• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Military cuts to leave Britain with weaker armed forces

Europe has embraced socialism and are reaping its "rewards" now.

We're socially minded - that means we try to take everyone along as a society rather than have a "dog eat dog" approach to others less fortunate.
I won't pretend Europe is a paradise but as Jetboogieman points out - neither is the US.
 
The Euro nations feeling most pain are those most involved in the American capitalist casino crash.

Err no, not even close. Almost at every level most European countries are doing far better than the US, with of course a few exceptions like Ireland and Greece.
 
A lack of fiscal conservatism is the reason for all of our troubles. Clearly the rest of the world thought it wise to follow along with the typical Anglo-Saxon approach of "borrow now, hope to have the money to pay it back later". THATS what led to our crash, not welfare systems.
 
A lack of fiscal conservatism is the reason for all of our troubles. Clearly the rest of the world thought it wise to follow along with the typical Anglo-Saxon approach of "borrow now, hope to have the money to pay it back later". THATS what led to our crash, not welfare systems.

While I agree that countries could use some common sense fiscal conservatism to cut the public budgets (there is a lot of waste imo), I disagree that it is some sort of mirical cure for what troubles Europe is in, since those troubles are for the most part not self inflicted (depends on which country we are talking about of course).

First off our "crash" only came because of the US crash. Had there been no US crash, then there had been no European crash. And crash is a harsh word when we are talking about Europe as a whole. Each country in Europe has had different reactions to the crisis. Greece lied, so they got hurt big time on the credit markets which in turn meant the speculators targeted Greece for a quick buck and well you know the story. Ireland lived the American dream with cheap credit and booming housing and when that crashed well.. hello US 2.0. Spain relied far to much on the construction trade, and when credit in other European countries dried up and who provided much of the customers to the Spanish housing market then the Spanish construction market crashed. In the Baltic states, they had a flawed tax system based on massive growth and when the credit dried up and they were unable to loan money, the growth went negative and tax revenues dried up and they started to hurt. This repeated over much of Eastern Europe.

Like it or not, the "troubles" was caused by a drying up of credit in the world markets, which was caused by a frankly corrupt US sub-prime mortgage market and lack of regulation in the US. This caused our banks to have on its books a butt-load of toxic US assets that caused the credit markets to dry up because no one wanted to loan money out before they figured out what their own assets were valued. Every problem in Europe can pretty much be traced back to this trigger. Sure some issues are structural (Spain's dependence on the construction sector for example), but the trigger for the downturn was the US sub-prime crash and no amount of "fiscal conservatism" could have first prevented that (since conservative ideology caused the problem in the first place), nor lessened the blow to the European economies. In fact fiscal conservatism would most likely have made it far far far worse, since bail outs of European banks (the few that there were) would never have happened under such a policy. Just imagine if the UK banks were allowed to collapse....

But at the present putting in fiscal conservatism is nothing but an over reaction pushed forward by fearful populaces who's fear has been driven by popular media doom and gloom, but in reality is unwarranted in many places and frankly directly dangerous if we look at places like the UK. For example, the UK. Sure the deficit needs looking at, but at the cost of a recovery? Hell no. The UK economic numbers when we are talking debt, are still some of the best in Europe despite you lot borrowing like no tomorrow. Some growth in the economy and better tax collection with some cost saving would do wonders for the UK economy. But as it stands now, it will be massive cuts which in turn will hurt growth, which will have ripple effects across the economy. I read that up to 2 million private sector jobs plus half a million public sector jobs are at risk by the presented government cost cuts.

But the conservative movement has seen this as their time to finally push through ideological restructuring of the public sector to fit their world view and they are seizing this opportunity in almost every country they can. It is now they can push normally unpopular things through because of the threat of "economic doom" and they are doing as much as they can as fast as they can, since at some point European's will say "now wait a minute".
 
Do you really believe there would have been no crash if it wasn't for the American economy? Considering we was going down the exact same path as America, just on a much smaller scale, surely without America we would have only delayed the inevitable.
 
