The US Election: What's Your Reaction?

It has been a few weeks since the election. We would now like to open our comments section completely to a conversation for our readers. What is your reaction to the election?

Some things to consider: 

• How will the Democrat victory impact German-American relations?
• How will the Obama presidency impact German media coverage of the United States?
• Will we see a decrease in anti-Americanism (as some have predicted) or will it continue or simply take another form (no longer being able to focus on Bush)?

Based on this week's SPIEGEL cover, it seems the magazine is going with a mix of guarded realism and a sensational headline:

"The World President: What He Wants to Do - What He Can (Not) Do"

It looks like they are going with a safe and non-controversial approach that hedges against unrealistic expectations. Probably a smart move. 

Now it's your turn: Let's hear what you have to say about the election, Obama, Germany and the future.

Comments

[Deist]

Hi,
as for my reaction first.
If I were american i would have had a hard time deciding. I like McCain. He is a stubborn (meant in a positive way) and honorable man, something that one should hold dear in politics these days. I dislike his choice for vice president.
I also like Obama. He brings some freshness into the presidency. That makes him attractive initially. We have to see if he lives up to the expectations (which certainly will be difficult given the hopes people seem to have).
Anyway, I think that it is not my business to decide whom americans should vote for. They voted and now they will live with the one they elected. Just as they did with Bush, Clinton and others.

My personal hope is simply that the current president has less bad impact on the world and more good imapact than the last.

As to the points to consider:
How will the Democrat victory impact German-American relations?
I think the political relationship will (practically seen) stay the same. Bush and Merkel already didn't have the same cold relation that Bush and Schroeder had. And i guess that many demands that Obama has will be handled in the same way (meaning "no") that Merkel already had demonstrated with Bush. If Obama turns out a good "diplomat" i guess relations will "improove" in theory because so many "old school cultivated european" politicians will feel flattered when asked for assistance and opinion.

How will the Obama presidency impact German media coverage of the United States?
I guess that it will at first be more positive. There is less to "blame" the usa for. But i also think that the media will soon concentrate either on the "false hopes" that Obama perhaps can't fullfill or rant about the general situation in the usa.

Will we see a decrease in anti-Americanism (as some have predicted) or will it continue or simply take another form (no longer being able to focus on Bush)?
I think people that are utterly antiamerican will stay so. I also think that many that were "antiamerican because of Bush" now will calm down.

[Pamela]

So. Some guy joins a church with a race-baiting pastor. Calls him his 'spritual mentor'. Has the guy marry him to his wife. Has two children baptized by him. Stays in that church for 20 years. And never heard nuthin'.

Please.

Pathological liars succeed when people pathologically lie to themselves.

[German In Name Only]

Original deleted - please rephrase (David)

[Suzanne]

I am going to take exception to Diest's comment: "My personal hope is simply that the current president has less bad impact on the world and more good imapact than the last."

First of all the "current president" is George Bush. The last president was Clinton. I assume you are bashing Bush.

How is removing the Taliban from control of Afghanistan and Saddam from control of Iraq a "bad impact on the world". Furthermore, how is the fact that Khadaffi gave up his nuke ambitions a "bad impact on the world"? How is setting the ground-work for a democracy in Iraq a "bad impact on the world"?

How was Bush's funding of AIDs treatment in Africa to the tune of millions a "bad impact on the world"?

Typical ignorance.

[Pamela]

@Suzanne

Diest means well - but well done, Suzanne, well done.

[Suzanne]

Hi Pamela:

I am sure that Diest meant well - his post was thoughtful and civil. It was still sadly ignorant and full of rhetoric. That is likely the product of the totally biased media in Europe and I can't blame Diest for his ignorance. Hopefully he/she can take my words and actually think about the presidency of Bush in accurate terms and avoid the knee-jerk bashing.

[WhatDoIKnow]

What can one say about Obama? First of all, it's unlikely he will be a great President. He campaigned as the incarnation of Kennedy/Truman/Roosevelt/Lincoln/Jesus/etc., _many_ of his supporters see him like that and he will inevitably disappoint. Some will rationalize his failings, some will leave him. A minimum of about 25% of the voting Americans will probably still be behind him in 2012. He will bring tears in their eyes no matter what he does (maybe I'm just an unemotional bastard, but I can't see myself shedding tears for a politician; _any_ politician. I simply don't get this...)

His past is hard left, and the only hope is that the future will be different. The more to the left he will be, the more damage he can inflict on the country. Some say that given Obama's inconsistencies it's very likely that he himself doesn't know how he will govern (which could be a positive sign in itself). I personally would prefer an opportunist to a leftist.

Germany will treat him better than Bush, but not too good because, after all, he is an American. He is the "right" American, peace loving internationalist, but still an American. Some things are just too hard to ignore...

What else does the future held in store...? Oh, yes! In two years, in 2010, the EU will have overtaken America in almost any area. That's what the Lisbon Treaty says.

[Tyranno]

The the conversation killing questions to all of my German friends have been, 1) Can you name me a simmilarly marginally qualified national German politician? and, 2) Would you elect him as your Chancellor?

Every time, each has been met either a roaring silence or an awkward dissembling and quick change of subject.

I interpret this to mean, "He is good enough for you guys!" And then with a snicker, but of course we Germans would never elect someone so astonishingly unqualified!

