It wasn't just government spending it was a total shift in the economy. Making everyone even woman go out and get jobs and rationing stuff that all helped not just spending huge amounts.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
WW2 was government spending. We could have thrown those tanks into the water and still have the same effect. Heck we would have been better off if there was that kind of spending but no war because of how much industry was destroyed in Europe.Macbeth wrote:
No world war 2 did.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Isn't government spending what got us out of the Great Depression?
Yes but the government could paid people to do shit that isn't killing people and blowing shit up.Macbeth wrote:
It wasn't just government spending it was a total shift in the economy. Making everyone even woman go out and get jobs and rationing stuff that all helped not just spending huge amounts.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
WW2 was government spending. We could have thrown those tanks into the water and still have the same effect. Heck we would have been better off if there was that kind of spending but no war because of how much industry was destroyed in Europe.Macbeth wrote:
No world war 2 did.
No way in hell without a war would there be a way to make people ration food and such but I do understand what your saying. But must of the stuff that happened as an effect of WW2 can't be redone without another huge war.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Yes but the government could paid people to do shit that isn't killing people and blowing shit up.Macbeth wrote:
It wasn't just government spending it was a total shift in the economy. Making everyone even woman go out and get jobs and rationing stuff that all helped not just spending huge amounts.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
WW2 was government spending. We could have thrown those tanks into the water and still have the same effect. Heck we would have been better off if there was that kind of spending but no war because of how much industry was destroyed in Europe.
Rationing food was just more spending though, people not eating as much was done so that the government could buy all the food and ship it to the soldiers. If the government buys all the food and does something else with it, same effect is had.Macbeth wrote:
No way in hell without a war would there be a way to make people ration food and such but I do understand what your saying. But must of the stuff that happened as an effect of WW2 can't be redone without another huge war.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Yes but the government could paid people to do shit that isn't killing people and blowing shit up.Macbeth wrote:
It wasn't just government spending it was a total shift in the economy. Making everyone even woman go out and get jobs and rationing stuff that all helped not just spending huge amounts.
People wouldn't let that shit fly nowadays. Too used to getting all they can. People nowadays are also more wasteful. There was a huge cultural shift that happened at that time that you can't just make up out of nowhere.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Rationing food was just more spending though, people not eating as much was done so that the government could buy all the food and ship it to the soldiers. If the government buys all the food and does something else with it, same effect is had.Macbeth wrote:
No way in hell without a war would there be a way to make people ration food and such but I do understand what your saying. But must of the stuff that happened as an effect of WW2 can't be redone without another huge war.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Yes but the government could paid people to do shit that isn't killing people and blowing shit up.
My point was that the actual rationing of food had no direct effect on the economy, all it did was allow the government to buy more food. If the government was to buy that much food and just hand it out, the effect would be the same.Macbeth wrote:
People wouldn't let that shit fly nowadays. Too used to getting all they can. People nowadays are also more wasteful. There was a huge cultural shift that happened at that time that you can't just make up out of nowhere.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Rationing food was just more spending though, people not eating as much was done so that the government could buy all the food and ship it to the soldiers. If the government buys all the food and does something else with it, same effect is had.Macbeth wrote:
No way in hell without a war would there be a way to make people ration food and such but I do understand what your saying. But must of the stuff that happened as an effect of WW2 can't be redone without another huge war.
Lack of short-term memory: Multiple threads about the housing collapse and the root cause, which was a combination of shitty legislation proposed by a Republican and a Democrat, passed by a Republican Congress, signed by a Democrat President. Stupid derivative investment schemes, left unchecked by a Republican Executive and a Democrat-controlled banking committee.Varegg wrote:
Very much so ... I lost my job back then due to the same amount of unregulated capitalism that caused this crisis we now face so I guess nothing is wrong with neither Donnies nor my short or long time memory.DonFck wrote:
No, I remember the good times of credit and spending in the 80's quite well. That turned out nicely in 1991.FEOS wrote:
Of course it does...if you just swallow Democrat talking points and don't actually examine the root causes of the problem...which has been done ad nauseum already.