While I agree that countries could use some common sense fiscal conservatism to cut the public budgets (there is a lot of waste imo), I disagree that it is some sort of mirical cure for what troubles Europe is in, since those troubles are for the most part not self inflicted (depends on which country we are talking about of course).

First off our "crash" only came because of the US crash. Had there been no US crash, then there had been no European crash.

I strongly feel we were headed down the same route, that the crash and budget deficits here would have happened anyway. It was RBS and Northern Rock that lent foolishly without consideration of the risks. Many banks offered 100%+ mortgages offered to people when we all thought the housing bubble would go on forever.

That wasn't sub-prime as I understand it in the US but banks were still lending to whoever wished to borrow on the slightest of financial investigation.

I feel we would have crashed - there's been a growth in public sector to the tune of nearly a million since 2001 and no similar growth in the private sector, the banks lending recklessly etc.The question is the scale of the eventual crash, our banks follishly got involved with the US sub-prime market and that took the scale of the eventual crash to the atrsonomic figures we have now.

Neither Kaya nor Paris nor myself are discussing fiscal conservatism from the point of a miracle cure - but something that would have said "hang on, this looks too good to be true."

Credit dried up largely as a response to the crash in the US sub prime and we have all the other consequences which we now see.
 
Do you really believe there would have been no crash if it wasn't for the American economy? Considering we was going down the exact same path as America, just on a much smaller scale, surely without America we would have only delayed the inevitable.

Yes.

And we were not heading down the same path, because it is illegal (ironicly) to sell such sub-prime mortgages in Europe. We have regulations on such things here.

The reason Europe went into recession was because of the drying up of credit due to the toxic assets coming from the US and the fact if the US is in recession so is the rest of the planet. This made a snowball effect in some countries, like Ireland who had done a "US" by relying on economic growth based on getting more and more credit via higher housing prices. That is why Ireland is a basket case now. That is also why Spain is hurting since it relied so much on expats buying houses in Spain. Ironically it is also a positive, since not many Spanish could afford loans, hence the Spanish (major) banks are damn healthy. France, Germany, in part the UK and other nations had falling housing prices, but no where near the "toxic asset" problem of the US. Banks that were bailed out, more than often either catered to the lower end of the market or bought US toxic assets when they were a great revenue deal.

Plus most importantly, Europeans did not like American's (in the same amount) go out and re-mortgage their homes to live off the difference and Europeans had on average savings to help during the hard times.
 
I strongly feel we were headed down the same route, that the crash and budget deficits here would have happened anyway. It was RBS and Northern Rock that lent foolishly without consideration of the risks. Many banks offered 100%+ mortgages offered to people when we all thought the housing bubble would go on forever.

RBS and Northern Rock only happened because credit dried up and that they had played with credit default swaps and other toxic US assets. Remember before the crash, they were a great asset due to AAA ratings from the rating agencies. Add to the fact that Northern Rock provided mortgages to the lower end of the market, those first hit by any crisis (unemployment and so on). On top of that, banks often live short term on being able to get credit from other banks. And since the credit markets had frozen up due to the banks exposure to US toxic assets, then well. But yes, 100% loans.. stupid.

That wasn't sub-prime as I understand it in the US but banks were still lending to whoever wished to borrow on the slightest of financial investigation.

Not sure what you are getting at. The Sub-prime bubble in the US was on the private lending market which was unregulated. So any tom dick or harry could get a loan. In Europe (for the most part) house lending is regulated so not every tom dick and harry could get a loan. You needed a certain income and all that jazz. There was never a sub-prime situation in Europe. What happened was house prices fell and people who had re-mortgaged or just bought (at the peak) suddenly sat in a house worth less than the loan on it. And as always, the first to get hit in a recession are the low income earners who get fired first which was Northern Rocks problem. But yes, it was easier than "normal" to get a housing loan before the crash, but that does not mean everyone could get a loan.

I feel we would have crashed - there's been a growth in public sector to the tune of nearly a million since 2001 and no similar growth in the private sector, the banks lending recklessly etc.The question is the scale of the eventual crash, our banks follishly got involved with the US sub-prime market and that took the scale of the eventual crash to the atrsonomic figures we have now.

