Dude if that's all true how in the hell do you not work in a corner office for a big corporation by now? A masters degree and all the work you've had is as a janitor? I don't mean to sound rude but you must be doing something wrong.

I agree. We should just have a big campfire and we can sing kumbayah together and we'll have a big cookout and the entire human race is invited! We'll share our posessions and be nice to each other; it'll be the best campfire ever.

So there weren't other factors involved?  To what to you base your liberal vs. conservative characterizations?

The freeest market in history (the over the counter derivatives (OTC) market) is what caused the financial crisis in the US.  Regulators were not even allowed to ask questions about this market until it crashed.  It was the ultimate test of the "greed is good", free market philosophy and it failed so miserably that we will all be feeling its impact for a long time to come.

There were other factors involved.  However that very much WAS a factor.  A major one.

The US actually spends more money per capita then most countries when it comes to "spreading the wealth".

This is something most people don't realize.

The derivitives market itself was an extension of this... as is allowed home ownership to skyrocket to levels it shouldn't of skyrocketed too.

Said market wasn't made "because greed was good".  Said market was made because people wanted to "Spread the wealth of houses".

Because owning your own home is the cornerstone of the "American Dream."

Your way off base here.  You seem to be repeating the conservative mantra that it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac via the Communities Reinvestment Act that caused the crisis.  This has been thoroughly debunked by many sources.  Its just a way of blaming poor people for the problems created by the wealthy.  It's morally reprehensible.

The derivatives market is much bigger than anything mortgage related.  By many accounts, it is in the quadrillions.  The mortgage crisis was just the trigger that started the implosion.  It was inevitable that this implosion was going to occur, it was just a matter of when.

Realistically speaking, if the sum total of the world's wealth was to be distributed evenly among every human being on the planet, assuming that the cost of living remained the same, everybody would be impovershed.  On a smaller scale, if the sum total of America's wealth was to be distrubuted evenly emong every American, every American would be impovershed. 

However, things do not need to be that extreme when 'spreading the wealth around'.  The problem is that immense volumes of cash are in the hands of the wrong people--people who don't do anything productive with it.  You've got corporate juggernauts cutting corners, jeopardizing the safety of their employees, damaging the environment, all in the name of adding a few hundred million dollars to their personal wallets at the end of every quarter.  Some folks just collect Ferrari's. 

I believe that something should be done to take money out of the hands of thoroughly useless wealthy people and invest it in the future of the human race.  I'm not sure what that something should be, but the present economic model isn't going to keep the planet alive for too long.

The last time the wealthy had all the money was during the Dark Ages, and I would hope nobody wants to go back to socio-economic conditions like that.

Henry Ford said it best, Make the best quality good possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.   Workers should be able to buy the cars they make."

Without a strong middle class, America's economy  and way of life is doomed.  Investments and innovation requires a strong demand from America's middle class, and with the middle class in the state it is now there is little to no reason for businesses to invest.  The idea that giving more and more money to the rich will somehow create more wealth is not only false, it is economic suicide.

I had one of those jobs with IBM until 2004 (with them nearly 7 years).  If you may of noticed, they are on a mission to eliminate as much American workers as possible, to maximize profits.  End result is less jobs, and IBM being one of the few IT employers in the Hudson Valley area.  Not much in the way to get additional training or certification either in this area.  In short, the IT industry started the 2008 trend right after 9/11.   This area has shown gross incompetence to create jobs.  From 2004-2007, I did two helpdesk jobs as a contractor with IBM.  The last one ended February 2007, with the helpdesk eventually consolidating with Colorado, and the helpdesk manager here killing himself after getting downsized.  I had seen state jobs in Albany also dry up to.  Throw in Masters level education in IT not worth much either (in co.mparison to a BS degree)

Welcome to the new economy.  So what would be the explanation of a person with director level IT experience pumping gas out in Vegas to pay the bills?

If I am to blame, it is for lack of knowing what to do to prevent problems, and act proactively, and thus not doing it.

enlightenment

I'm not the one who's off base.  Again, the countries who are more conservative fiscally are fine, only liberally economic countries were hurt.  Why do you think that was?

Why do you think deritivitives only hurt fiscally liberal countries?

Derivitives are used to push off risk, that companies take, often at the behest of governments... and also often at their own wishes.

Why do these exist?  Because people are convinced to do so.  People are convinced to spend beyond their means... espiecally in fiscally liberal countries.

The problem didn't happen because of banks.  The problem happened because too many people got loans in general that couldn't pay for them.  Too many people were living beyond their means and too many people and coutnries had negative savings rates.  Throw in massive government spending and you've got a huge inflation of value with no real value to back it up.

Everytime someone takes out credit it creates "fake" value... when enough defaults happen, either by us, the government or both... bad things happen as everything shrinks back to were the value should naturally be.

Anyone who blames it on the banks just wants to avoid the real problem.  Government and decades of people being taught poor financial discipline.

Even the government has realized this.  Well the poor financial discipline part anyway.  If your wondering why credit and loans are so hard to get now even with the bailout... the reason is, the fed greatly increased the benefits of having high cash on hand in banks.  The government basically made it more profitable for banks to sit on their money then to lend it out unless they're stone cold solid that they're getting that money back.