Spain's economy is in the crapper as well

So in this yahoo article I saw when I went on the interwebs it says that Spain is the fourth and largest country in need of a bailout, and theirs will cost around 125 billion dollars or 1 billion euros this comes a week before the Greek election that will decide if Greece stays with the Euro. Now I dont know to much about whats going on or the details behind the crisis but I've watched a youtube video saying how either european countrys lose there soverignty or they lose the EU. I think that it would be in everyones interest if they were just a single European entity, but nations like France, The U.K., and Italy would'nt stand for it they have been soverign for so long that nationalism is just too big of a thing. Maybe the EU should have read more of comrade stalin's speeches...
http://news.yahoo.com/europe-bailout-spain-could-cost-125-billion-190614499--finance.html

It's been bad for a while.

Firstly, I wouldn't recommend yahoo news for intelligent articles.

But what you are saying is largely true, if a country needs to be bailed out then restrictions have to be placed on them for the future, in regards to spending cuts and reducing their defecits, which has lead to resentment in Greece already.
However, I understand the same restrictions have not been placed on Spain, perhaps because of what feeling has been like in Greece towards spending restrictions and the like.

Also, I think if we ever get through this crisis, Germany would want the EU to have tighter control over countries spending (especially Angela Merkel) as they have born the brunt of the bailout cost.
Certainly many countries would oppose this, even France now they have a new President.

The UK is not in the Eurozone, however, so will not have any financial restrictions placed on it.

Spain's economy has been crap for a long time, along with Greece and I believe Italy.

Austerity, austerity, austerity.

No, no, no. You spend money on making more money, that is how economics works.

They've tried austerity. The people rioted.

By the way, I can find sources explaining these things much better than I can:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/04/austerity-policy-eurozone-crisis

Also, how about the new deal? We got out of the depression by increasing spending to give people jobs. Why wouldn't this work in another country? Then again, aren't you one of those people that argues that the new deal didn't work?

Because the new deal sucked in the fact that it took forever to save the country, World War 2 did. However, if you look at the 1921 recession, President Harding's administration fixed that in a year with a hands-off approach.

@slydessertfox

The Great Depression and even the recession we have right now were worse than the 1921 recession. Also, the Great Depression was over a few years before WW2, it certainly wasn't ended by WW2.

I don't see any improvement here, in fact it kind of backfired in 1938 when the unemployment rose higher. The US created an economy preparing for war by 1940 and finally when World War 2 came it ended the depression. Even if unemployment did drop, that would be because it is easier to go up when you have hit rock bottom.

Had FDR put in the 9-9-9 plan, he would have saved the country.

And then it went down again in 1939.

1940 isn't even on your graph, so how can I see? Furthermore, unemployment started going down again in 1939, so who's to say it wouldn't have kept going down even if the US had remained staunchly isolationist?

I hardly think anyone knew about the 9-9-9 plan in the 1930s....

As I said it is easier to rise when you have hit rock bottom, but also the unemployment in 1939 is not as low as it was in 1937. Economic recessions are simply natural, government does not create jobs, businesses do. Also, it is kind of common sense that unemployment dropped because America was preparing for war by 1940, this even went further when the Lend-Lease act was signed in 1941. Common sense.

So you think the New Deal would have failed if there was no WW2? I'm sorry, but that's stupid. Furthermore, you continue saying 1940, and yes WW2 did speed up the decrease of unemployment, but I was talking about 1939. In 1939, unemployment went down again, and there was no lend lease act or preparation for war in 1939. So 1938 was a slight hitch, so what? The overall trend was downward after the New Deal.

1938 was not a slight hitch, just a year that proved the New Deal wrong. In 1939, unemployment just happened to go down, not because of the New Deal and according to this graph, I do not think it saved us:



GDP finally went up when America started it was economy. Before that, it was always down.

And there is this:

One does not get themselves out of a worldwide depression in a few years. Of course it took a long time to get out of the Great Depression smart ass, it was a WORLDWIDE DEPRESSION. It wasnt just Americas problem. You said the key word. 1921 was a RECESSION. Not a DEPRESSION.

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2008/11/unemployment-rate-under-reagan-vs-fdr.html

Tanks don't manifest themselves out of pixidust ya'know. Damn market fundamentalists always forgetting about the whole military aspect of Keynesian economic theory.

Yeah, and by the time the US got out of the depression, most nations using no New Deal go out of it.