Tyranno

PS: Look at Angela Merkel's path to the Chancellorship and see if you detect a bit of a difference between hers and Obamas. As I have said before, a year ago a smart Republican strategist would have started airing commercials comparing Barack Obama and Dan Quayle's education and experience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle

(I know I know, water under the bridge, but it is instructive to see and remember just how deluded the (German) Obamaniacs have been.)

[Mike H.]

There are a number of things that bother me about his up and coming presidency but the main thing that I'm worried about is the parallel civilian security force. What will they be called on to do? Will they replace the local police? Will they work like the Army but domestically? If so then who is the enemy? Do the illegal immigrants have to worry or do the citizens have to worry. He's already stated that the founding fathers botched the job on the Constitution.

The liberals during Vietnam decried the draft and Rahm Emmanuel is proposing reinstating it, only for the civilian security force. No duplicity in that is there...

[Mike H.]

Sorry, I skimmed the post and missed the constraints.

"How will the Democrat victory impact German-American relations?"

1) The relationship with Germany will remain cordial unless and until Obama decides to lash out at someone for making him look bad. Then his ego will guide his actions and Germany will realize this along with the rest of the world. Relations will go down hill.

"How will the Obama presidency impact German media coverage of the United States?"

2) They'll gush over him until they realize that it's counterproductive at home. Same as the US media.

"Will we see a decrease in anti-Americanism (as some have predicted) or will it continue or simply take another form (no longer being able to focus on Bush)?"

3) A lessening and then a growing. Essentially the same thing that happens when you meet a fantasy and find out that it's not perfect.

[German In Name Only]

@David

I did not intend to leave an impression of wishing any evil to Obama. My concern remains with the consequences of a scenario in which the Democratic Party would suddenly come to govern the U.S. without the president.

Obamas ambition for change being what it is, the key to understand it is that it means first of all change to his political party and then, based on that, change to his country, and the world. Hadn´t he already dramatically changed his party he would never have come to the opportunities he has now. Anyways, the lion´s share of the change that has overcome the Democratic Party is still to come.

This matters to anyone outside the Democratic Party as well, because in the unfortunate case Obamas ambition would be aborted in some way, the current change in the Democratic Party may erratically take other directions, presumably such that would tend to restore the Euroflub oligarchies Obama is trying to absorb into his euroblivious style. For Europe, if Obama would suddenly be lost, the consequence might be an increased triangulation potential for the Bruxelles oligarchy.

The Chinese embassy bombing is an unsettled fraud from the time when the Bruxelles oligarchy happened to be at the height of its power, and Joe Biden was in control of U.S. policy decisions regarding the Balkans, the gateway of Islamic jihad into Europe. One can ponder why Reagan felt no similiar need to lie about the Ghaddafi palace bombing. I for one take the conclusion that I do not trust that Vice President, in unforseeable situations he might do things that are bad for Europe.

[Deist]

Hi Suzanne,
You wrote:
"I am going to take exception to Diest's comment: "My personal hope is simply that the current president has less bad impact on the world and more good imapact than the last."

First of all the "current president" is George Bush. The last president was Clinton. I assume you are bashing Bush.

How is removing the Taliban from control of Afghanistan and Saddam from control of Iraq a "bad impact on the world". Furthermore, how is the fact that Khadaffi gave up his nuke ambitions a "bad impact on the world"? How is setting the ground-work for a democracy in Iraq a "bad impact on the world"?

How was Bush's funding of AIDs treatment in Africa to the tune of millions a "bad impact on the world"?

Typical ignorance."
and furthermore...
"Hi Pamela:

I am sure that Diest meant well - his post was thoughtful and civil. It was still sadly ignorant and full of rhetoric. That is likely the product of the totally biased media in Europe and I can't blame Diest for his ignorance. Hopefully he/she can take my words and actually think about the presidency of Bush in accurate terms and avoid the knee-jerk bashing."
First of all you are indeed correct in one aspect. Bush is the current president, Obama is the next. And i indeed erred here taking Obama as the current.

As for the rest i guess it would be better to plainly read what i wrote instead of calling me ignorant, full of rethoric and being a product of the totally biased media in europe.
Far too many claims made by you to be taken seriously. Or shall I say "assumptions" ?

My statement again (names inserted to make it clear):
"My personal hope is simply that the Obama has less bad impact on the world and more good imapact than Bush."
It is not really very intelligent to bring forth some incidents that supposedly show Bush in a good light to challenge my statement. It is not the place to debate those here.
Can't blame you for doing it however.. might be prejudice against europeans or in my case european arabs ;) (just joking)
Actually i only meant what I wrote.
I didn't use any "knee jerk bashing". Actually i didn't "bash" Bush at all.
Bush did have negative impacts in several areas, I hope Obama is better in these areas. This is an objective observation.
It would be silly to challenge the obvious: nobody is perfect. Bush isn't either ! Obama won't be either.
Just hoping for improovement in those areas where Bush failed.

[LC Mamapajamas]

I see where you are coming from, Deist, but I can make a promise to you:

When the UN balks at something Obama wants to do, and then he goes ahead and does it anyway, the news media will mysteriously morph Obama into a "unilateralist cowboy", undoubtedly out to destroy the world.

Will he actually BE that? Probably not. Bush wasn't, either. But in Obama, we're talking about a man with a LONG history of actually accomplishing absolutely nothing. His biggest claim to fame was working as a "community organizer" in Chicago's South Side. Today, that community he "organized" is in worse condition than Baghdad, which in spite of recent bombings this past week, is measurably safer than the South Side. Do you understand that? A legitimate war zone is safer than the community Obama is famous for "organizing". But that detail won't keep Europe from seeing him that as a "threat" to the world.

