Crisis? What crisis?

Of course we have a crisis, people lose jobs, companies go bankrupt and all explained on the basis of greed, lack of regulation and wall street walking on clouds. Some people argue that the good times was just an illusion. Well, if the economic growth, wealth creation and the excess profits of the last few years were an illusion, shouldn't then an illusion's fall and demise also be an illusion? That's the only logical conclusion you can make if you accept the premise of the illusion.

So it wasn't an illusion and we have a real crisis which means we did have real growth and wealth creation. Is it simply changing hands now in which case the crisis is a process of wealth reallocation and ensuing disruption? Or is wealth actually destroyed at a level below the one that existed before excess growth building began?

Physical wealth in the US, Europe and Asia is not being destroyed. We are not experiencing a World War. With the exception of oil depleting and a climate changing, bridges, roads and buildings are still in place. So the major destruction is mainly happening to the intangibles. That's why prices fluctuate like crazy.

Isn't the creation of intangibles, however, infinite? If you look at history and also believe in human nature then you must accept its ability to create new intellectual words out of old ones.

I am optimistic. To those who argue previous wealth creation and economic growth was just borrowed time and an illusion, I rest my case.

Crisis? What crisis? It's just an illusion!

http://www.thinkaloo.com

The defeat (?) of American-style capitalism

Nobel prize economists are saying that this economic crisis will eventually pass but a big loser will be support for American-style capitalism. Does this mean that if the crisis happened during the Cold War the Soviet Union would have been the winner now? That's scary, isn't it? I'm curious to see what most people believe could have happened. If this crisis took place during the Cold War, do you believe that...

http://www.thinkaloo.com

Single Currency

I have wondered many times what the meaning of the existence of multiple currencies? I think a single currency could have a lot of benefits like reducing the cost of economic transactions and making the pricing of good and services more effective. Also, it would end the currency speculation and the effects of it and would boost the economic activity among various countries.

71% of respondents in the poll would like to have a single currency.

I would like to have a single language before I had a single currency. The benefits to the world economy would be even larger than if you only had a single currency. More trade, more travel, more understanding, more cooperation. So if I had to choose between a single currency and a single language, I'd rather have a single language. A single language would inevitably lead to a single currency as the world would become one in terms of how people think. A single currency without a single language means the world can trade better than if it had multiple currencies but it doesn't become one. So what I want to say is that under a single currency the world improves, under a single language the world becomes one. Within this context, which would You rather have?

http://www.thinkaloo.com