The short-term only memory problem on this forum is annoying.
Luckily Norway turned away from raw unregulated capitalism and merged into a socially based capitalism with more conscience and that pays off today, we handles todays crisis much better than any other country I can think of.
So to you FEOS ... the one track single minded thoughts of some forum members is really getting annoying
How's that?
So how exactly is it the last eight years' fault when widely recognized causal factors happened long before Bush took office?
And if we want to talk about single-minded thoughts of some forum members, the concept referenced in the above sentence is a prime example: Ignore facts, blame Bush (who I'm no fan of, btw). It's easy and requires no critical thought.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I just found something that's very interesting. I would say it reads like the plan that the govt is now following
And you shouldn't surprised to find out that its called the The Bernanke Doctrine
Its a 7 point plan (on wiki)
1) Print Money to cause inflation.
2) Give the banks money to make sure they survive
3) Lower interest rates because a high fed rate is for fighting inflation and this plan calls for causing inflation
4) Control the yield on corporate bonds and other privately issued securities. Although the Federal Reserve can't legally buy these securities (thereby determining the yields); it can, however, simulate the necessary authority by lending dollars to banks at a fixed term of 0 per cent, taking back from the banks corporate bonds as collateral.
5) Depreciate/devalue the U.S. dollar
6) Dump the US dollar on the world market by buying foreign currencies on a massive scale.
7) Buy industries throughout the U.S. economy with "newly created money" In essence, the Federal Reserve acquires equity stakes in banks and financial institutions.
I think you can see by the list that all of these things are being done. No wonder the Chinese have been warning the US not to devalue its dollar and China has been asking for a world currency. Good Article on Dollar devaluation from Asia Times The Chinese are holding a lot of US treasuries payable in US dollars. If the US dollar is devalued, then the US will be paying back the Chinese with pennies on the dollar. The real problem is that all imports, including oil are going to rise dramatically.
The deficit/debt/spending of Obama is meant to run the dollar down and cause prices to start climbing again. Federal spending is not the goal here, the goal is to run down the dollar for the purpose of inflating the economy to the point where all those crappy mortgage back securities and CDOs are actually profitable. We really are getting swindled.
The Fed is fighting deflation which is the same thing as trying to blow the bubble back up by devaluing the dollar.
Bye bye dollar. If this actually works we will be seeing $5+ a gallon gas and I really doubt wages are going to keep pace.
And you shouldn't surprised to find out that its called the The Bernanke Doctrine
Its a 7 point plan (on wiki)
1) Print Money to cause inflation.
2) Give the banks money to make sure they survive
3) Lower interest rates because a high fed rate is for fighting inflation and this plan calls for causing inflation
4) Control the yield on corporate bonds and other privately issued securities. Although the Federal Reserve can't legally buy these securities (thereby determining the yields); it can, however, simulate the necessary authority by lending dollars to banks at a fixed term of 0 per cent, taking back from the banks corporate bonds as collateral.
5) Depreciate/devalue the U.S. dollar
6) Dump the US dollar on the world market by buying foreign currencies on a massive scale.
7) Buy industries throughout the U.S. economy with "newly created money" In essence, the Federal Reserve acquires equity stakes in banks and financial institutions.
I think you can see by the list that all of these things are being done. No wonder the Chinese have been warning the US not to devalue its dollar and China has been asking for a world currency. Good Article on Dollar devaluation from Asia Times The Chinese are holding a lot of US treasuries payable in US dollars. If the US dollar is devalued, then the US will be paying back the Chinese with pennies on the dollar. The real problem is that all imports, including oil are going to rise dramatically.
The deficit/debt/spending of Obama is meant to run the dollar down and cause prices to start climbing again. Federal spending is not the goal here, the goal is to run down the dollar for the purpose of inflating the economy to the point where all those crappy mortgage back securities and CDOs are actually profitable. We really are getting swindled.
The Fed is fighting deflation which is the same thing as trying to blow the bubble back up by devaluing the dollar.
