"azt hiszem mára az USAban is igy ünneplik a Hálaadást és nem sokan gondolnak a Pilgrimekre... :-) - én igy vagyok vele legalább is - azért tisztelem a történelmet és hálás vagyok azért, hogy itt élhetek, nyugodt körülmények közt, ahol legalább az elemi játékszabályok be vannak tartva."

"Egyetertek.
Sajnos nem fog igy maradni."

az etnikai változások miatt?

Az is benne van, de ez ennel sokkal, de sokkal komplikaltabb. Ma reggel nincs turelmem nekiugrani egy ilyen hosszu magyarazatnak, roviden meg nem lehet.
Egy aspektusrol irtam egy viszonylagosan rovid magyarazatot egy angol forumon, azt most beteszem ide. De ismetlem, még az is csak egy aspektus, ennel sokkal tobb van.
-------------------------------------
Everybody has a "theory" about the current financial problems. So do I :) Here is what I think (I maybe wrong, but this is my theory):

Up until (about) the middle of the 20th century, it was generally accepted that there are rich people, poor people, middle class, that there are rich countries, poor countries, countries in between. At around that time, it started to change. While beyond the so called socialist countries no country started to claim that "we are socialist too", but many started to implement more and more socialistic features, including USA. The concept of welfare was developing, the concept of "living wage" became, unions were not only accepted, but protected by laws which went against the stamped, labeled, and generally rejected original capitalism. Mostly the developed countries (mostly Europe and Americas) started to move to this direction. Here it all becomes quite complicated, but what it all comes down to, is that countries started to force artificial standards, those mostly dreamed of, but not yet economically (and in reality) created. Take just one "tiny example", USA.

USA, after coming out from WWII times, finally recovered from the great depression, economy was good, people lived the way people could, under the circumstances. But it wasn't perfect, and people had the false imagination that "it could be perfect". Unfortunately they were wrong (and that is what now coming to a head). In the 60's rather radical changes were made, such as setting up the massive welfare system (well, it wasn't massive then, but it became massive, it was allowed to become massive). Unions got such federal (legal) protection which were totally against the basic concepts of capitalism. The concept of "being born equal" were twisted into interpreting and expecting a "near equal outcome". Even schools (a killer) started to force otherwise non-existing equality (which they could approach/try only by lowering standards and expectations). These are the things which I think the "root of the current problems".

Where did all this lead? Well....it is all kind of a cross-dependent chain reaction. I know it is kind of "blurry", but please try to "think along" with me. Take welfare for example (and understand that I am NOT blaming welfare alone, it is just one example out of the many). Initially some 600 thousand people signed on, claimed to be "too poor" to make a living. They DID, since they didn't starve to death, didn't freeze to death, they were just damn poor. But the new waves of societal philosophy wanted to "fix" all that, and started to establish a "fight against poverty". Which is all very nice, if the society already produced all what it takes, but it didn't. Started the artificial re-distribution of everybody's "wealth". In other words, an undeclared "socialism" where first hundreds of thousands, later millions, and now tens of millions of people utilize. People who DO NOT PRODUCE anything, but CONSUME. Are they rich? No, of course not, but their basic life is assured by the state, they have food, shelter, clothing, transportation, health care, even some entertainment. Essentially for no economic return to the society. Since this became both increasing and perpetual, I don't see how something like this wouldn't become a perpetual financial drain on a country.

But this was not the only "item". Take another example, let's say the so called "working poor" issue. For decades, the general direction was to help them. Came the concept of "minimum wage", various forced benefits and so on. Again, in real capitalism such improvements are only possible, if the society already produced the intended improvements. USA (and many other countries as well) didn't wait for that, but started to manipulate laws, financial distribution via both forcing the producing sectors with laws.

Let's stop here for a second. Since more money needed to force these artificial standards, USA went into two particular direction:
1. Print more money (inflation)
2. Borrow money

Both of course must resulted in a decreased value of the money and put more and more strain on the economy. The fundamental principle of "you can't spend more than what you actually have" was ignored, postponed, delayed, hoped that "somehow it will get better". A fundamental mistake. No politician (even if they understood it, which now I have some doubts about) dared to step up to the plate and declare:"hey people, this is the wrong direction". Our election process is based on the "more you promise (false of real) the higher your chance to be elected". So, it all went on, nobody dared to take away anything already given, even if what was given was a mistake.