Oh I agree some what. But we have to be careful.... 25 countries in the EU, 50 in Europe, all with different stories. What is relevant for the UK is for example not for France or Denmark. For example, pre crisis, the Spanish economy was in surplus. The Danish unemployment was at a record low of around 2%. The Irish and Spanish "crash" was a given along with the Greek, but the rest.. doubtful.

Neither Kaya nor Paris nor myself are discussing fiscal conservatism from the point of a miracle cure - but something that would have said "hang on, this looks too good to be true."

I agree, but that is not fiscal conservatism, but common sense.. something conservatism often dont have! :) It is common sense that we could not drive our economies forward based on rising housing prices.. which is what the Irish and US did and in part the UK. It is common sense that a country cant rely over 30% of its economy on a building sector that caters to non nationals.... aka Spain. And so on and so on. So yes at some point those things have to come home to roost, but regardless of this, they were not the trigger of the current crisis... the US sub-prime fiasco was. And as long as credit was cheap and available, then the European issues were all just fine.

Credit dried up largely as a response to the crash in the US sub prime and we have all the other consequences which we now see.

Exactly. That in turn drove banks out of business (or nearly), resulted in companies have to fire people so not to go out of business, and the negative attitude in media and elsewhere, meant that pessimism set in all across Europe and the US which in turn mean people did not spend nearly as much. Now Europe is lucky here since it does not rely on consumer spending in the same way as the US, but it did and still has a huge impact on the US, which in turn drives down the rest of the planet. It is a chain reaction, all because of lack of regulation in the US sub-prime market.
 
RBS and Northern Rock only happened because credit dried up

There were many other reasons - RBS and Northern Rock also pursued unwise economic strategy and purchases - everyone thought things could carry on forever. Other banks in the UK were more cautious - if it was simply a case of US credit and sub-prime, more of our banks would have gone under. These two were the most reckless.

There was talk of 125% mortgages at Northern Rock at one time.

-- Not sure what you are getting at --snip-- as always, the first to get hit in a recession are the low income earners who get fired first which was Northern Rocks problem. But yes, it was easier than "normal" to get a housing loan before the crash, but that does not mean everyone could get a loan.

Believe me - as I had purchased my second house at this time, Northern Rock had very few qualifiers and checks on who and how you could get a mortgage. I deliberately bought small and I worked to an 80% mortgage and wouldn't shift - but I did have a mortgage broker try and show me how I could get 125% through Northern Rock (and a few others) with very little checking.

Actually, even Barclays offered me (as a long time customer) 120%. This was when I first lost my custody battle with my ex - I wanted to keep my old house but in the end I let it go (luckily) and got a mortgage for a new house that I could afford.

-- I agree, but that is not fiscal conservatism, but common sense..

If you wish to quibble - however I'm fairly certain that's what Kaya and I meant. :mrgreen:
 
There were many other reasons - RBS and Northern Rock also pursued unwise economic strategy and purchases - everyone thought things could carry on forever. Other banks in the UK were more cautious - if it was simply a case of US credit and sub-prime, more of our banks would have gone under. These two were the most reckless.

There was talk of 125% mortgages at Northern Rock at one time.

Yes, there was of course other factors involved, but the prime trigger was the US sub-prime market crash. If it had not been for that, Northern Rock would not have gone down, nor RBS, even if we had a recession here. Credit markets drying up because of the sub-prime toxic assets meant banks who were risky, could not function... and had to be bailed out.

Believe me - as I had purchased my second house at this time, Northern Rock had very few qualifiers and checks on who and how you could get a mortgage. I deliberately bought small and I worked to an 80% mortgage and wouldn't shift - but I did have a mortgage broker try and show me how I could get 125% through Northern Rock (and a few others) with very little checking.

Actually, even Barclays offered me (as a long time customer) 120%. This was when I first lost my custody battle with my ex - I wanted to keep my old house but in the end I let it go (luckily) and got a mortgage for a new house that I could afford.