The US in general does not trust the UN, and those Americans who do trust the UN, like Obama and his followers, will discover that the UN does not have American interests in mind except as to how they can raid our treasury.

If anything gets accomplished at all during Obama's term of office, it will be the discovery of the complete uselessness of the UN. And that, at least, is something I'm looking foreward to.

[americanbychoice]

Deist,
Naturally, all those analysis are extremely subjective. What is perceived as "bad" in Europe doesn't necessarily have to be judged that way in America.
Always remember, we vote in a president who is sworn to uphold OUR constitution and who "should" have the best interest of his/her own nation at heart when making decisions.(However few those may be)
When an American President makes a decision it has to be in the best interest of America, not Europe, Russia. China or whoever.
Thus Popularity could be 180 degrees from one country to the other.
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass less if the Euro's like it or not.

[americanbychoice]

I wish our next President well.
I hope the chants don't change from O-Bama to OH- Bummer

[Suzanne]

Diest says:

"As for the rest i guess it would be better to plainly read what i wrote instead of calling me ignorant, full of rethoric and being a product of the totally biased media in europe."

I DID plainly read what you wrote. There is no difference between your now-stated comment ("My personal hope is simply that the Obama has less bad impact on the world and more good imapact than Bush." and "My personal hope is simply that the current president has less bad impact on the world and more good imapact than the last." You can spin it all you want but your Bush -bashing is evident. Bush = "bad impact on the world".

Next, you say:

"Far too many claims made by you to be taken seriously. Or shall I say "assumptions" ? It is not really very intelligent to bring forth some incidents that supposedly show Bush in a good light to challenge my statement. It is not the place to debate those here."

Again, typical. First of all, my claims are "not to be taken seriously?" and "incidents that SUPPOSEDLY show Bush in a good light" are out of place in this debate? HELLO.... YOU brought up Bush's "bad impact on the world". And how is it that the removal of the Taliban, Hussein, the Libyan WMD program and aid to Africa are only "SUPPOSEDLY GOOD"... Oh, I forgot, anything that shows Bush in a good light is, as you say, a challenge to your (completely erroneous) statement. Musn't challenge a lib, I guess.

Next you said:

"I didn't use any "knee jerk bashing". Actually i didn't "bash" Bush at all."

Yeah sure. How else does one take the statement Bush = "bad impact on the world"

You say:

"Bush did have negative impacts in several areas, I hope Obama is better in these areas. This is an objective observation."

Therefore if Bush had a negative impact in several areas (your opinion, btw) - that leaves areas where he had a positive impact. What are they? I hope you don't explode tying to think of something.

As Americanbychoice said, YOUR opinion of Bush's impact in the world is irrelevant to Americans. I know that is hard for you to take, but get used to it.

[Deist]

@americanboy:
I understand Your point. I made the same point clear already in my first post by stating: "Anyway, I think that it is not my business to decide whom americans should vote for. They voted and now they will live with the one they elected. Just as they did with Bush, Clinton and others."
It is as you say. The priority of the american president surely rests with america and it is the american people that vote him (and solely have the right to do so).
I do not disagree at all.
I understood the question initially asked here however to be one that explicitly wanted to hear opinions about potential european reactions or views in the media.

@Suzanne:
I do not think this place here is the right one for such a personal debate nor for your quarrels. If you want to continue this and are willing to discuss it instead of ranting you can mail me at [email protected]. My opinion is that you are way of the course with your response and obviously either did NOT read my post correctly or mis"interpret" its' content deliberately. Maybe you have to much contact with antiamericans.
There is a difference between the equation "Bush = bad impact on the world" and the statement Bush had negative impacts in several areas. And yes, i can surely come up with positive things. Just two for a start. Instead of refering to the HIV program (which i think IS partially questionable) i would rather mention the malaria program. His work in Congo and Liberia also should be noticed. There is no question that his doings in and aid to africa should be remembered.

[americanbychoice]

Deist,
Reading the German media on a daily basis just to keep my blood pressure up, I know one thing: The Media has always headlined one question, "What can Obama do for Germany"? Personally I hope nothing. When Mr. O cuts the military, I hope he pulls all of our troops from Europe, gets ot of NATO just to start saving money where needed.
Economically, I hope he will institute the "fair Tax" (Ican dream, can't I?), or at least offer Tax incentives to US companies overseas to come home. That should please the Germans, Having just called GM's ownership of Opel "Heuschrecken-Locusts" . That way there won't be any more condemnation of those bad AMIs about their slavery of that good German worker in Germany .

IF Mr. O can't do much for Germany, he will be condemned immediately. But hold on: He will fight back unlike Bush, claiming things like RACISM!! (See Austria) Interesting times ahead

[americanbychoice]

Deist, Giving 15 billion to Africa to combat AIDS is questionable? Come on!! How much have the Gutmenschen in Germany given?

[transnetworker]

My reaction to the US election? Well, both optimistic and realistic. I am looking forward to an improvement of transatlantic relations, hoping that these relations will be shaped by mutual respect, friendship, competence and a rational style of argument and criticism - instead of being poisened by the kind of deep resentment which is again plainly expressed by the obnoxious cover of the recent issue of DER SPIEGEL, see http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/ (No. 47 / 2008).
Is it possible that the outcome of the U.S. election will paradoxically stir up the hatred in some of the very same media who praised Barack Obama so enthusiastically during the campaign?