Bye bye dollar. If this actually works we will be seeing $5+ a gallon gas and I really doubt wages are going to keep pace.
Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2009-05-05 19:56:21)
Speech, Bernanke -Deflation- November 21, 2002Diesel_dyk wrote:
I just found something that's very interesting. I would say it reads like the plan that the govt is now following
And you shouldn't surprised to find out that its called the The Bernanke Doctrine
Its a 7 point plan (on wiki)
1) Print Money to cause inflation.
2) Give the banks money to make sure they survive
3) Lower interest rates because a high fed rate is for fighting inflation and this plan calls for causing inflation
4) Control the yield on corporate bonds and other privately issued securities. Although the Federal Reserve can't legally buy these securities (thereby determining the yields); it can, however, simulate the necessary authority by lending dollars to banks at a fixed term of 0 per cent, taking back from the banks corporate bonds as collateral.
5) Depreciate/devalue the U.S. dollar
6) Dump the US dollar on the world market by buying foreign currencies on a massive scale.
7) Buy industries throughout the U.S. economy with "newly created money" In essence, the Federal Reserve acquires equity stakes in banks and financial institutions.
I think you can see by the list that all of these things are being done. No wonder the Chinese have been warning the US not to devalue its dollar and China has been asking for a world currency. Good Article on Dollar devaluation from Asia Times The Chinese are holding a lot of US treasuries payable in US dollars. If the US dollar is devalued, then the US will be paying back the Chinese with pennies on the dollar. The real problem is that all imports, including oil are going to rise dramatically.
The deficit/debt/spending of Obama is meant to run the dollar down and cause prices to start climbing again. Federal spending is not the goal here, the goal is to run down the dollar for the purpose of inflating the economy to the point where all those crappy mortgage back securities and CDOs are actually profitable. We really are getting swindled.
The Fed is fighting deflation which is the same thing as trying to blow the bubble back up by devaluing the dollar.
Bye bye dollar. If this actually works we will be seeing $5+ a gallon gas and I really doubt wages are going to keep pace.
Where has all this money gone to?
Read my posts in this thread and please remind me where exactly I pinpointed Ex-Pres Bush. I don't recall doing that. Shit goes back to Reagan, via Clinton & Bush Sr. (eras). Whoever thinks that the president has all the say in these matters is a complete yokel though. Again I advise you to read what I wrote earlier.FEOS wrote:
So how exactly is it the last eight years' fault when widely recognized causal factors happened long before Bush took office?
And if we want to talk about single-minded thoughts of some forum members, the concept referenced in the above sentence is a prime example: Ignore facts, blame Bush (who I'm no fan of, btw). It's easy and requires no critical thought.
Or you can continue ignoring what I wrote. And also, if (N.b. if) in E.g. 10 years the whole country is doing much better due to reforms implemented today, please ignore that also and give all credit for this to the government in office at that exact time, for they have nothing to do with it.
Much of it never existed, I believe.Harmor wrote:
Where has all this money gone to?
I need around tree fiddy.
I laugh every time I see people try and make this a Democrat or Republican exclusive. Andrew Jackson (the one everyone hates) is the only President to eliminate the debt.. and we paid dearly.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
For the fuck of it. Would you eliminate the Fed knowing that it would led to an depression lasting lets say 5 years if you were guaranteed a stronger and more stable system and economy after those 5 years?Kmarion wrote:
I laugh every time I see people try and make this a Democrat or Republican exclusive. Andrew Jackson (the one everyone hates) is the only President to eliminate the debt.. and we paid dearly.