Then came the globalization. What it really meant, that production became more and more unreasonably expensive within the country, and in the name of "free competition", companies which could no longer afford to hire workers in USA, went abroad. Why they couldn't afford doing it here in USA? Because due to the non-working (welfare) layer, the remaining working layer (supply-demand) became more expensive. Came on top of that the artificial laws forcing artificial standards. Suddenly the cost of workers, the non-coerced conditions in other countries became very attractive. Company after company moved elsewhere. That's where a tragic mistake stopped people realize how wrong this was (is). We got much cheaper products. Hey, that must be good. Well, not really. Because first of all the capital still were flowing OUT of USA and IN, to those other countries. Maybe less in the stores, but after selling X product (although cheaper than it would have been produced here), the money (the value) still went OUT of USA. And yet, it created the impression that "it is a good deal for us". It wasn't. It may have seemed that way, but it wasn't. Because we may have paid less in the stores for a Chinese gizmo, we also had to pay (from our taxes) to all those who COULD HAVE produced the same gizmo, but they were on welfare, doing nothing. So, we had to pay the non-working inside the country and of course the working outside of the country. This process set up a continuous outflow of capital from the USA to elsewhere.

Then of course the energy issue. Not much words has to be wasted for the billions (trillions?) we paid to the oil producing countries, while within USA we failed to get whatever energy we could have. The "spotted owl" became more important than the economic health of USA. We could have drilled our own oil, build our own nuclear plants, but we didn't. Insane as it may be, but this was (is) another major factor, another way of the capital OUTFLOW. Our entire structure depends on energy.

Meanwhile we continued the unreasonable spending. Yet, another example (again, just one example, not some central cause of anything). Let's take the disability laws. After the laws made, tens of thousands (or more) facilities had to be structurally modified for unknown amounts of monies. In most cases for no more real reasons, but for once a month a wheelchair can be comfortably pushed up on a ramp, instead of a couple of strong person lifting the disabled to the desired place. I could bring much more examples, but the bottom line: it was a luxury which the country couldn't afford. Many other such unreasonable and selective luxuries were implemented, most not based on a healthy free competition and economic improvement, but rather by setting arbitrary standards by law.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands of other unreasonable spending exists, because of unreasonable expectations, standards. Another quick example (since I am working in that field) health care. Trip over something, fall down, have a tiny bump on your forehead. Go to the nearest emergency room. The ER doc will order a CT scan "to make sure, that...." whatever. Why? Because one out of ten thousand such case may result in a complication. Nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine will not. Is it very nice to prevent even that one out of ten thousand by doing ten thousand CT scans? Yes. Can we, as a country, afford it? Nope. Yet, we are spending it, because if we don't, comes the big lawsuit. And this example was ONE out of the great many similar ones. Of course the cost of health care is out of sight. But hey, one industry is booming in USA, and that is the blame industry. All of these I listed so far, and thousands of others are simplified, scapegoats are successfully "assigned". It is mostly "the rich" which almost became a dirty word in our society. The same way I learned it during the first 26 years of my life when I grew up in a formerly communist country.
---------------------------
I will stop right here, since I have no intention to write an entire book here. Anyone who has the brains will understand what I am referring to from these handful of examples, those who don't, wouldn't understand it anyway. The bottom line: decades of spending what we didn't have unavoidably undermined the economic well-being. We tried to cover it up, patch it up by inflation and borrowing. Oh yes, and the borrowing resulted in another "killer" (just to complete the circle). Other countries which ended up with our capital, eventually started to buy up American economic entities. Quite obviously, from that moment on, even the profit from those entities went abroad, even from entities which are operating within the USA.

This, decades long process in the wrong direction had to crack at one point. Is what we are witnessing right now is the "crack"? I don't know that for sure. I am not claiming that for sure. The media blames the "subprime lending". But why? Banks which are banks for over a century or more knew well whom to lend safely, suddenly forgot it? I kind of doubt it. In my opinion, it was more like an overall economic weakening (covered up by inflation and borrowing) and less and less people could afford a realistic loan, thus the banks were forced either not to lend (which is ridiculous for banks, since that is one of their fundamental function), or starting to make forced shortcuts in lending.
----------------------------------------------------------
In any event, I am inviting an in depth discussion.