[americanbychoice]

Transnetworker,
Re: Transatlantic relations, With your statement you are trying to turn utopia into reality?

Mutual respect, The German mentality will never allow the morally and cultural superiority of the German people to be questioned.

Take a look at the Opel situation. All Amercas fault. Those poor Germans baing sucked dry by America's mothership GM . Now they want to have a Government takeover. 80 years of money flowing from America (GM) to Germany (OPEL). GM is in trouble mainly because of the Unions (That the Opel workers cherish) over the years and all is forgotten. It will get a lot uglier.

Obama will be measured directly by what he can do for Germany.

[americanbychoice]

To touch on Opel one last time, It seems that the media has done the same propaganda against GM/Opel that they have done to the US over the years. They have already poisoned peoples minds. Who is going to buy an Opel now? The Satan who works against those poor, good obedient German citizens is/are EEEEVIL General Motors, the USA and Capitalism in general.
Very troubling times ahead. The Apprentices for Propaganda minister Goebbels are having a blast.

[Deist]

@americanbychoice:
You wrote:"Deist,Reading the German media on a daily basis just to keep my blood pressure up,"
Again ... i agree. German media is not really what i would call objective. So i can understand your feelings here. There is a rather strange mixture of "Gutmenschentum" and leftism dominant here. The other extreme i don't need to mention i guess. I hate media that doesn't make a difference between facts and opinion. Sadly we have too much of it here.

"Deist, Giving 15 billion to Africa to combat AIDS is questionable? Come on!! How much have the Gutmenschen in Germany given? "
Last question first:
As far as i know Germany is second in the oecd statistics when it comes to absolute numbers. I don't know if this aid program by Bush counts in these statistics (i guess not) nor do I know how much Germany pays for such projects (i guess less). By the way ... as far as i know the usa gave around 19 billion dollar (you should not make the contribution appear smaller than it was)
But (to come to the first question) i didnt say the whole thing was questionable. The amount is tremedous, the effect plainly visible and good in most aspects. I do criticize the PEPFAR for one specific aspect of the project: the abstinence till marriage programs.
I have a strong dislike for religion in politics.

[GringoTex]

Deist: I do criticize the PEPFAR for one specific aspect of the project: the abstinence till marriage programs. I have a strong dislike for religion in politics.

One does not have to have any connection with religion, organized or other wise, nor believe in the existence of a Supreme Being to conclude that abstinence until marriage is one way to avoid AIDS. Anything that works. Deists's point of view to me seems to be more of the German phobia of religion, a phobia which affects Germans' views of the US. I have never been a churchgoer nor a member of an organized religion, but I have no problem with people whose religion colors their political views. After all, there was a very strong religious tinge to the antislavery movement in the US. Contrary to many Germans, while I am not a churchgoer, I do not feel threatened by people who attend churches.

The current German phobia towards religion might be viewed as a phobia towards people who have a different point of view from the Germans. The State Religion of Germany used to be Lutheranism. Today, the State Religion of Germany might be described as secularism. In both cases, Germans have been uncomfortable with those who have not belonged to the State Religion.

I also find it very amusing that a German has a "strong dislike for religion in politics," when the German government collects church taxes, something the US government has never done, and which is forbidden by the First Amendment. Afraid to rock the boat at home, but not afraid to criticize the US with regard to "religion in politics," eh?

Deist, I am pleased that you are a German who was able to find something positive about the Bush Administration’s policies.

[MyVoice]

Q: How will the Democrat victory impact German-American relations?
A: It doesn't matter whether a Democrat or a Republican is POTUS.

Q: How will the Obama presidency impact German media coverage of the United States?
A: America is the big guy and the big guy is always guilty for anything and everything.

Q: Will we see a decrease in anti-Americanism (as some have predicted) or will it continue or simply take another form (no longer being able to focus on Bush)?
A: Anti-Americanism is part of the socialist agenda -- on both sides of the pond.

However, who cares about those retarded socialist sissies? They will hate their messiah in no time -- and much more than George W. Bush.

[americanbychoice]

Deist,
I don't like mixing politics and religion, but it seems to be a thin line.
What amuses me about German media and Germans in general is the fact that they condemn religion, make fun of it and actually demonise it.
However, don't they know that Islam is a religion too and much more radical. I guess they are afraid of retaliation from those "peaceful Mooselimbs"?
It is the same about condemning the USA since they don't have to fear retribution. Demonising Russia and China in the media on the other hand, could make for a very cold Winter................

[NaIckeHalt]

americanbychoice,

"When an American President makes a decision it has to be in the best interest of America, not Europe, Russia. China or whoever.
Thus Popularity could be 180 degrees from one country to the other.
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass less if the Euro's like it or not. "

It's not that simple anymore. We live in a globalized world. An american decision that is not in the interest of Europe ultimately won't be in the interest of the United States, either.

Example: The Iraq war has turned out as a desaster for the US, both in terms of results, costs and loss of reputation.

Example: Afghanistan: the US did it "their way", without consulting their European allies. Now they are complaining that these allies don't contribute enough.

Example: The current financial crisis, the best example. The decision not to support a regulation of the financial markets, a long time European wish, has turned out as a huge damage to the US economy and reputation.