I would, although the fallout would be a lot longer than five years. A Jacksonian would not.. not today at least.Macbeth wrote:
For the fuck of it. Would you eliminate the Fed knowing that it would led to an depression lasting lets say 5 years if you were guaranteed a stronger and more stable system and economy after those 5 years?Kmarion wrote:
I laugh every time I see people try and make this a Democrat or Republican exclusive. Andrew Jackson (the one everyone hates) is the only President to eliminate the debt.. and we paid dearly.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Not so different after all but it seems you'd be more willing to sacrifice objects. People confuse me. Bah.Kmarion wrote:
I would, although the fallout would be a lot longer than five years. A Jacksonian would not.. not today at least.Macbeth wrote:
For the fuck of it. Would you eliminate the Fed knowing that it would led to an depression lasting lets say 5 years if you were guaranteed a stronger and more stable system and economy after those 5 years?Kmarion wrote:
I laugh every time I see people try and make this a Democrat or Republican exclusive. Andrew Jackson (the one everyone hates) is the only President to eliminate the debt.. and we paid dearly.
Sacrifice is coming either way. The time for complacency is dwindling.
Edit for Don: http://www.viddler.com/explore/kmarion/videos/20/
Edit for Don: http://www.viddler.com/explore/kmarion/videos/20/
Xbone Stormsurgezz
We have multiple threads about many issues FEOS, that's nothing new is it?FEOS wrote:
Lack of short-term memory: Multiple threads about the housing collapse and the root cause, which was a combination of shitty legislation proposed by a Republican and a Democrat, passed by a Republican Congress, signed by a Democrat President. Stupid derivative investment schemes, left unchecked by a Republican Executive and a Democrat-controlled banking committee.
How's that?
The housing collapse is not the root cause, many think that is the case but it's not ... shitty legislation perhaps under a Dem president and a huge contributor to the crisis but not alone to either trigger or cause the crisis ... die hard capitalism running wild would eventually caused this crisis with or without the housing market collapse ...
It took communism some odd years to cave in on itself and now the same thing is happening to greed based capitalism ...
I have claimed Bush was wrong on many issues but I'm not supporting the claims that he alone caused it, he contributed by accelerating the process but the end result imo would have brought us into this crisis sooner or later ... one country or one economy can't make the rest of the world fall to pieces unless the rest of world have deep underlying faults within their own system ... again it hurts those with the least amount of socially based economies the most.FEOS wrote:
So how exactly is it the last eight years' fault when widely recognized causal factors happened long before Bush took office?
True.FEOS wrote:
And if we want to talk about single-minded thoughts of some forum members, the concept referenced in the above sentence is a prime example: Ignore facts, blame Bush (who I'm no fan of, btw). It's easy and requires no critical thought.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
So you're saying I should read this:DonFck wrote:
Read my posts in this thread and please remind me where exactly I pinpointed Ex-Pres Bush. I don't recall doing that. Shit goes back to Reagan, via Clinton & Bush Sr. (eras). Whoever thinks that the president has all the say in these matters is a complete yokel though. Again I advise you to read what I wrote earlier.FEOS wrote:
So how exactly is it the last eight years' fault when widely recognized causal factors happened long before Bush took office?
And if we want to talk about single-minded thoughts of some forum members, the concept referenced in the above sentence is a prime example: Ignore facts, blame Bush (who I'm no fan of, btw). It's easy and requires no critical thought.
DonFck wrote:
Because they're the ones laying the foundation for having to generate a 1+ trillion dollar deficit in the last 100 days.FEOS wrote:
Because they're the ones who generated the 1+ trillion dollar deficit in the last 100 days?Dilbert_X wrote:
I blame whoever was running the country for the last eight years.
Makes perfect sense.
Makes perfect sense.
Please explain how I ignored what you wrote. You said that "whoever was running the country for the last eight years" layed "...the foundation for having to generate a 1+ trillion dollar deficit..."DonFck wrote:
Or you can continue ignoring what I wrote. And also, if (N.b. if) in E.g. 10 years the whole country is doing much better due to reforms implemented today, please ignore that also and give all credit for this to the government in office at that exact time, for they have nothing to do with it.
Since maybe half the reason for the 1+ trillion dollar deficit is largely the economic downturn, which started in 2005, you're clearly saying that the President/Administration in office at the time "laid the foundation" when clearly that is not the case. Additionally, you completely ignore the additional spending Obama has tagged as "stimulus" that is actually just "not letting a good crisis go to waste".