Because the credit was cheap and plentiful. Does not mean a person on benefits could get a home loan could it now? That was what happened in part in the US..people with very little income were given home loans that they could pay the first 5 years and then not so much.. Like it or not, the UK mortgage market along with most of Europe had very specific set of rules on who could and could not get a loan. Some banks might have taken that to the extreme by offering people 125% loans, but it was to people who had a job, and an income to pay the loan back.

If you wish to quibble - however I'm fairly certain that's what Kaya and I meant. :mrgreen:

Yes I do :)
 
Yes, there was of course other factors involved, but the prime trigger was the US sub-prime market crash. If it had not been for that, Northern Rock would not have gone down, nor RBS, even if we had a recession here.

It would be foolish to ignore what happened in the US but we certainly (in the UK Govt) do much to help either.

2000 OECD attack on lax fiscal rules

2004 Enterprise Act adds to general risk-taking culture.

We were going to crash anyway - the structures to allow a UK credit crash were being put in place by our "iron chancellor."
 
The UK was beaten into submission in the Suez crisis by the US. The military lesson there can only be... dont trust the US, and so far the UK military brass and politicians have not learned jack**** from that.

That's an interesting observation.

If Britain cannot trust the US, who can they trust?

The US looks at their history through certain administrations so, as in the case of the Suez "crisis", they would either congratulate or criticize the Eisenhower Administration, depending on their point of view. A European , on the other hand learns the lesson "don't trust the US".

This leaves few nations left in the world that the UK can trust but the question will then be, "Will they trust you?"
 
-- A European , on the other hand learns the lesson "don't trust the US"

The US threatened to dump Sterling reserves onto the market, thus sinking the UK economy. Our PM had to resign because of the disaster caused by the US. Up till then, we'd seen the US as nothing but an ally.

What lesson do you suppose we should have learned from the US?

Israel certainly learned a lesson there and focussed on working with the US but they have to accept that the US can ask them to jump whenever it feels like. We don't need to trust the US in the same way - our security is no longer dependent on an ally we cannot wholly trust.
 
Do you really believe there would have been no crash if it wasn't for the American economy? Considering we was going down the exact same path as America, just on a much smaller scale, surely without America we would have only delayed the inevitable.

The fiscal paths are similar but with one real distinction.

The majority of Americans are prepared to make sacrifices in order to make their financial problems more manageable while Europeans, if we can judge by the ongoing riots, are not. Bith do share the same serious problems however, and demographics tell us that these problems will not go away easily.
 
Infinite Chaos

The US threatened to dump Sterling reserves onto the market, thus sinking the UK economy. Our PM had to resign because of the disaster caused by the US. Up till then, we'd seen the US as nothing but an ally.

Do you have a link as to which Administration this was?
What lesson do you suppose we should have learned from the US?

Israel certainly learned a lesson there and focussed on working with the US but they have to accept that the US can ask them to jump whenever it feels like. We don't need to trust the US in the same way - our security is no longer dependent on an ally we cannot wholly trust.

I think it's a fine thing that the UK can protect itself without the help of the United States, or Canada. It should have adopted that policy long ago.

Do you think Britain is able to protect their traditional rights and freedoms at home while also fighting wars abroad?
 
Yes but the UK aint Europe as a whole.

So you feel that the collapse of other countries within the EU, Paricularly the PIIGS, won't effect the British economy? Do you expect the Germans to bail them out?
 
So you feel that the collapse of other countries within the EU, Paricularly the PIIGS, won't effect the British economy? Do you expect the Germans to bail them out?

Other than Greece, what collapse? Not even Ireland is collapsed (yet) and that is the only at risk at this time. There is no PIIGS,.. it is US right wing media hype.
 
Infinite Chaos

Eisenhower.

Seems like Eisenhower created a lot of enemies in the UK and a result the people do not trust Americans to this day. Despite his being quite a force for the good in WWII there appears to be Britons who, as a result of the actions of this one man over 50 years ago, still have an abiding distrust to this day for the American people.

Their trust in the Germans and Italians remains intact, I presume.
 
