@Hydrovert: your statements are too far removed from reality to have a meaningful discussion. I strenuously disagree.

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

A friend I went to High School with that now lives on an U.S. military base in England says that they don't even teach about the American Revolution over there.... I guess it didn't happen.[/quote]

Good heavens, man, there was no "revolution" in the colonies. Piracy, mere piracy and brigrandry, I tell you, was all it was

Signed,

HRH Robert Lord Cornwallis VI, great-great-grandson of General Lord Cornwallis