If the Obama policies fix things, I'll certainly give the Dems credit. They've got a stranglehold on the US Government with no checks and balances right now. Any laws they implement (and the results thereof) lie squarely at their feet.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Yes. It was. The collapse of the housing market (and subsequent tanking of derivative investments based on bad mortgages) was the root cause.Varegg wrote:
The housing collapse is not the root cause, many think that is the case but it's not ... shitty legislation perhaps under a Dem president and a huge contributor to the crisis but not alone to either trigger or cause the crisis ... die hard capitalism running wild would eventually caused this crisis with or without the housing market collapse ...
If either 1) the housing market had stayed stable or 2) high-risk mortgage-backed securities had not taken off then the US economy would still be in pre-2005 shape. Our deficit would be much lower (no bailouts would've been needed), and people would be scrutinizing Obama's spending much more than they are, as he wouldn't have been able to slap the word "stimulus" on his non-stimulus spending.
You should read some Mark Twain.Varegg wrote:
It took communism some odd years to cave in on itself and now the same thing is happening to greed based capitalism ...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
It seems as I haven't read thoroughly the posts I've quoted. I didn't mean to blame that administration alone. My apologies for that. I did however place the "blame card" on a number of other things, to which you said nothing. Is it because you couldn't come with a snazzy comeback or is it because you agree?
Artificial inflation of prices in order to accumulate the wealth of select individuals at the cost of the masses lead to what we see now as a depression.
Artificial inflation of prices in order to accumulate the wealth of select individuals at the cost of the masses lead to what we see now as a depression.
I need around tree fiddy.
I missed this post from you before:DonFck wrote:
It seems as I haven't read thoroughly the posts I've quoted. I didn't mean to blame that administration alone. My apologies for that. I did however place the "blame card" on a number of other things, to which you said nothing. Is it because you couldn't come with a snazzy comeback or is it because you agree?
Is that where you "place(d) the 'blame card' on a number of other things"? Maybe you thought you were being clear. You weren't.Earlier DonFck wrote:
So, you think that the recession magically happened and Obama is to blame? Try former governments, lobbyists, corporations and banks. Now the breakdown caused by the illusion of money that didn't exist needs to be fixed with money that does. Globally.
And no, I don't think Obama is to blame for the current mess, nor (clearly) do I think the recession "magically happened". I'd say there's no ambiguity in my position on that. I do, however, think Obama's massive spending absent sufficient job creation associated with said spending will do nothing to help us get out of the recession.
Argue about "money that doesn't exist" all you want. That's the basis of the world economy and has been since we started using money that wasn't made of precious metals. Monetary value is reflective of the perceived value of an asset. Since value is entirely subjective, that's where you get your "money that doesn't exist". It is not going away.
Power to the people! Where's my giant afro and "raised fist" hair pick? And my tie-dyed shirt? And my Birkenstocks? And my tinfoil hat?DonFck wrote:
Artificial inflation of prices in order to accumulate the wealth of select individuals at the cost of the masses lead to what we see now as a depression.
I'm with you brother!
/sarcasm
How was that for "a snazzy comeback"?
On a serious note, it's not a depression, no matter how bad the media wants it to be. We're in a depression about as much as we're in danger of massive population die-offs from H1N1.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
No it wasn't and yes I have read Mark Twain ...FEOS wrote:
Yes. It was. The collapse of the housing market (and subsequent tanking of derivative investments based on bad mortgages) was the root cause.Varegg wrote:
The housing collapse is not the root cause, many think that is the case but it's not ... shitty legislation perhaps under a Dem president and a huge contributor to the crisis but not alone to either trigger or cause the crisis ... die hard capitalism running wild would eventually caused this crisis with or without the housing market collapse ...
If either 1) the housing market had stayed stable or 2) high-risk mortgage-backed securities had not taken off then the US economy would still be in pre-2005 shape. Our deficit would be much lower (no bailouts would've been needed), and people would be scrutinizing Obama's spending much more than they are, as he wouldn't have been able to slap the word "stimulus" on his non-stimulus spending.You should read some Mark Twain.Varegg wrote:
It took communism some odd years to cave in on itself and now the same thing is happening to greed based capitalism ...
