The Fragile Stability of Economies
One example to this would be the Great Depression which could be considered a consequence of World War I, for after leading a fine military market during the Great War, after it was over, the market crashed completely. Eventually, the Great Depression led to changes in the economical policies of the use, thus moving away from a purer laisez-faire economy to more moderate economy at the suggestion of the Franklin Roosevelt administration.
But this has been under constant change, for in the 50s, a return of laisez-faire ideals returned during the Ronald Reagan administration.
Therefore, the U.S. economy has constantly been under changes and crises of different sorts. But in this particular conflict, Federal Budgeting and Spending has been constantly increasing the U.S. international debt, thus making an international economical conflict, rather than a nation economical conflict.
But looking back at the modern day, what does it mean to have reached another government shut down in U.S.? Some would claim that the government is not meeting the necessities of the people, for with the shutdown, many people have lost jobs in public services, which were once funded by the government, and the U.S.’s economy has been under constant instability. In the other hand, some would claim that the U.S.’s democracy is founded by the people, so to what extent are the people held responsible for the instability in the U.S.? Clearly, despite the various arguments going on how to solve the shutdown, there is an underlying conflict of balance between what everyone’s role is in preventing such economic crisis. But in the bigger picture, if the U.S. congress doesn’t reach a sort of agreement to raise the cap, this could lead to a global financial crisis if the U.S. reaches a default and this is maintained for a prolonged period of time.
1). - National Economy
2). - International Economy
So, to have reached another government shutdown in the U.S. demonstrates that Federal Budgeting and Spending has to be handled more reasonably, for consequences would be catastrophic at an international level. But what does this mean to national politics? Currently the U.S. Congress is engaged in discussion between its members to attempt to reach an agreement on how to handle the government shutdown; however, the ideological differences make this process difficult to complete. So, despite the urgency, the U.S. Congress has to make fiscal decisions of how to handle its internal economic policies, most controversially being the Obamacare, public health care policy. Other propositions include: installing a debt limit and large spending cuts on public services.
However, there are various implications to the decisions that could be made by the Congress at the stake of the American citizens and the global community. For instance: eliminating spending on public services entails cutting spending on veterans, medical services, and other services such as national parks, monuments, and museums. But on the other hand, without any cuts on spending, this would lead to the higher chance to reach a global economical crisis. Therefore, the Republican demand to cut federal spending seems reasonable in order to prevent a global conflict; however, what would this mean in the future? For cutting federal spending makes sense in the instance of debt, but at a national scale, this could lead to further frustration from the citizens of the U.S. if it was simply done to come back to another shutdown. Therefore, the suggestion of a debt limit is quintessential if the U.S. hopes to achieve any level of fiscal stability.
Ultimately, it appears to be that the 17th U.S. shut down, could either lead to another a worse one, or attempt to sort out some sort of debt limit. Nevertheless, there are various social, political, ideological, and economical aspects that emphasis why the U.S. shutdown is not only a national crisis in the U.S. but also a possible global crisis if not dealt with properly.