114 replies to this topic

[punked]

If so, whats your point? Far better we should borrow money to bail out the Euro than they should have to do it themselves?

France wants Eurobonds so they can do it themselves and that is clearly one solution. Maybe that is what we should be talking about instead of having the argument we are having. That is my point. All the people in this thread making accusations about the Euro countries being like drunks or whatever are not helping or contributing to the solution of what could a large scale global economic collapse. It is something that needs real discussion not the disservice provided in this thread.

[Wilber]

If a bailout comes it wont be for France it will be for Spain or some other PIIGS. At this point in time this argument needs not be about the Welfare state in Europe. It needs to be about the Canadian economy. Europe goes tits up oil goes below 80 dollars a barrel so we can say good by to the tarsands until that goes up. They have already closed the development of the second Pot Ash mine in Sask. Commodities go underwater and we are screwed aren't we? Not to mention manufacturing will be decreasing and so on. I am not saying we should give them Billions. I am saying framing the argument the way you guys are and acting as if there will be no repercussions to us is clearly wrong.

What we are witnessing is the repercussions of living too far above their means for too long. If that doesn't change, all we could do is delay the screwing at our own expense.

I agree with Argus, if countries like France aren't prepared to make any sacrifices of their government spending to ward off disaster in the Euro zone, why should we care or expect that we could make any real difference in the eventual outcome.

Edited by Wilber, 09 June 2012 - 12:32 PM.

[capricorn]

A good article that covers a lot of bases.

http://www.washingto...7OxU_story.html

[westguy]

Mulcair in the commons demands that we borrow billions of dollars and give it, not loan ,but give it to the private rich euro bankers, because it is our duty. And at the same time give kadr a mil or 2 while we are at it.

of course, its not Mulcair's money

[punked]

What we are witnessing is the repercussions of living too far above their means for too long. If that doesn't change, all we could do is delay the screwing at our own expense.

I agree with Argus, if countries like France aren't prepared to make any sacrifices of their government spending to ward off disaster in the Euro zone, why should we care or expect that we could make any real difference in the eventual outcome.

No that is not what is going on. Sorry again you are taking a very complex situation and trying to turn it into some sort of moral argument. France is in they are throwing money into the kitty so I don't know where you get this idea that they aren't ready to make sacrifices? Seriously I thought we learned something from the depression but I guess not.

Who cares how a country got into some mess, if not helping them means 15% unemployment in Canada (I am not saying this will happen) but that was the question then I would go with helping them. This is the debate we should be having when is the point we help? When Canadian GDP shrinks by say 5%? When are you willing to throw in or is your moral argument above all that?

[westguy]

France just LOWERED its retirement age from 62 back to 60. Apparently, as far as the French are concerned, there's really no problem.

Meanwhile, we just RAISED our retirement age to 67. Do you seriously think we ought to give these people money so they can retire seven years earlier than us? Never mind the fact that, since we still have a deficit, we'd have to borrow the money!

great point

[punked]

great point

But it isn't a great point at all. If it was a great point then France wouldn't be able to borrow at record low rates. It is simple point that ignores all the details what we are talking about thus it plays to your belief system.

Edited by punked, 09 June 2012 - 12:43 PM.

[gunrutz]

But it isn't a great point at all. If it was a great point then France wouldn't be able to borrow at record low rates. It is simple point that ignores all the details what we are talking about thus it plays to your belief system.

Sometimes people like to over complicate things, if we send money to europe, are we not sending money to europe? If that is money we don't have will we not have to borrow it?

I dont understand why we should pay to help countries that have better benefits than we do. It could be argued that we should have better benefits too, but that isn't the current reality.

[punked]

Sometimes people like to over complicate things, if we send money to europe, are we not sending money to europe? If that is money we don't have will we not have to borrow it?

I dont understand why we should pay to help countries that have better benefits than we do. It could be argued that we should have better benefits too, but that isn't the current reality.

My question is what is the price for not sending our money to Europe and if the price we pay is more then sending the money then are we just punishing our selves? Why is no one addressing this?

[Signals.Cpl]

My question is what is the price for not sending our money to Europe and if the price we pay is more then sending the money then are we just punishing our selves? Why is no one addressing this?

Because its a stopgap measure, nothing permanent. I'm all for avoiding economic hardship for us by helping the EU but we need to assured that there will not be a repetition of this in a few years.

[Wild Bill]

My question is what is the price for not sending our money to Europe and if the price we pay is more then sending the money then are we just punishing our selves? Why is no one addressing this?

So you are saying that it is in our own interest to give them money so that they can enjoy a lot more stat holidays than we do?

BTW, Harper was seeking more trade with Europe because up till now we do very little. If Europe goes under perhaps our low volume of trade with them would mean the effect on our economy would not be as large as you suggest.

I still don't understand all the ramifications of your argument. It seems to me that you are suggesting that simply keeping a lot of trade activity happening is all that is important. If that were all that was necessary for a successful economy couldn't we just draft everyone into the Post Office and grow rich sending letters to each other?

Someone needs to sell. That someone needs to get paid. If he has to give a debtor the money to pay him back I don't see how that can work. If the debtor can pay his debts with devalued dollars I don't see how that can work either.

And I still think that we all have an obligation not to take on more debt than we can afford. Did those European bankers put guns to the head of Greek politicians and FORCE them to borrow their money?

[punked]

Because its a stopgap measure, nothing permanent. I'm all for avoiding economic hardship for us by helping the EU but we need to assured that there will not be a repetition of this in a few years.

Not sure how you can claim this. Europe took on much much more debt after WW2 and still paid all of that off.

[Signals.Cpl]

Not sure how you can claim this. Europe took on much much more debt after WW2 and still paid all of that off.

I wonder why they need our money then...

[punked]

So you are saying that it is in our own interest to give them money so that they can enjoy a lot more stat holidays than we do?

BTW, Harper was seeking more trade with Europe because up till now we do very little. If Europe goes under perhaps our low volume of trade with them would mean the effect on our economy would not be as large as you suggest.

I still don't understand all the ramifications of your argument. It seems to me that you are suggesting that simply keeping a lot of trade activity happening is all that is important. If that were all that was necessary for a successful economy couldn't we just draft everyone into the Post Office and grow rich sending letters to each other?

Someone needs to sell. That someone needs to get paid. If he has to give a debtor the money to pay him back I don't see how that can work. If the debtor can pay his debts with devalued dollars I don't see how that can work either.

And I still think that we all have an obligation not to take on more debt than we can afford. Did those European bankers put guns to the head of Greek politicians and FORCE them to borrow their money?

Yes you have made it quite clear with your post off example that you don't understand what I am saying. I am not saying that we need to bail out Europe but I am saying that if every Organization in the whole world cuts back at the same time we enter a depression. The world economy is not a delicate thing but if the whole world tires hard enough we can all starve I assure you. Demand drives economies and not all nations that are in trouble got there by spending government money. Again Ireland and Spain (the problem right now) got there by deregulating their banking sectors and letting them run wild and free.

[punked]

I wonder why they need our money then...

Come on. Again I ask you do we ever throw in? What did it take to get out of the last depression? Lots of government spending. Now I think our government should spend it here and not over there but it needs to happen.