PatsFanInVa

That, and your earlier question, together say a lot.

Although we are not what we once were as a proportion to the total global economy, we're still first among equals, accounting for 25% of the world's economy (I think.) I seem to remember, possibly, that we'd declined to 20%.

Now if you're looking at a global stimulus of $1T, and our part is $100B, it would seem like a pretty decent take-home, even if we are viewing economic recovery through a zero-sum prism. Particularly so since Mexico -- one of our biggest trading partners -- is now a prime recipient of IMF largesse (one of the instruments by which the money goes in.) at the 1:10 ratio, we would only need a 1:10 expenditure to come back to the US, and with 25% of the economy of the world, that seems like a fairly safe bet (calculating direct AND indirect effects.)

If you're looking beyond zero-sum to the Europeans' position prior to the talks, that they refuse to engage in further stimulus activities, then it's simply a win, no math required. We did not want to pump $1T into the global economy ourselves, so we got other people to spend $800-900B.

Sounds to me like the girl bought us a diamond ring, from that perspective.

Fog, despite the ongoing feud from those with whom I often agree, I think your response was an uncharacteristically good one, not just because you agree with me this time.

BFan, you and I differ in that I recognize but accept that there are dangers to spending at the moment, but consider the dangers of not spending worse. You (I think) believe it is foolish to consider massive economic stimulus to be a solution. I'm just trying to put the neutral gloss on our difference of opinion on the current economic moment.

I do think, however, that given that the US is engaged in a massive stimulus, it is a good thing to augment it with nearly a trillion bucks from European and Chinese sources -- without it being a loan (as is our usual course w/China).

Were the US not engaged in a stimulus approach, we'd have more of an argument, I guess. The question, as you say, is whether it's a good deal. From what I have seen, I think yes. We'll see.

For the guys that jerked their knees like the trained puppets they are, thanks for proving there are some constants yet left in the world. It helps me retain my sanity to know such predictable, reliable behavior is not a thing of the past, even if you are wrong. There is just so much change all around us these days, that it is comforting that some will shout "socialist!" and "fascist!" regardless of the event in question. That goes double for the "whatever happened he gave away the farm" crowd.

PFnV

godef

This IS about the war and Bush. It's about the attitude of starting wars instead of trying the diplomat route. It's worth considering because it doesn't cost thousands of American lives. And you totally ignore the point that the war has cost much more than the 100B you whine about, which would go into building the world economy rather than destroying it.

__________________
See you at Super Bowl XLVI!

IcyPatriot

Perhaps but then again these were world leaders all trying to be popular. As always ... what goes on behind closed doors will explain it all. Bush was way too extreme and I just hope that Obama doesn't give up too much just to get where we need to be or rather perhaps where we should have been all along.

PatsFanInVa

We'll probably assess the results differently, and it will be our children who have the final say about it.

Since Euro leaders get points for smiling and mugging for the camera with their friend Barack, one can easily say he used his personal magnetism to get the US a better deal than we could have gotten without it.

Of course, one can say all sorts of hypothetical things... but in terms of negotiation, the fact that the European leadership is under pressure from their own people to be buddies with Obama, he certainly walked in with an advantage. If he used it to this country's betterment -- as I think he has, and inevitably, others will think he hasn't -- so much the better.

PFnV

Stokes

The real question for me, BEFORE we can call what he did at the G20 a success, is if it leads to gains for us diplomatically. Obama gave concessions at the G20 presumably so Europe would be more likely to support US policy. I thought at the time this was a flawed premise, as everyone is going to act in their own best interest no matter how much you're willing to give them. After the last 8 years though I suppose it is worth a shot taking a different approach, although looking at this article early returns are not impressive:

"Barack Obama made an impassioned plea to America’s allies to send more troops to Afghanistan, warning that failure to do so would leave Europe vulnerable to more terrorist atrocities.

But though he continued to dazzle Europeans on his debut international tour, the Continent’s leaders turned their backs on the US President."

Barack Obama fails to win Nato troops he wants for Afghanistan - Times Online