[Deist]

@GringoTex:
"Deists's point of view to me seems to be more of the German phobia of religion....Deist, I am pleased that you are a German who was able to find something positive about the Bush Administration’s policies. "
Actually i am arab-german. ;-)
And I have had way too many experiences with religion.

[americanbychoice]

NaIckehalt

You must be getting your War education from the German Media. Iraq is not a desaster. What about all those UN demands?
Afghanistan: We didn't consult EU Allies? Where do you get that?
The Financial crisis is not due to too little regulation, but of too much. In Germany you get your information piecemeal. Have you ever wondered about the scope of this crisis? You could take every house in the US, add them all together and you still would not come up with that much money. By the way, the default rate in the USA is 6%. Agreed, a huge number but not large enough in $ to warrant this problem.

While I agree that the housing crisis started the investigation into the financial affairs, it is EU Governmental Dollar loans to Eastern European, Latin American African countries that blew the lid off the finances. The increase in the dollar exchange rate caused the global problem, not the US housing market. Countries couldn't pay back the loans. While there were a few Euro banks involved in the US market, it wasn't sufficient to cause those massive problems.

I know, as a German or European it is important to cast blame in order to mask their own shortcomings especially when it comes to the USA.
Want to bet that the US comes out of this better, faster and cleaner than those supposed superior EU NUCHS?
The EU media is still beating the dead horse regarding the US housing market and GM being a bloodsucking locust while hiding the true facts behind this crisis. Watch out for Austria, Spain, Italy to go fast. Switzerland, Germany and France are in for a big surprise as well. .....and it has nothing to do with America.

[WhatDoIKnow]

The Iraq war has turned out as a desaster for the US

N..halt

Do you even realize that the Iraq was is over and has been won by the US? I'll say that again, the US has won the Iraq war. The war is over. Where is the disaster?

Afghanistan: the US did it "their way", without consulting their European allies

N...halt

Do you even realize that Afghanistan wasn't done the "American way", but the "NATO way"? That's why it's a mess. Want to see an example of a war done the "American way"? Look at Iraq, where the US has won the war.

The decision not to support a regulation of the financial markets

N...halt

Do you even realize that the crisis is the result of too much regulation? That's what started everything. It's true that the CDS (credit default swaps) market that took advantage of this lack of regulation made a bad thing even worse, but it's the over-regulations that are to blame for the crisis. (BTW, I never heard that the EU wanted to regulate the CDS and CDO markets. That's bull...)

N...halt

Do you even realize how badly informed you are?

[Suzanne]

I love it when Europeans bash the US and tout the EU. Naicke says:

"Example: The current financial crisis, the best example. The decision not to support a regulation of the financial markets, a long time European wish, has turned out as a huge damage to the US economy and reputation."

How do you explain the financial crisis in Europe if it is the US financial markets lacking regulation. Have you noticed Iceland recently?

Oh yes, the Europeans have long wished the US would behave more civily blah blah blah blah. Typicial ignorant European.

Let us look at what the EU has to say about financial regulations in wonderful old Europe as a result of this financial crisis...

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/618&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

***

FAQs on Europe's response to the Financial Crisis

The Commission has brought forward the next meeting of the Committee and has already sent a draft to the Committee to alter the mark to market requirement for assets to be valued at the current market price, allowing a valuation more closely reflecting their intrinsic value over time. This will avoid assets being undervalued and bring EU rules into line with those now applying in the US and some other jurisdictions, thus avoiding any competitive disadvantage for EU banks.

What new steps is the Commission taking to stop this kind of crisis happening again?

There are two main strands to the work underway.

First, imposing more responsible and ethical behaviour. The Commission has already presented a proposal to reinforce capital requirements for financial institutions, to rein in reckless speculation based on borrowed money (see IP/08/1433). It will introduce this month further proposals to improve regulation of credit rating agencies. The Commission also intends to make proposals on remuneration, to improve transparency and help tackle short-term-ism and excessive risk taking.

The second key task is to improve supervision structures, notably in order to remove the mismatch between European financial markets on the one hand, and largely national supervision on the other.

***

So spare us your pontificating and look to your own house.

[WhatDoIKnow]

The decision not to support a regulation of the financial markets, a long time European wish, has turned out as a huge damage to the US economy and reputation.

One more thing. The EU has been pressing for more regulations of *hedge funds*, who generally are the ones that engage in all sorts of "creative" financial engineering.

However, even if the strongest regulations had been imposed on them we would still have the problem today. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the financial institutions at the epicenter of this world wide crisis are the traditional institutions, who already operate under much stricter rules. It was those regulated institutions who invested heavily and carelessly in dubious financial instruments.

Again, the regulation requests from the EU concerned hedge funds, while the crisis today is much bigger than that.

What should have been regulated is the entire derivative market, but I'm not aware of any EU-wide initiative to do that. Everyone, the entire world was happy making money off that market and now, that the fun is over, the typical German (and EU) Besserwisser raise their voices in unison like a castrati choir, denouncing the "American greed".

[NaIckeHalt]

The financial crisis was caused by the US housing market and risky speculation built upon it. Of course the european banking houses made the same mistakes and took over those products.

The EU (except for GB) have repeatedly tried to get more control and transparency into the international financial market, of course not only for hedge funds, but generally. But the US and GB and the anglo-american dominated financial lobby weren't interested at the time.

