Europeans want economic results, not more grand speeches from Obama

[Munin]

No, Annie is dead on. The US did not create the problem for Europeans, they did themselves. Western European banks took dominant roles in lending in Eastern Europe. They began to give mortgages and other loans at low interest as long as it was dominated by euros, swiss francs and yen. This worked out well until the Polish zloty alnd the Hungarian forint fell in value, and Italian, Austrian and Swedish banks suffered the defaults.

BTW, all the talk about how Europe hated Bush and his policies, did you notice Blair remaining in power during the Bush years, the French dumping Chirac for a pro-American, and Schroeder replaced by the more pro-American Merkel. Explain?

No the lending to the eastern european Nations is not the key issue, that lending would have been possible if the liquidity in the market hadn't changed. The problem with the europeans is that european banks were as much unregulated as the american banks (altough this will not be acknowledged by many europeans, they re so glad they can use the US as a scapegoat ), many european banks have the same toxic assets that the american banks have because they started acting more and more like american banks. One of the best examples of this is the Belgian bank "Fortis".


Ask any french guy if they elected Sarkozy because he was pro-american, you ll soon know that your statement is irrelevant. If anything, their election was despite being more pro-american than their predecessors. The world doesn't revolve around the US, you ll notice that if you travel some more around the world. In europe people don't elect people because they are pro- or anti- american, it is the same about the US: americans don't elect people because they are pro-european (this time it was just coincidence that it was a pro-european candidate, the same could be said about european elections).

 

[Munin]

. That is why the republicans are so eager to blame it on the democrats, "the dems controlled the house" is something I ve heard many times ... but they forget to mention that the white house controls a lot of the economic tools to manage a crisis (why do you think one of its plans was called "the paulson plan", it s certainly not because the house or congress had designed it).

excuses, excuses, ... they re no good.

I didn't see you include the following in your explanation of "economic tools":

Starting in 1938, GSE's Fannie and Freddie, CRA, Clinton HUD pressure on banks, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. How many are Democrats "tools"?

Try all.

good point,

but isn't the effectiveness of a tool determined by the person who uses it? If you miss a target with your gun, you can't keep blaming "the gun" for missing the target. Although I agree that there are institutions that have proved to be useless.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, Annie is dead on. The US did not create the problem for Europeans, they did themselves. Western European banks took dominant roles in lending in Eastern Europe. They began to give mortgages and other loans at low interest as long as it was dominated by euros, swiss francs and yen. This worked out well until the Polish zloty alnd the Hungarian forint fell in value, and Italian, Austrian and Swedish banks suffered the defaults.

BTW, all the talk about how Europe hated Bush and his policies, did you notice Blair remaining in power during the Bush years, the French dumping Chirac for a pro-American, and Schroeder replaced by the more pro-American Merkel. Explain?

No the lending to the eastern european Nations is not the key issue, that lending would have been possible if the liquidity in the market hadn't changed. The problem with the europeans is that european banks were as much unregulated as the american banks (altough this will not be acknowledged by many europeans, they re so glad they can use the US as a scapegoat ), many european banks have the same toxic assets that the american banks have because they started acting more and more like american banks. One of the best examples of this is the Belgian bank "Fortis".


Ask any french guy if they elected Sarkozy because he was pro-american, you ll soon know that your statement is irrelevant. If anything, their election was despite being more pro-american than their predecessors. The world doesn't revolve around the US, you ll notice that if you travel some more around the world. In europe people don't elect people because they are pro- or anti- american, it is the same about the US: americans don't elect people because they are pro-european (this time it was just coincidence that it was a pro-european candidate, the same could be said about european elections).

Your argument falls apart when you tell me to "Ask any french guy..." Politicians use arguments that they feel will win with the public. Chirac and Schroeder, who you chose not to mention- or should I "ask any German guy..." both made it clear how they felt about President Bush, and they lost.


"The world doesn't revolve around the US, you ll notice that if you travel some more around the world."
You don't know where I've traveled, do you? And the world does revolve around the US, which is 30% of the world economy, and has always taken the leading roll in protecting, aiding and liberating others. Does that bother you Europeans?

Why do I have the sense that you have carved out the "i am the european expert" niche, and will brook no questioning thereof? Well, you will find that Americans, other than liberals, don't brook being talked down to. Get it?

