What factor that compounded result in global financial crisis?
I’m new here, thanks to those willing to help me first.
now i have the point that financial crisis is compounded due to the low interest rate, US government miss-allocate capital..
here, i would like to know more about other factors…
I would like to give you the main reasons beyond the superficial economical or political factors.
The main problem leading to the crisis, and in fact any crisis situations we are facing today is our inherent human nature. We are only caring for ourselves, trying to take as much as we can, exploiting all the others in the process. That leads to broken connections and distrust in between us.
What has compounded this situation, which has been around for ages is that by now the world has reached the state, where we have become global. We live in a totally interconnected and interdependent system, where this behavior we could get away with before, is now destroying the whole system.
That is why this crisis is not responding to previously tried and tested solutions, and requires a completely new mindset.
We have to learn what this globalization really mean, and we have to learn how to live, think and connect to each other in such a closed, integral system.
Below you will find a fantastic video, and article analyzing the crisis.
I hope it helps, all the best.
Will you support Ron Paul’s latest bill to repeal legal tender laws?
This would repeal legal tender laws so you aren’t dependent on devaluing federal reserve notes
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr121307h.htm
Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Competition in Currency Act. This act would eliminate two sections of US Code that, although ostensibly intended to punish counterfeiters, have instead been used by the government to shut down private mints. As anti-counterfeiting measures, these sections are superfluous, as 18 USC 485, 490, and 491 already grant sufficient authority to punish counterfeiters.
The two sections this bill repeals, 18 USC 486 and 489, are so broadly written as to effectively restrict any form of private coinage from competing with the products of the United States Mint. Allowing such statutes to remain in force as a catch-all provision merely encourages prosecutorial abuse. One particular egregious recent example is that of the Liberty Dollar, in which federal agents seized millions of dollars worth of private currency held by a private mint on behalf of thousands of people across the country.
Due to nearly a century of inflationary monetary policy on the part of the Federal Reserve, the US dollar stands at historically low levels. Investors around the world are shunning the dollar, and millions of Americans see their salaries, savings accounts, and pensions eroded away by rising inflation. We stand on the precipice of an unprecedented monetary collapse, and as a result many people have begun to look for alternatives to the dollar.
As a proponent of competition in currencies, I believe that the American people should be free to choose the type of currency they prefer to use. The ability of consumers to adopt alternative currencies can help to keep the government and the Federal Reserve honest, as the threat that further inflation will cause more and more people to opt out of using the dollar may restrain the government from debasing the currency. As monopolists, however, the Federal Reserve and the Mint fear competition, and would rather force competitors out using the federal court system and the threat of asset forfeiture than compete in the market.
That link is actually from 2007, but he has introduced a new one in 2009
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/12/15/washington-tear-down-your-wall-against-c
Adam B, I already know you are a socialist or a communist with an agenda from reading your other answers. You are a biased d-bag. You aren’t fooling anybody.
The constitution says states can only make gold or silver legal repayment of debt. That clause was added because of the states issuing their own paper currency under the articles of confederation. And yes it was a disaster, but the thing is you are using revisionist history.
No. That’s incredibly stupid. Ron Paul, as usual, ignores everything that happened before the Civil War. Because he’s a gynocologist and not an economist, a political scientist, or anything else.
Before the Civil War, each state printed its own notes, as did many, many banks. The result was a disaster. When a bank that issues its own notes goes bankrupt, and those notes are out there in circulation, what happens to the value that those notes represented? How can you ensure that random money printed by a private firm you’ve never heard of will be accepted anywhere? Or even more stupid, what about when you travel abroad? Do you really think you’ll be able to easily exchange "money" from the Bank of Ron Paul for real cash, like euros?
A measure of wheat for a days wages: Is the modern capitalist concept of a paper monetary system…?
…as a store of wealth going to leave us in one hell of a bind if the financial and governmental systems collapse? Paper money is artificial, and so is its perceived abilities as a measure and store of wealth.
Yes. The system we currently work in is called a FIAT system (our currency is not backed by any standard other than our own government). This system was implemented by Richard Nixon during his presidential term by removing the U.S. from the gold standard. Prior to Nixon, a U.S. dollar could actually be traded for $1 worth of gold. However, Nixon eliminated this process so now our dollar is not based on a particular standard (like the value of gold). Because of that inflationary value has created an artificial layer of wealth in our country (as our currency is basically supported by the US government saying it is worth that much). So if the governmental system were to collapse or confidence in the system dropped, then the US currency would become worthless as no other entity/standard could vouch for the value of the currency.
Why should the Democrats compromise on the stimulus when Republicans presided over the economic collapse?
I’m not trying to be rude or partisan, but it’s a fair thing to ask, and it is true. It seems to me that the majority of Americans had their voices heard in November, and they elected a President with a Liberal agenda. Therefore should the Democrats sacrifice to appease the economic principles that George Bush worked for?
Thanks for answering.
mark3254- Democrats actually have 59 seats, including left-leaning indy’s
You must not have been counting the 8 seats the dems gained in November….☺
The Republicans might be on to something.
We need to look at their counter plan and see if it holds water.
There is no reason that anything that makes better sense cannot be adopted into a bipartisan version of the bill.