Financial crisis

Thank you for the response! I agree with what you said. Life is suddenly every aspect has its own pros and cons. This so called financial crisis has arisen only because we don't have savings. If you have a saving then only you can think of investment. In the term of economics investment is directly proportional to saving. If the people in the US have savings then this sub-prime crisis would not have arised. They hadn't saved and that was the reason they were not able refund the loan amount. You have given you view according to the Indian prospects as people here believes in saving. But in the west sub-prime customers hardly save money, where you can think about investment. Moreover, the question is not about being happy or not. The question was is the economic sitution improving with the passage of time. Are we coming out of this mess (financial crisis).

I am listening to this since last 7 - 8 months that the economy will be back on track in coming two years. But now approximately one year has passed and their is on sign of improvement. Of course, the worsening of economic condition has stopped but there is no improvement. You are also stating that it will take another two years and after two years someone else will say it will take another one or two years for improvement. Whom should I belief?

it will take near about two years to recover this crisis and defdinitely after two to three years you will see every thing as usual

Most of the Europes Leaders have told President Obama the same thing. Japan tried it in the late 1980's and was in an economic downturn for the next decade. President Obama is trying to get textbook socialisum where everybody is equal. He faile to read where this has never worked on a large scale. His next step is to destroy the US as we know it.

Para, I just had to laugh at this post. You just admitted that Kerry and Gore were right, I don't know if you realize that or not. Lets admit that Gore was right when he talked about the social security lock box, but we needed that money for tax breaks for the rich. You are correct that democrats do have some responsibility for our current mess, but so do all parties involved. The problem is that one party doesn't want to solve the problem, they would much rather keep the economy the same way it is till the next election so they can use it against democrats. The truth here is that the republican party and the conservative party are at a cross roads. Both have needed each other over the past twenty years to survive, but now the conservatives need to figure out if they want to survive, or die. If Barack Obama turns the economy around, this will be the second time in twenty years that a democrate fixed an economic mess that a republican left. The American people will have a hard time electing another republican as president. To answer your question about increasing deficit spending to decrease your national debt is easy. If you spend money on projects that are investments in our country instead of hand outs then those companies you invest in will hire people, who will in turn spend money, and will pay taxes on their income, and their consumption. This also will create other jobs to feed the jobs that were created by your initial investment (the same reason why GM employs thousands of people, but millions are attached to those jobs either indirectly, or directly). The more people working, the more people paying into the tax pool, the more money spending down the deficit. Any questions?

Thank you thegreatdebater...I am totally agree with you. But there is one more thing that the US and EU should take care of is their banking policies and should make the amendments required to the earliest...

Thank you brady2moss! I agree with your view that their should change in banking rules, regulations and principles. What I think is "at least this sector (banking sector) should be controlled by the government and shouldn't be 100% privatised".