The title might not immediately tell you what the contents are, but what is meant is the ‘credit crunch’, and when that has been clarified, my point of view is immediately clear.
Due to investments that could not be accounted for, and due to governments which have shut their eyes for the risks taken by bankers and investors around the globe, the financial situation worldwide has gone down the drain. That in itself is rather upsetting, but what upsets me even more personally, is that the governments, who for many years allowed the missteps and risky investment and who have pretended not to notice what was going on, all of a sudden decided that they should do something, that they would act rather than ignore the situation.
Personally, I believe that they should have stayed away again, just like they did when the investments were made. You cannot play ostrich when you like and then start acting like Napoleon, telling others what to do when that suits you better. Either you are there when the missteps are taken, or you lie low all the time. It is bad enough that the civilians in society do as they please, but the government is supposed to set an example of good behaviour. Civil servants who act from their profession, are meant to look either one way, or the other. It is impossible to look both ways, and still achieve a proper result.
The governments try to solve problems by cutting working hours, by which they fictionally try to keep the market going. But that is exactly what happened in the USA in the thirties. The government also tried to keep the market going fictionally, and they tried doing that by working with money that wasn’t available. Which is exactly what is happening now. The Dutch government for example, has implemented a rule that when a company cuts working hours, the remaining hours will be paid with money which is generally used to support the unemployed. This is just a way of shifting the problem to a later time, since nothing is actually solved by these sorts of measures. The best thing for the governments to do, is to keep their hands off, and let the market sort the problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Michelle,
ReplyDeleteYou gave clear arguments why goverments shouldn't interfere in the credit crisis. I agree with you on the fact that governments shouldn't interfere; until now they haven't really come up with long-term solutions and I also believe that the market should solve the problem without government influences. I couldn't explain it better than you did in your blog!
Greets,
Gajana
Hello Michelle,
ReplyDeletefirst of all I've really enjoyed your example with Napoleon, quite right ;)
It is clear that governments prefered close their eyes than acting, and a lot of people have predicted the crisis!
Now we are all complaining, but anybody wanted to trust them.
But of course it's always more simple to say that we should have acted in another way than what we have done, but it's too late.
Moreover, I don't really think that we should totally let the market solving the problem alone, because how can companies would be able to refund their losses without the loans of the governments??
We sometimes need the government, but I agree we have to let the market doing its business.
Thank you for your post !
Hey Michelle,
ReplyDeleteWhile reading your blog I noticed that you have some thoughts concerning the recent government interferences. I entirely agree with you. That is also why I liked reading your blog. Everything that needs to be in it is indeed present. The content is clear and I have not come across any mistakes.
Kind regards,
Ruben