[americanbychoice]

@NaIckehalt

I understand that the complexity of a situation may overwhelm. I also understand your feeble attempt simplify a complex problem.
You are right on one thing: The US housing market started the whole financial awakening. By that I mean that the large number of adjustable mortgages caused many more foreclosures than anticipated.
Just do one acid test though, simply assume a number of foreclosures multiply them by $180 000 (average mortgage of foreclosed homes). You will find out that the sum of your just concluded exercise is just a fraction of the billions of dollars the "Crisis" is demanding.
While the mortgage mess is the first discovery of the problem, it is also the smallest.
Just because a tree fell in the forest and you didn't hear it, it still made a sound. Meaning: Just because the German media stopped at the mortgage mess and didn't educate you on the rest of the story, it still exists.
The rest is: Dollar based loans to 3rd countries, latin America, etc. caused the largest impact.
What controls are you specifically talking about? I bet you don't know, you are just repeating the good old media? To what extent does the US housing crisis have an impact on the international financial market? What kind of control should we give to the EU over the US Housing amrket?
Just answer those few questions and you may have a little more credibility other than parotting the German/EU media.

[WhatDoIKnow]

The EU (except for GB) have repeatedly tried to get more control and transparency into the international financial market

Nhalt

Just like americanbychoice said, you are simply repeating what you've been told by the media. You, just like the media, have no real understanding of the issue.
As I said already, but you didn't understand it, the most affected financial institutions are the ones that are already heavily regulated.
Simply repeating "regulations, regulations" doesn't make you look very thoughtful (to put it nicely).

[NaIckeHalt]

The crisis was caused by insufficient transparency and control over the financial markets, the belief that free markets, if left alone, will regulate themselves. This belief is now history.

What you said about dollar based loans may or may not be true. I've never heard about it in this context. In any case it's rather irrelevant because we are talking about the roots of the crisis here, not the consequences.

The roots and the development of the crisis is nicely shown here:

http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/nn_54338/DE/BMF__Startseite/Service/Downloads/IP/065,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf#search=%22arbeitsblatt%22

Which regulation? Exactly what has been decided by the recent world financial summit and will be continued by further summits. Details can be found here:

http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/nn_53848/sid_97057B2C7E4D8462922F5618F2F0EA6D/DE/BMF__Startseite/Aktuelles/Monatsbericht__des__BMF/2008/11/081121agmb012,property=publicationFile.pdf

And please, spare me with your "German media" phobia...

[WhatDoIKnow]

spare me with your "German media" phobia

I would say, in the generous spirit of Thanksgiving, that you are indeed the idiot that you seemed to be from the very beginning. Why this unwarranted rudeness? German media "phobia"? Idiot, indeed...

Back to financials: it's wonderful to see that you get your information on complex and historical events from over-simplified pdf's. That's your expertise? A paper on 'lesen Sie jetzt wie die Kriese entstand, alles auf einer einzigen Seit!'. Jeez, do you even begin to realize that you are clueless?

Nhalt, it would be truly interesting to discuss and debate the crisis, but not with you (and people like you). You are the typical idiot that shows up once in a while on Medienkritik to bash America in order to establish the superiority of the Vaterland. The more clueless you are, the more arrogant you are. You are not intelectually open-minded, you are a boring and desgusting parrot.

[Suzanne]

NaIcke posts:

"The crisis was caused by insufficient transparency and control over the financial markets, the belief that free markets, if left alone, will regulate themselves. This belief is now history."

Insufficient transparency and control? Free-market self-adjustment is a discredited theory? Yes, only to committed marxists.

[WhatDoIKnow]

Free-market self-adjustment is a discredited theory? Yes, only to committed marxists

Well, Nhalt, the expert/idiot who lectures America on her failures doesn't yet know that the crisis was created and exacerbated by the reliance on government sponsored entities. In a free market those entities wouldn't have existed in the first place! Again, it is government sponsored entities who are at the core of the problem. If anything was discredited by this crisis it is the experiments in social engineering undertaken by the government. (I don't intend to minimize the fact that reckless financial engineering has played a major role, but only, as I said, because of reliance on government entities).
I bet Nhalt the lecturer has no clue whatsoever about the danger of those government sponsored social experiments, but hey, let's not bother him with facts. Let's all say together in one breath "America the Bad!" and we'll all feel better. Idiots...

[NaIckeHalt]

@Suzanne

I was referring to "free", i.e. uncontrolled markets, not market economy in general.

[Suzanne]

NaIcke posts:

I was referring to "free", i.e. uncontrolled markets, not market economy in general.

I don't think you have a clue as to what you are referring to. NO financial market is "uncontrolled" except to a committed marxist.

[Suzanne]

NaIcke

After all your pontificating on how the US financial market crisis was largely due to the US ignoring the "long time European wish" for more regulation, I have asked you to explain the crisis in Iceland. You ignored my question. I now ask you to explain Hypobank since you feel that the EU is obviously much smarter than the US when it comes to financial regulations.

[NaIckeHalt]

@Suzanne

I think I already answered your question.

But again: Iceland and Hypo broke down because there weren't any worldwide regulations, because the US, GB and the financial lobby, and perhaps some others, refused. No country or group of countries alone can impose such regulations. That's globalization, what I pointed out in my original post.

As to your complaint about the term "uncontrolled": I think discussing the meaning of words is not the topic here. Fact is, that there weren't any regulations that prevented what actually happened, or they didn't work.

[Suzanne]

NaIcke posts:

"But again: Iceland and Hypo broke down because there weren't any worldwide regulations, because the US, GB and the financial lobby, and perhaps some others, refused."

