UK News
Obama, Brown stress need for global unity on economy (Roundup)
By Mike McCarthy Mar 3, 2009, 18:16 GMT
US President Barack Obama walks with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown following a meeting in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington D.C., USA, on 03 March 2009. EPA/KEVIN DIETSCH / POOL . .
Washington - US President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Tuesday called for a worldwide solution to the economic crisis while urging nations to work together to regulate financial markets.
The two leaders met for the first time since Obama took office on January 20 and one month ahead of the Group of 20 (G20) summit of the world's leading economies.
'What we're talking about today is how, by us taking action, Britain and America, we can help other countries join us in making for a more stable and effective financial system,' Brown said.
The turmoil in the financial markets is viewed as the biggest culprit in the economic downturn that has left both countries mired in a recession.
Both leaders have endorsed measures that better supervise the finance industry to prevent the high-risk lending that produced record mortgage defaults in the United States and the subsequent credit freeze. Playing on former president Franklin Delano Roosevelt's economic programme during the Great Depression of the 1930s, Brown has advocated a 'global New Deal.'
'There is the possibility in the next few months of a global New Deal that will involve all the countries of the world in sorting out and cleaning up the banking system,' Brown said.
Obama recently inked an 787-billion-dollar stimulus package in an effort to boost the US economy and create jobs, and is weighing whether to ask Congress for billions more to bail-out the finance sector. Obama was optimistic that his plan will work but cautioned that it will not happen 'overnight.'
'I'm absolutely confident that they will work, and I'm absolutely confident that credit's going to be flowing again, that businesses are going to start seeing opportunities for investment, they're going to start hiring again,' he said.
The US president backed Brown that more needs to be done to regulate international markets.
'We believe in the free market, we believe in a government that is not overbearing and allows entrepreneurs and businesses to thrive,' Obama said, 'but we also share a common belief that there have to be sufficient regulatory structures in place so that the market doesn't spin out of control.'
Brown became the first European leader to meet with Obama in an enduring sign of the bond between the two countries. The two leaders had a meeting before moving on to lunch. Both men highlighted their nations' special trans-Atlantic friendship based on mutual values.
'I've come here to renew our special relationship for new times. It's a partnership of purpose,' Brown said. 'It's a partnership of purpose that is born out of shared values.'
Brown is due to address Congress on Wednesday, becoming the fifth British prime minister granted the honour. Brown's trip comes as his Labour Party is trailing the opposition Conservatives by more than 10 percentage points in polls.
The two leaders also discussed the conflict in Afghanistan and agreed that it is not winnable as long as Taliban militants and al- Qaeda continue to find refuge in neighbouring Pakistan. The conflict is at the top of Obama's foreign agenda, and he is expected to ask Europe for more help.
Britain already has more than 8,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, and the two leaders have sought greater contributions from other NATO partners, an issue that will likely arise at the alliance's summit next month.
'Both Great Britain and the United States share a deep interest in ensuring that neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan are safe havens for terrorist activity,' Obama said.
Obama has already announced that 17,000 more US soldiers will arrive in Afghanistan later this year, and more could be on the way. The new deployment will bring the US presence to more than 50,000. Brown has recently increased Britain's contribution to more than 8,000 troops.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in UK
- 1. Cambridge beat Oxford in 158th Boat Race after midway halt
- 2. Gas flare at Total's North Sea platform self-extinguishes
- 3. A myth turns 100: Titanic still fascinates world
- 4. Source of North Sea platform gas leak located, says Total
- 5. Efforts under way to stop gas leak on North Sea platform
Older Talkback
page: 1
Dear Lance.
Thank you for your informed and valuable contribution. However, I would once again suggest that you have recourse to your 'Cat in The Hat' dictionary (Economics section).
I think that you will find that 'Trickle Down' is an essentially laissez faire, minimalist concept. The diametric opposite of the course proposed above. In brief, It is usually employed in opposition to advocates of income redistribution policies who rely in part upon the imposition of progressive direct tax regimes with punitive higher bands.
I would be happy to continue, were I directing this comment at (almost) anyone else, but as I have previously stated to another master of the 'razor sharp insight;'
'just as I would be unwilling to discuss Voltaire with a Chimpanzee, I will not waste my time by entering into protracted economic or political debate with your good self'
Now please go back and play on the Sri-Lankan Cricket Team atrocity page. You can talk about jesusbombs, willfulignorance, babykillers and all the rest to your heart's content. Let your maunderings stand there as a monument to the fool that you are. It's the sort of article that few others will feel it appropriate to make facile points about.
'I think that you will find that 'Trickle Down' is an essentially laissez faire, minimalist concept.'
Hardly true. 'Trickle Down' is a heavy-handed economic model where distribution system provide leverage to very wealthy people to accumulate money and hoard it and pretend like they give it to peasant class. The essential element of 'Trickle Down' is a well-locked-up hierarchical power structure.
Just like the present 'Trickle Down' where the president prints money and everyone down the food chain pretends like that money has some sort of intrinsic value and they accept it from the leader in a hierarchical power structure.
One 'Trickle Down' is old school while the other is new school.
The concept of minimalist autonomic units operating in a non-hierarchical fashion is dead.
... then argues with himself about what they mean.
-----
Truebrit gives you an actual definition of the 'trickle down' theory of economics Lance ... and you go off and post your self-created nonsensical definition, trying to act as if YOU are the one who really knows anything.
Granted 'Trickle down' is better used to describe what happens when someone is pissing on your neck ...
