I think people talk a lot about reason for economic crisis, but rarely investigate reasons, causes and solutions. For example, the rescue of the bank management, the reason for economic crisis for the cause of the original solution that creates a crisis, but lately it’s all people talk. So time is wasted on the subject and thought, at least by some as a “solution”. Now, more acceptable to talk about the events and then press the line generally liberal voice solutions rather than to participate in a comprehensive analysis of the real. In fact, I would say that in recent times has become quite acceptable, even to talk about certain issues, but maybe that’s another article. In this article I want to explore some of the reasons for financial crisis.
Without getting into politics (yet), one can formulate “by definition, because:
We borrowed more than they can pay responsibly.
This is one of the most obvious reason for economic crisis we are in. We do this individually and as a nation. Our government is a bad example every year to spend more than it receives. Money flows out of the country to foreign countries as interest on loans. U.S. consumers borrowed more than they can pay the debt and the banks to do so.
It’s quite simple and it is difficult to disagree with. Now the possibility that there are several reasons to borrow more than they could be responsible, but we consider a good idea.
We do less than they consume.
What is rather narrow in the future. We do not do things now. It is said that America is a paper economy. Some people seem to ignore the basic laws of physics. You can not go without doing anything and everything that consumes a lot of time until things start getting out of service. But that is what Americans do. We run a trade deficit for many years and only seems to get worse, not better. As a result, countries like China all our money. We send them in the form of trade deficit. Doing less of what we consume explains why borrow more than you could be responsible. Now, why is earning less than what we consume?
It is not profitable to hire people to produce the article.
New type that is true by definition and now prevent politicians. We do not manufacture these things are in the United States because it advantageous to do so. I think many Americans imagination could create some excellent manufacturing processes. They of course, but unfortunately, the process had been exported to other countries and other countries can enjoy the benefits of companies using technology. However, because it is not profitable to hire people to produce things that produce less than they consume. So why is not profitable to hire people to do things in America?
Our government put on excessive taxes and regulations on business.
In short our government makes it difficult or usually foolish to hire workers to do things. Best carried out abroad. And ironically, is usually able to “protect” the workers, but the media is not considered as a result of “protection” is that job no longer exists. Our government imposing excessive taxes and regulation explains why it is not profitable to hire someone to back up the chain things.Continuing achieve the final result: the financial crisis.
I do not think most people see these things so that they understand the reason for our current situation, and do not know what the solution. When it comes to our current crisis only “reaction” to bother giving money to the bankers, or perhaps simply afraid that they are willing to give money to the bankers. Either way most people only reactive and not solve anything. Are we as a culture to respect substantive dialogue. Instead, I think think it’s important to come unfortunately often punished in our culture. Pure symbolism and social speech is a waste of time, but the level of most people that most of the time, it deviates from it is against the rules of collective behavior that we believe has been selected or promise.
Now I am someone who wants to generalize a bit abstract. I keep it simple at this time. But I want to explain the financial crisis from the perspective of a broader theory. Sort relativity compared to Newtonian mechanics. I am a big generalization of what would be called “socialism”. Everyone acts like they know what it means, but reasonable to suppose that the average voter can give a good flavor. The average voter understands words like “change” slogan of the democratic, but still, abuse of the principle, because the Democrats do not represent change, but just the same with the Republicans gave U.S.: socialism. But before I get distracted again lets you define socialism:
Socialism is a form of collectivism, where government control of private property what otherwise looks for the good of society and usually with the aim of promoting equality.
That is my definition can still check the dictionary to see if they are closed.
I will present a single argument against socialism. I have a lot, but I have one that is really pretty and simple. I call it “empirical” argument. Empirical and based on an undeniable universal observation:
All countries of the socialist road to the extent that they would suffer a financial crisis.
There are other observations. For example, inequality is not eliminated in a socialist system, but still significantly increased. The reason, of course, is when you are in financial crisis, basically, every penny and not for socialism is a very difficult situation. I picked up a socialist society. In Laos, for example, the hotel staff in a fairly nice hotel, get about $ 45 a month. I think with a little touch of arrogance about racism in America when it should go to the socialist road the same without the same thing happen to us. We do not know.
Most voters are not known as a socialist America. They do not want to admit that we are a socialist country and a member of the left usually say something like: “The best theory is a mixture of capitalism and socialism” When you consider that the end is less than $ 45 a month I do not think nobody wants to experience pure socialism. Although the Lao people enjoy some free market reforms and wage is not nearly as high.
Imagine a continuum in which one side has the freedom and other pure socialism. When one considers the amount of U.S. government spending on them is a great way to socialism in the continuum. I also want to discuss the rules into account, and since we left the relative abundance has been successfully enact more regulations on businesses that happen to people a lot more pure socialist. In fact, our heavy regulation that has happened in every society in history. By the way, is an amazing achievement liberal. But when one take into account the rules and put us in the continuum far from the shore of freedom and closer and closer to the socialist side. After the empirical argument that should and suffering. I guess you could call experimental verification of the hard way.