It was more than the housing market that made this happen ... pre 2005 shape is pure speculation, it's not like this is the first time capitalism have been running wild and caused problems ... and it will happen again ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Then perhaps you've got some info that others don't have on what started the US economic problems? I'd love to see it.Varegg wrote:
No it wasn't and yes I have read Mark Twain ...FEOS wrote:
Yes. It was. The collapse of the housing market (and subsequent tanking of derivative investments based on bad mortgages) was the root cause.Varegg wrote:
The housing collapse is not the root cause, many think that is the case but it's not ... shitty legislation perhaps under a Dem president and a huge contributor to the crisis but not alone to either trigger or cause the crisis ... die hard capitalism running wild would eventually caused this crisis with or without the housing market collapse ...
If either 1) the housing market had stayed stable or 2) high-risk mortgage-backed securities had not taken off then the US economy would still be in pre-2005 shape. Our deficit would be much lower (no bailouts would've been needed), and people would be scrutinizing Obama's spending much more than they are, as he wouldn't have been able to slap the word "stimulus" on his non-stimulus spending.You should read some Mark Twain.Varegg wrote:
It took communism some odd years to cave in on itself and now the same thing is happening to greed based capitalism ...
It was more than the housing market that made this happen ... pre 2005 shape is pure speculation, it's not like this is the first time capitalism have been running wild and caused problems ... and it will happen again ...
It's not a problem with capitalism. It's the cyclical nature of economies, regardless of the theory on which they are based.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
This I agree with to 100%.FEOS wrote:
It's the cyclical nature of economies, regardless of the theory on which they are based.
The social economic theory (or whatever we want to call it) is however to, by government control, even out / flatten the peaks and valleys so that the economy doesn't shift violently between a high-roller casino and living in a cardboard box, which is what a free roaming market without control will inevitably do. People are by default selfish.
I don't have an afro and I've never owned a tie-dyed shirt. I'm an export manager in an automotive parts company, that kind of shit wouldn't fly in corporate meetings.
Instead of systematically denying what people in E.g. Europe have to say about the situation which effects just about everyone on the planet, do realize that sometimes people looking in from the outside have a different perspective which necessarily isn't the wrong one. Adopting models that have proven to work in other economies is a good idea, as many functioning models have also been adopted to the world from the U.S.
I need around tree fiddy.
I didn't limit it to the US economic problems alone, this is a phenomenon that is bigger than that, yours however is more tied with greed that many others ...FEOS wrote:
Then perhaps you've got some info that others don't have on what started the US economic problems? I'd love to see it.Varegg wrote:
No it wasn't and yes I have read Mark Twain ...FEOS wrote:
Yes. It was. The collapse of the housing market (and subsequent tanking of derivative investments based on bad mortgages) was the root cause.Varegg wrote:
The housing collapse is not the root cause, many think that is the case but it's not ... shitty legislation perhaps under a Dem president and a huge contributor to the crisis but not alone to either trigger or cause the crisis ... die hard capitalism running wild would eventually caused this crisis with or without the housing market collapse ...
If either 1) the housing market had stayed stable or 2) high-risk mortgage-backed securities had not taken off then the US economy would still be in pre-2005 shape. Our deficit would be much lower (no bailouts would've been needed), and people would be scrutinizing Obama's spending much more than they are, as he wouldn't have been able to slap the word "stimulus" on his non-stimulus spending.
You should read some Mark Twain.
It was more than the housing market that made this happen ... pre 2005 shape is pure speculation, it's not like this is the first time capitalism have been running wild and caused problems ... and it will happen again ...
It's not a problem with capitalism. It's the cyclical nature of economies, regardless of the theory on which they are based.
Take a peek back in time and look at how capitalism have caused crisis before ... the signs are pretty obvious ... several state leaders (in Europe I might add) have already acknowledged a more socially aproach to capitalism after this situation emerged and that is a good sign ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................