But you Lance, are just the worst kind of fool.
Too arrogantly ignorant to know when to shut up.
'...Truebrit gives you an actual definition of the 'trickle down' theory...'
Too bad he is wrong.
'Trickle down' only happens if the government creates a strong immutable distribution system for business. It requires rigorous government intervention and control to maintain the chain of command. Just the opposite of 'Laissez-faire'.
People often get confused on this point. That is because Ronald Reagan was a populist and knew how to make wine out of water. He popularized the notion that rich people are rich because of their own self-created value instead of the real truth: rich people are rich because they hoard money and leverage a rigorous distribution system controlled by the government.
'Too bad he is wrong.'
First you are an aeronautical engineer who has designed fail-proof avionics and control systems, then you went through various incarnations of experthood and now you are a Professor of Economics and a Nobel Laureate to boot. You never cease to amaze me. One man who knows so much. Oops, silly me I forgot, it's Messiah lance. Too bad you are wrong.
spend billions on the poor for a change well done obama-lets see ik the money trickles up-it never tricckled down-for decades your presidents have sucked up to the rich bastards
Right on. In my country, the heads of banks told the government: Don't give money to Business. Don't start make work projects. Don't do the usual things. Take that money and GIVE it to the poor. The poor spend their money. They have none to save. The poor WILL spend the money buying goods and services, thereby stimulating the economy better than any other method.
This was from some of the richest men in the country. Talk about eye opening. Now the question remains, will the government heed the advice of the wise men.
Lance replies
'Trickle down' only happens if the government creates a strong immutable distribution system for business. It requires rigorous government intervention and control to maintain the chain of command. Just the opposite of 'Laissez-faire'.
He is confusing an explanation of a concept, not a definition of it, with a critique of that idea's practical application. What he appears to be saying is that unless the (or a) State intervenes overtly to impose a framework, a set of 'givens' within which such economic activity may be undertaken, then the whole sructure collapses. This surely is a truism! Our willingness to indulge in any form of speculative activity rests, ultimately upon our confidence that generally accepted standards, usages, laws pertain that will to some acceptable extent underwrite our risk. This age-old function of an organised polity is not to be confused with specific measures undertaken by governments to engineer social or economic outcomes.
He also states,
'People often get confused on this point. That is because Ronald Reagan was a populist and knew how to make wine out of water. He popularized the notion that rich people are rich because of their own self-created value instead of the real truth: rich people are rich because they hoard money and leverage a rigorous distribution system controlled by the government.'
This, again, misses the point. How the 'rich' have achieved 'riches' is irrelevant. How their 'riches' (call it Capital) are employed to create more 'riches' is germane. And, Lance, 'hoarded' riches are usually not simply stuffed into a bedroll or concealed behind wallpaper, but invested somewhere in hope or expectation of gain: And the institutions wherein they are invested must reinvest them in order that those hopes and expectations be realised.
I've just read that lot again. Have I been arguing with Lance, or some nameless commentator he enlisted via the 'cut' and 'paste' icons?
Phew!
Goodnight.
about all this high fallutin' economic stuff. I'm a retired worker who just had his pension slashed in half. So much for 40 years of being a team player and company loyalty. If I have any advice to the young worker today is don't believe a word they say to you and take them for all you can.
You might be loyal to the company, they ain't loyal to you. Don't believe their bullsh*t. f**k them and f**k them hard and long.
My apologies. Did not mean to offend. F*rting about on these pages is an occasional recreation and it is easy to forget the real world sometimes. Best of luck, mate!
not shootin' my mouth off at you. Just shootin'. I know I'm not a smart man. There's lots I don't understand. But I do know the meaning of hard work. I'm glad there's smart people like you who know this stuff. Maybe people like you can fix these things too. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe we gotta go through a Great Depression like my parents did. Adversity builds character. Lord knows some people could use a good dose of that.
Yu brits are like the Canadeans. Your to danged polite
You can't be too polite, so long as it's meant genuinely. The man just north of you seems to have worked all his life, for all I know raised a family, took care to provide for retirement instead of relying on others, trusted those he worked for to see him right in return for him doing his bit, and now he's been sh*t on from a great height. Then he has to watch those who steered his pension fund up sh*t creek 'regretting the necessity which has forced us, reluctantly, to acknowledge the need for an 'adjustment' to the benefits accruing from the scheme....' before jetting off to Bali or somewhere for a nice long weekend.
Then he looks up an article on here, scrolls down to see what other readers think and has to watch erudite old me blathering on about
'Trickle Down' with pond life like Lance! Were it me in his place, I would have been all p*ss*d off to H*ll: But no, he makes a bloody good point. Not arrogantly sure, but getting the idea across as well as anyone could, in fact better than most.
What the f*ck do people study Economics, Politics, all the 'Social Sciences' for, if not to try to make life better for PEOPLE?
The question remaining: WHY do people study those things? What is their motivation? That IS the sticking point, isn't it?
What happens to that motivation? At what point does it get distorted and turned into an 'All for me' attitude?
...he has all the unity he needs. What he needs is a plan. Barak...the euros are laughing at you...
far behind the times and posting long after the meaningfull stuff has been said. That is appropriate: he is behind the times and far out of contention to say anything meaningful. Here's SP again, sucking the hind teat.
page: 1
lanceMar 3rd, 2009 - 19:35:42
Definition of 'leader':
Print money to dole out to cronies. Otherwise known as: 'Top Down Economics' or 'Trickle Down Theory'.
Report this comment