Be advised, Stratfor, second only to the CIA in global intelligence for the public, takes the opposite view that you do:
"Paralleling this is the issue of how to deal with the Central European financial crisis. Toxic U.S. assets did not create this problem, internal European practices did. Western European banks took dominant positions in Eastern Europe in the past decade. They began to offer mortgages and other loans at low interest rates denominated in euros, Swiss francs and yen. This was an outstanding deal unless the Polish zloty and the Hungarian forint were to plunge in value, which they have over the past six months. Loan payments soared, massive defaults happened, and Italian, Austrian and Swedish banks were left holding the bag."

STRATFOR - Geopolitical intelligence, economic, political, and military strategic forecasting | STRATFOR

 

[Andrew2382]

maybe he will make a speech from the roman coliseum next time to calm them down

 

[Munin]

No the lending to the eastern european Nations is not the key issue, that lending would have been possible if the liquidity in the market hadn't changed. The problem with the europeans is that european banks were as much unregulated as the american banks (altough this will not be acknowledged by many europeans, they re so glad they can use the US as a scapegoat ), many european banks have the same toxic assets that the american banks have because they started acting more and more like american banks. One of the best examples of this is the Belgian bank "Fortis".


Ask any french guy if they elected Sarkozy because he was pro-american, you ll soon know that your statement is irrelevant. If anything, their election was despite being more pro-american than their predecessors. The world doesn't revolve around the US, you ll notice that if you travel some more around the world. In europe people don't elect people because they are pro- or anti- american, it is the same about the US: americans don't elect people because they are pro-european (this time it was just coincidence that it was a pro-european candidate, the same could be said about european elections).

Your argument falls apart when you tell me to "Ask any french guy..." Politicians use arguments that they feel will win with the public. Chirac and Schroeder, who you chose not to mention- or should I "ask any German guy..." both made it clear how they felt about President Bush, and they lost.


"The world doesn't revolve around the US, you ll notice that if you travel some more around the world."
You don't know where I've traveled, do you? And the world does revolve around the US, which is 30% of the world economy, and has always taken the leading roll in protecting, aiding and liberating others. Does that bother you Europeans?

Why do I have the sense that you have carved out the "i am the european expert" niche, and will brook no questioning thereof? Well, you will find that Americans, other than liberals, don't brook being talked down to. Get it?

I didn't mean to offend you, clearly I should have said it in a better way. It is just that it is so obvious that the french or the german or almost any other nation on this planet (except Israel maybe) would not elect a president because he is pro Bush (because Bush was president at the time of their elections). That is the reason why I said "ask any french guy", because it is so obvious that the majority of the french are opposed to Bush (which is also the reason why France & Germany firmly opposed the war in Iraq, they even tried to stop the americans for doing it by pressuring the US diplomaticly).

My point: you don't elect a politician because he is pro-american (in europe) or because he is pro-european (in the US). I don't think that you believe that americans elected Obama because he is pro-european, or do you? That is what I tried to say.

Be advised, Stratfor, second only to the CIA in global intelligence for the public, takes the opposite view that you do:
"Paralleling this is the issue of how to deal with the Central European financial crisis. Toxic U.S. assets did not create this problem, internal European practices did. Western European banks took dominant positions in Eastern Europe in the past decade. They began to offer mortgages and other loans at low interest rates denominated in euros, Swiss francs and yen. This was an outstanding deal unless the Polish zloty and the Hungarian forint were to plunge in value, which they have over the past six months. Loan payments soared, massive defaults happened, and Italian, Austrian and Swedish banks were left holding the bag."

STRATFOR - Geopolitical intelligence, economic, political, and military strategic forecasting | STRATFOR

Yes that is a good point that you referred to, but it also doesn't apply to the whole of Europe (while many european banks that were not related to the eastern europeans lending also had financial problems, those problems were caused by investments in the US). Also many of those banks only got in trouble after the crisis started, as you pointed out in the article: the banks will have a problem if the currency drops in value. The dropping in value of their currencies was a result of the global crisis. In other words, if the financial crisis wouldn't have started these banks wouldn't have had a problem with the currencies that are plunging.

 

[American Horse]

The speeches are getting old.

His comments are get old; even while you watch them. When he made his duel appearance with Merkel in Europe I was doing my daily "elliptic" excercise so I had a clock to watch at the same time I watched the President make his comments. During about six minutes of his statement he averaged "uhhh" once every ten seconds. However this is an improvement. A few weeks back for his last evening press conference (the one with the billboard sized teleprompter) he averaged an "Uhh" Every Nine Seconds, so there is some improvement in his performance since his last presser. And he should be improving by now.....it really grates on the patience, and hurts his message.