Oh I get it. Hypo's failure was because the US (and GB) pressured your German banks to avoid regulation. And we did the same to poor Iceland. Talk about parroting talking points - you take the cake. Your proof for this supposed "financial lobby pressure" is........? The Illuminati?

"No country or group of countries alone can impose such regulations. That's globalization, what I pointed out in my original post. "

What a load of garbage. Every country has the ability to regulate it's own financial industry. Hypo is not an international bank. Only the deluded Germans would see it's failure as the fault of the US (and GB).

"As to your complaint about the term "uncontrolled": I think discussing the meaning of words is not the topic here."

I have noticed something quite amusing here. Whenever you US bashers get caught in trying to justify some ignorant statement you have made, you complain that this is not the forum for discussing the meaning of words (etc). Amusing (and worn-out) ploy = but typical.

"Fact is, that there weren't any regulations that prevented what actually happened, or they didn't work."

A funny thing about people like you with crystal balls that in hindsight can predict the future...there is ALWAYS one little law or one little regulation that could have prevented XYZ, until the next episode which requires just another one little law or one little regulation and so on - ad infinitum. Pretty soon you look like the EU were you must consult your Brussell's issued regulations before you can open your door in the morning to pick up the morning paper.

No one can anticipate every regulation that will prevent every bad thing on earth from happening. Those that think there can be are those that are responsible for creating a society of people who can 't function unless they are told what to do every moment of their lives. I guess some Germans like that. Most American's do not.

[Tyranno]

Had to go pull out a letter from a couple of weeks ago, to a German friend that I think, because of the links, might add a little something to the thread of "the financial crisis is all the USA's fault.

"Now, if you want to say that the U.S. subprime loan crisis caused the tightening up of credit worldwide you would be getting nearer the truth, but then you would have to admit that what it did was expose the fact that many European banks, as well as many other banks around the world, were over extended to a much greater degree than in the USA. They leveraged themselves to 50%, 70% and 100%+ of their GDPs because of greed. Bad ol' decidedly non-American greed! I know the European narrative is that greed only exists in the bad ol' USA, but somehow (oddly?) right now it seems to be rearing its ugly head throughout the European and world banking system too. Hmmm go figure?

If the US economy is so bad that it is responsible for "dragging the world down" then why is the world running back to the dollar? http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/market-view/daily-us-forex-summary/2008-10-24.html
Another couple of simple questions, since it is all the USA's fault, how did Bush (or the USA) destroy Iceland's economy? How did the USA force Spain to overbuild and collapse its housing market? How did the USA force Fortis Bank (Banking and Investments) to leverage itself (33 - 1 ratio) out to more than "several times larger" than the entire Belgian GDP? How did the USA force Deutsche Bank (Banking and Investment) to leverage itself (50-1 ratio) out to almost 80% of the German GDP? How did the USA force Barclay's Bank (Banking and Investment) to leverage itself (60-1 ratio) out to more than the entire UK GDP? http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1669

To say, as you do, that it is the USA's fault because "this is the American system" or because "the USA is the biggest player in the world economy" is sophomoric transference. As my Mother use to say, "If all of your friends were jumping off a bridge ~ would you do it too?" And yet, when you read the numbers you discover the "irresponsible" USA is the least exposed of the lot -- currrently approximately 6% of GDP -- the bad ol' USA has been the safest, most responsible, (among the irresponsiblea) friend standing on the bridge.

Sorry Karl, all of your finger pointing doesn't alter the fact that you gentlemen are hoist on your own petard. But as has been my experience with all good liberals, personal (and national) mistakes are always someone elses fault. To reverse your accusation, "What would YOU (Europe) do if you didn't have the Americans to blame every time you get in over your head?"

[Tyranno]

Back to the original topic.

"The World President: What He Wants to Do - What He Can (Not) Do"

An interesting piece of word play that provides a glimpse into the German(EUropean) mind set. (ie... wanting/ attempting to control events without paying the price that goes with it!)

What makes Obama the "World's President?" What prevented Bush from being the world's President? They both hold (will hold) the same office, hold the same influence, authorities, and power. I am about certain we will discover they hold a much more similar world view than the EUropeans imagine. (The difference between Clinton and Bush was not world view, it was character, and the selection of responses to world events. It was feckless action or inaction, verses decisive action. The European, of course, prefer fecklessness and inaction.)

So what is, or will be, the difference between the Bush and Obama? Does this mean the Germans/ EUropeans will now do what the American President says... since he has been annointed by them as the "World President?" If the World President tells the EU to provide the dozen damn helicopters to Darfur, or remove the destructive tariffs in the Common Agricultural Policy, or pony up enough military forces to actually make a difference (instead of a futile political statement) in Afghanistan... will they suddenly comply? Who gets to decide if the "World President" has made a good or a bad world decision?
I keep searching for the good "world" decision made by Merkle or Brown or Sarkozy, that cost them a price in economic or political capital nationally. Nothing so far!

Not having read the DER SPIEGEL article I will speculate that the things Obama "can do" will mirror all of the boutique Politically Correct EUropean agenda items such as Global Climate change; and, all of the things that Obama "can not do" will mirror all of the tragically fashionable Politically incorrect EUropean agenda items, such as Capitalism.

