'The US Is Hypocritical when It Lectures Europe'

'The US Is Hypocritical when It Lectures Europe'

The closing group photos from the G-20 meeting in Mexico show the world's top leaders smiling in a show of unity. But German observers say the happy family shots belie the serious problems the world economy faces -- and the mudslinging that went on during the summit.

It's another wait-and-see game for the euro, as world leaders wait for euro leaders -- in particular German Chancellor Angela Merkel -- to come up with further proposals to shore up the common currency. Though there are lots of other economic problems in the world -- including the expanding US debt and trade barriers that have yet to fall -- the leaders of the industrialized world and key developing countries managed to concentrate nearly exclusively on the euro crisis during the G-20 summit at the Mexican resort of Los Cabos.

Merkel was certainly in the hot seat, once again, as many nations pressed her to do more for the euro -- at a time when many Germans feel their country has already done too much.

European leaders were also annoyed that their problems consistently grab the headlines, while many other countries have equally serious issues to deal with. They were quick to point out the financial crisis did not start in Europe, but in the United States.

But in the end, the leaders attempted to gloss over their differences, praising Merkel for her efforts as the two-day conference ended on an upbeat tone. Now Merkel's partners -- and the markets -- are waiting for the EU summit at the end of this month to see what else is in store to save the common currency.

On Wednesday, German commentators defended the country against foreign critics but also argued that little or no progress was made at the G-20 summit. They say such gatherings are not conducive to serious political debate, which is sorely needed these days.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"The euro crisis, which has a large destructive potential for the world economy, was reduced to a hiccup-sized problem in the summit declaration -- for one simple reason: When it comes to economics alone, the Americans, the Chinese, the Japanese and the Brazilians are all mired in their own problems. This creates a situation in which one country is always the sinner and the others only get a mild rebuke for their own misdeeds."

"The G-20 is actually the appropriate group in which to speak openly about major global problems. But now the summit has become so ritualized that it looks less like a serious discussion and more like a school classroom in which the children read their homework out to each other."

Financial daily Handelsblatt writes:

"It is rather hypocritical when the Americans and the British, whose own mountains of debt have reached a high point, try to lecture the Europeans. One number is sufficient to reveal what a bad tactic this is. At a time when the budget deficits of the US and Great Britain are about 8 percent, the euro-zone members have almost managed to bring their deficits as a whole down to 3 percent.

"Was Los Cabos for Angela Merkel all talk and no action? The G-20 cannot fulfill its proclaimed goal, made when the organization was founded, of being a world economic government. And that's a good thing, because we in Europe cannot reach agreement on a single joint approach. Still, the forum is important because it gives the chancellor and the other Europeans a beneficial reality check."

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"Despite a lot of dramatic words, the G-20 countries have for the time being postponed the rescue of the global economy. A few days before the next EU summit, the group of industrialized countries and developing nations have to powerlessly wait for what the Europeans will come up with now to save the euro."

"The G-20 is only as strong as the will of its members to work together cooperatively. That goes for the United States, which is resisting pressure to sort out its finances. That goes for the Europeans who, in the third year of their debt crisis, have still not convinced the financial markets that the euro in its current constellation can survive."

"The differences over the path to growth -- in America it's about demand, in Europe it's more supply side -- will immediately resurface if the Europeans, in the view of the Americans, don't deliver quickly."

-- Miriam Widman

Why the US? Why not Obama? He's the big mouth!

Obama represents the US as long as he's president. And it's not like it's only his opinion he's voicing.

First of all, the headline is quite right, those of our elected officials who presume to lecture European nations on their debts are flaming hypocrites - and most of those doing said lecturing are flaming leftists as well.

BUT, I will take exception to the article's claim that the financial crisis "started" in America.

The plain facts are that those Eurozone countries facing financial collapse - Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, etc - ALL of them have created MASSIVE entitlement programs and government wages and benefits that they NEVER had the means to pay for, and now that things are getting somewhat tight on the financial scene, they have ZERO savings to fall back on.

As far as I'm concerned, they are getting what they deserve. Every time I see a news broadcast of wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth, senseless mobs rampaging through the streets burning and pillaging and rioting with police because their government proposed to reduce their pension or wage, or cutback on some entitlement, I am outraged.

This is what government entitlements breed!

And it won't be long till we see this riots in our streets if we keep going the way of Europe!

The article refers to the financial crisis of 2008 which "officially" started with the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

I think you have a good point, Dbl. The entitlements and benefits HAVE to be managed very strictly and given out efficiently. If that is not the case, then it can have huge consequences.

BubbleBliss wrote:
The article refers to the financial crisis of 2008 which "officially" started with the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

I understand, but had those Eurozone countries practiced more responsible economic policies, they would not be in the mess they are now when our housing and financial markets hit the wall.

In other words, those countries had to be rotted at the core long before our financial collapse for that to bring them to the brink of destruction.

BubbleBliss wrote:
I think you have a good point, Dbl. The entitlements and benefits HAVE to be managed very strictly and given out efficiently. If that is not the case, then it can have huge consequences.

Quite right Bubbles. But in addition to that I say you have to set reasonable and sustainable levels of government pay and benefits. You can't promise the moon to government employees like retirement at 50 with a pension of 100% of pay and free healthcare for life, particularly if your government is already deep in debt.

dblboggie wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
The article refers to the financial crisis of 2008 which "officially" started with the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

I understand, but had those Eurozone countries practiced more responsible economic policies, they would not be in the mess they are now when our housing and financial markets hit the wall.

In other words, those countries had to be rotted at the core long before our financial collapse for that to bring them to the brink of destruction.

True. But let me also point out that there are several other Eurozone countries that have managed their benefit programs quite well.

dblboggie wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
I think you have a good point, Dbl. The entitlements and benefits HAVE to be managed very strictly and given out efficiently. If that is not the case, then it can have huge consequences.

Quite right Bubbles. But in addition to that I say you have to set reasonable and sustainable levels of government pay and benefits. You can't promise the moon to government employees like retirement at 50 with a pension of 100% of pay and free healthcare for life, particularly if your government is already deep in debt.

No, not unless you can cut your spending enough to pay off the debt AND pay for those programs.

I'll have to take you at your word on the first point.

But I agree with the second.