The fiscal paths are similar but with one real distinction.

The majority of Americans are prepared to make sacrifices in order to make their financial problems more manageable while Europeans, if we can judge by the ongoing riots, are not. Bith do share the same serious problems however, and demographics tell us that these problems will not go away easily.

This is the biggest load of bull**** I have seen from you in ages.

First off, American's have zero plans for spending cuts. It is all based on partisan wishful thinking and winning the next election. The Republican's only plan after they most likely win power back in Congress, is to do what they did to get the US into the mess they are in now.. spend spend spend and if they cut, they will cut areas that they see can hurt the other side's supporters.. welfare and healthcare. The only "light point" is the Tea Party, but thanks to freaks, liars, criminals, racists, homophobes, nazies, fanatics and brain dead morons, the Tea Party is nothing but a joke now. When people in a political movement one moment can claim "government money is bad" and then accept government money... they are no different than the present crop already in power, just a different tag. Come back to us when the US finally gets its economic situation under control... and that will be never I bet under the current conditions.

Secondly, while I dont like the new British government, they have (unlike your hero's the Americans and their politician's), gone after two of the "holy cows" of conservative thinking.. defence and justice and cut them. Now I might not agree with their dispositions and what they have cut, but the very fact that a conservative government has the balls to cut defence and justice and not only the usual suspects for conservatives, shows me that the con-lib government has at least in part stepped up over political ideology and looked at the big picture. That I can respect. Do you really think that a US conservative would survive by suggesting cutting by dumping a US navy carrier from one day to another? Or cutting 10% of all US military forces from one day to another and closing bases? Or cutting funding to prisons and other justice related areas? yea right! He would be labelled a RINO and a socialist before the end of the day.

Thirdly, the only riots there are, are in France and that is how the French protest. While American's are content to do nothing, the French like to go on the streets and protest measures they feel are unfair. Now they might be right or they may not be, does not matter.. the very fact that most European's are willing to stand up for their rights and opinions shows a hell of a lot more than what any American has done the last 50 years to change anything in their political system or government. Where was the massive protests on the streets over TARP? Or GM Bail out? Or Iraq? The only massive "protest" you have had in the US lately have been the Beck glorification rally for god sake and even that had so many different voices that we still dont know what it was for.. was it a prayer meeting or the usual Tea Party combo of racists, homophobes and a few normal people? Or both?
 
Yes, it's all US Right Wing media hype. BBC News - Europe's PIGS: Country by country

And so what? Does not change the fact that the original term came from the US.. The BBC just were not clever enough at the start to cut through the hype versus reality of the situation. They dont use the term any more because it is inaccurate and offensive. Heck eve CNBC has stopped using it (with exception of the most rabid right wing hosts) because it is inaccurate and offensive.

The US right wing media have also been reporting riots in France.

Of course they have, they report on anything the puts France in what they perceive as a bad light. Those media usually go out of their way to paint France in a bad light.
 
-- Seems like Eisenhower created a lot of enemies in the UK and a result the people do not trust Americans to this day.

OK here we go, firstly there is a world of difference between the US Govt and Americans as a people. Most Americans don't even trust the US govt.

-- a result of the actions of this one man over 50 years ago, still have an abiding distrust to this day for the American people

You haven't answered my previous question on the other page. I've answered yours - what lesson would you have us learn from Suez?

We lost a Govt, the French Mollet Govt collapsed and you want us to admire the US as an ally? I'm not whitewashing the fact that the UK Govt was desperately trying to keep sterling as a financial standard and it would have collapsed anyway - however the fact is a supposed close ally threatened to dump its reserves of our currency on the international markets an ruin us.

I'm surprised MSgt hasn't turned up yet to blame us for everything yet - this is fast becoming the perfect thread to tell us how evil and awful Europeans are.

-- Their trust in the Germans and Italians remains intact, I presume.

Elaborate please - I suspect you're trying to make some kind of underhand reference regarding WW2 but don't forget we went to war with Germany and Italy long before the US decided to come in late and claim all the glory.
 
Back
Top Bottom