I haven't decided if it is odd or interesting, how modern progressive liberal secularists mock religious beliefs and yet they continually jump from a Hitler to a DeGaulle, from a Bono to a Barack, seeking to elevate individuals (Politicians and Celebrities?) into a perverse deity-like status. If there ever was a recipe for disappointment (and quite possibly disaster) the Europeans are cooking one up for themselves! (again!)

[Tyranno]

Another letter to the same German friend with more interesting numbers. The truth is always tough on modern progressive liberals and EUropeans.

... There are, no doubt, idiosyncracies in both systems as it suits politicians to under report such negative information. But, it is always instructive how, when it suits the statistics, EUrope is presented in the aggregate and when it suits the statistics Europe is presented as individual countries. Nevertheless, comparing the USA with the largest economies of finds them averaging 50% more than US numbers. (5.1 until this last quarter)
Germany 7.4%
France 7.4%
Spain 9.3%
Italy 6.5%
UK 5.2%

Public debt (as a % of GDP) in the irresponsible USA is supposedly driving the world economy to ruin, yet it stands at 36.9%. Compare that to the more responsible and frugal EUropeans...

Germany 65%
France 64.2%
Spain 36.2%
Italy 104%
UK 43.8%

So, Just like it is the USA's fault for the current financial crisis, ~ the headlines your news media feeds you no doubt make you feel good and warm and fuzzy about yourselves, but such satiating arrogance (or is it blissful ignorance) is not bourne out by the facts.
As I always say, what would Europe do if it didn't have the bad ol' USA to blame (and redirect attention away from) for all of its troubles and woes?

[indie80]

Tyranno, you should update your numbers:

Public debt (as a % of GDP):
USA 65.8% (2008 est.)
Germany 64.2% (2008 est.)

Unemployment rate:
USA 6.5% (Oct. 2008)
Germany 7.1% (Nov. 2008)

So no big differences in these fields.

[Antonio Sosa]

As someone born in Ecuador with friends and relatives in Latin America, it has been extremely painful to watch how people in the United States were manipulated by the media and the hundreds of millions spent on propaganda to manufacture the Obama’s image. Americans were manipulated just like people in Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador to put a Marxist in power.

The similarities between Rafael Correa’s campaign for president of Ecuador and that of Obama for U.S. president were amazing. Correa had no experience but was young, charismatic and had good speaking skills. Correa’s slogans were the same as Obama’s: CHANGE, YES WE CAN, etc.

Informed Ecuadorians were not able to convince their clueless compatriots that Correa was a fake and not the young and wonderful savior the media was portraying. They could not compete in ads with the millions Correa had (mostly from unknown sources).

Once he took over, Correa dissolved Congress and took control of the legislative and judicial powers. In other words, he became a dictator. Ecuadorians are poorer than ever. The CHANGE has been toward Marxism and greater poverty for all.

It’s now obvious that Correa works with Chavez and terrorists (including Islamic terrorists) AGAINST Ecuadorians, the United States and the Free World.

Most informed Ecuadorians, when they realized the similarities between Correa and Obama, felt confident that Americans could not be fooled as Ecuadorians had. However, it seems many Americans were as clueless as the poorest and most ignorant people in Ecuador or Bolivia.

Americans did not realize that Obama is a Marxist with ties to Islamic terrorists, just like Castro, Chávez, Morales, Correa and Odinga (Obama’s Kenyan relative).

Chávez, Morales, Correa, Ortega used the same strategies of lies, manipulation, intimidation and fraud as Obama to become elected and, once elected, they have imposed “socialismo del siglo XXI” (Marxism) and have multiplied poverty, violence, insecurity and corruption. They have begun by “redistributing wealth” and have ended up distributing scarcity, terror and misery. They are working with Islamic terrorists against their own people and against the U.S.

Their teacher (Castro) transformed a once wealthy and happy Cuba into a Gulag of desperate souls, whose only hope is to escape. They are not free to escape, but many risk their lives to do it. It’s estimated that some 150,000 Cubans have died trying to escape. Some three million have escaped and live in exile.

Many Americans demonstrated to be as gullible as the poorest and most ignorant Bolivians and Ecuadorians, who believed in CHANGE and YES WE CAN without realizing that CHANGE means change to Marxism and greater poverty and misery, and YES WE CAN means that people like Chávez, Obama and Correa CAN fool you.

Brainwashed by the media, I guess many Europeans and Latin Americans will be pleased to see the U.S. having problems. Whatever happens in the U.S., however, will affect Europe, Latin America and the Free World.

[Tyranno]

Thanks
Where did you pull your # from? I am using the CIA FactBook, Oct 15, 2008 for Public debt as a % of GDP:

Germany 64.9%
France 63.9%
Spain 36.2%
Italy 104.0%
UK 43.6%
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cia.gov%2Flibrary%2Fpublications%2Fthe-
world-factbook%2Frankorder%2F2186rank.html&date=2008-10-15

The OECD 2008 numbers on structural unemployment:

Average Average 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
1983-85 1993-95 proj.
France 7.7 9.7 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.5 8.3 8.1 8.0
Germany 5.0 7.3 8.4 8.5 8.7 8.6 8.4 8.3 8.2
Italy 6.9 9.4 7.8 7.3 6.9 6.6 6.3 6.2 6.2
Spain 10.8 14.1 10.6 10.2 9.7 9.1 8.8 8.5 8.3
United Kingdom 9.9 8.5 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
United States 6.7 5.8 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.9

http://www.oecd.org/document/61/0,3343,en_2649_34573_2483901_1_1_1_1,00.html