Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It appears that they may be getting ready go bail out some of the hard up European countries which may be a good deal for the US. The real problem for the EU is that China is not really ready to take over shepherding the Europeans economies like the US has. It gets more and more interesting. I wonder when Obama will approach China about the rest of our annual deficit.
If China bails out Europe, there will be a cost for it, a quid pro quo. It won't be free.
So, what will Europe have to do in return? That's easy...support China against the Obama administration. Obama is trying to take China to the woodshed over their trade practices, currency manipulations, meddling in Afghanistan and Pakistan and over their unwillingness to restrain North Korea. It's long, long overdue, but he's not getting much help from Europe or the GOP here at home, both of which have long, deep, profitable ties with China.
If China bails out Europe, there will be a cost for it, a quid pro quo. It won't be free.
So, what will Europe have to do in return? That's easy...support China against the Obama administration. Obama is trying to take China to the woodshed over their trade practices, currency manipulations, meddling in Afghanistan and Pakistan and over their unwillingness to restrain North Korea. It's long, long overdue, but he's not getting much help from Europe or the GOP here at home, both of which have long, deep, profitable ties with China.
That's about to get worse.
I failed to see anything about strings attached to the money in that article. However, I am just as sure as you are that the strings will be there. I wonder why the Greeks didn't take them up immediately. It could have been a desire to avoid those strings and a hope that the EU would bail them out and keep them free of China.
I also wonder how many "sick" countries of Europe the EU will be able to bail out. Portugal, Ireland and a couple of others are ready to be bailed out and the EU will surely come to an end soon enough as far as bailout money is concerned.
Why did it take 2 years for Obama to start the program you suggest? For some reason I think his economists misled him for some time about the situation and now it gets to be the fault of the Republicans only. I am having trouble understanding that after 2 years Obama is finally coming around.
Well, they've been bailing out the US by buying our bond paper&keeping international trust in the dollar afloat (our last bastion of economic power), why not buy Europe now? I think at some point we might see them bailing out individual US states that they have most interest in. California comes first to mind... They are also buying up (via 'investement') South America and Africa like nobody's business. And you can BET there will be strings attached... Primarily for raw resources (mines, oil rigs)
I failed to see anything about strings attached to the money in that article. However, I am just as sure as you are that the strings will be there. I wonder why the Greeks didn't take them up immediately. It could have been a desire to avoid those strings and a hope that the EU would bail them out and keep them free of China.
I also wonder how many "sick" countries of Europe the EU will be able to bail out. Portugal, Ireland and a couple of others are ready to be bailed out and the EU will surely come to an end soon enough as far as bailout money is concerned.
Why did it take 2 years for Obama to start the program you suggest? For some reason I think his economists misled him for some time about the situation and now it gets to be the fault of the Republicans only. I am having trouble understanding that after 2 years Obama is finally coming around.
I can't say why it took so long, but there are a couple of good possibilities:
1. He couldn't do everything at once. There has to be prioritization or nothing will get done.
2. Once in office, he finally understood the tight connections between American corporations and China which are hurting America.
3. The price of Hillary's support after the primaries was the inclusion of her people inside his inner circle and they've been advising him not to. As I've said many times, and the record bears me out, there is no difference between a Clinton Democrat and a Bush Republican. They are two sides of the same corporate coin, beholden to the same masters who don't want their profitable deals with China interrupted.
Of course, they run the danger of overextending themselves like the US has, but they've been around for over 6000 years as an empire and a very successful one at that, and know how to pace themselves based on their intake.
Besides, they are a nation of savers and have a real manufacturing economy that has the entire world 'on the hook', and are not all based on bubbles, cheap credit and shaky service industries like us. They have almost religious respect for the money they actually make and thrift is ingrained in the culture including the leadership.
I can't say why it took so long, but there are a couple of good possibilities:
1. He couldn't do everything at once. There has to be prioritization or nothing will get done.
2. Once in office, he finally understood the tight connections between American corporations and China which are hurting America.
3. The price of Hillary's support after the primaries was the inclusion of her people inside his inner circle and they've been advising him not to. As I've said many times, and the record bears me out, there is no difference between a Clinton Democrat and a Bush Republican. They are two sides of the same corporate coin, beholden to the same masters who don't want their profitable deals with China interrupted.
He couldn't do everything at once but he had promised something to do about jobs and he showed soon that he couldn't have that as a priority. You know all the things he put in as main priorities that had nothing to do with jobs and the maintenance of our economy. He pushed for government ownership of all those necessary businesses and so forth.
Once in office he understood not anything at all about tight connections between China and our corporations. If he had he would have tried to do something like he seems to be trying to do now. Two years later he is trying to do something, or appear to be doing so. If he had recognized this two years ago he surely could have prioritized fixing it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
