Reasons For the Financial Crisis

Seems to me that people talk a lot about things but they rarely investigate reasons, causes, and solutions. For example, bailing out the banks neither addresses the reason for the crisis nor is it a solution to the original causes that created the crisis, but recently it's all people talk about. Thus time is wasted on the topic and it comes to be perceived, at least by some, as a 'solution'. It's far more acceptable to talk about events and then hint at some usually one line liberal sounding solution than it is to engage in an actual substantive analysis. In fact, I would argue that in recent times it has become somewhat unacceptable to even talk about certain issues, but maybe that's another article. In this article I would like to investigate some of the reasons for the financial crisis. Without getting political (yet), one can formulate a 'by definition' cause:

We borrow more than we can responsibly pay back.

This is a rather obvious cause of the financial crisis we are in. We do it both individually and as a nation. Our government sets a bad example by spending more each year than it receives. Our money then flows overseas to foreign nations in the form of interest on loans. US consumers borrow more than they can pay back, and banks let them do it.

This is simple enough and hard to disagree with. Now there are probably several reasons why we borrow more than we can responsibly pay back, but let's just consider one good one.

We produce less than we consume.

This is rather strait forward. We don't make things anymore. It has been said that America is a paper economy. Some people seem to be able to ignore basic laws of physics. You can't go along producing nothing and consuming everything for long until things start to get out of whack. But that's exactly what America has been doing. We have been running a trade deficit for years and it only seems to get worse not better. As a result nations like China have all our money. We send it to them in the form of the trade deficit. Producing less than we consume explains why we borrow more than we can responsibly pay back. Now why do we produce less than we consume?

It's not profitable to hire people to manufacture things.

Again that's sort of by definition true and I have so far avoided getting political. We don't manufacture things in America because it's not profitable to do so. I think there are many ingenious Americans that could probably invent some really good manufacturing processes. In fact they did, but unfortunately the processes were exported overseas and other countries get to enjoy the business advantages of using the technologies. Anyway since it's not profitable to hire people to manufacture things we produce less than we consume. So why is it not profitable to hire people to make things in America?

Our government imposes excessive taxes and regulations on businesses.

Simply put our government makes it difficult or usually foolish to hire workers to make things. It's better to do it overseas. Ironically the government usually does this to 'protect' workers, but the media never considers the result of the 'protection' is that the jobs no longer exist. Our government imposing excessive taxes and regulations explains why it's not profitable to hire people to manufacture things.Continuing back up the chain we arrive at the final result: Financial Crisis.

I don't think most people look at things like this so they don't understand the reasons for our current situation, and they have no idea what the solution is. When it comes to our current crises they just 'react' they get upset about giving money to bankers, or maybe they get scared enough that they are willing to give money to the bankers. Either way most people are simply reactive in nature and that solves nothing. We need as a culture to reward substantive dialogue. Instead, I believe substantive thinking has come unfortunately to be often punished in our culture. Pure symbolism and social talk is a waste of time but it's the level most people find themselves on most of the time, deviating from it is breaking the collective rules of behavior we seem to have either decided on or arrived at.

Now I am a person that likes to generalize get abstract a bit. I have kept it simple to this point. But I want to explain the financial crisis from the viewpoint of a larger theory. Sort of like relativity compared to Newtonian Mechanics. My big generalization for what is going on is called 'socialism'. Everyone acts like they know what it means but it would be foolish to assume the average voter could give you a good definition of it. The average voter understands words like "change" the democratic slogan, but even then they misapply the principle because the democrats don't represent change but just more of the same thing the republicans gave us: socialism. But before I get distracted again lets define socialism:

Socialism is a form of collectivism where the government controls what would otherwise be private property ostensibly for the good of society and usually for the purpose of promoting equality.

That's my definition anyway you can check the dictionary to see if I'm close.

I am going to present a single argument against socialism. I have many but I have one that suffices and is really simple. I call it the 'empirical' argument. Empirical because it is based on a single undeniable universal observation:

All nations that went the socialist route and to the extent they did suffer financial crisis.

There are also other observations. For example, inequality is not eliminated in socialist systems but always dramatically increased. The reason, of course, is when you're in financial crisis every penny really counts and for the have-nots socialism is a real tough situation. I have traveled a few socialist societies. In Laos, for example, the hotel clerks at a relatively nice hotel make about $45 a month. I think there is a bit of arrogance almost bordering on racism in America when we assume we can go the same socialist route without the same thing happening to us. We can't.

Most voters don't recognize America as socialist. They don't want to admit we are a socialist nation and members of the left usually say something like: 'The best theory is a mix of capitalism and socialism.' When you consider that the endpoint is less than $45 a month I don't think anyone wants to experience pure socialism. Even the Lao people enjoy some free market reforms or they wouldn't make nearly such a high wage.

Imagine a continuum where on one side you have freedom and on the other pure socialism. When one considers the sheer magnitude of US government spending we are a good way towards socialism in the continuum. I would argue regulations also have to be factored in, and due to our relative prosperity the left has managed to impose more regulations on business than occurs in many more purely socialist societies. In fact we may have more burdensome regulations than has ever occurred in any society for all history. In a way it's quite an astounding liberal achievement. But when you factor in regulations and place us in the continuum we are nowhere near the freedom side and getting closer and closer to the socialist side. So following the empirical argument we should be suffering and we are. I suppose you could call it experimental verification the hard way.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Robert_Badaracco

Robert Badaracco - EzineArticles Expert Author