"Culture of risk" - Amerikas främsta tillgång

Nedan finns ett blogginlägg jag postade på min blogg på Rightosphere. Det handlar om Amerikas risktagande kultur som blivit så kritiserad sen den senaste finanskrisen började. Jag förklarar att den egentligen är bra, och att det istället är den inkonsekventa politiken som är problemet (där man officiellt är ett kapitalistiskt land men ändå ger ut bailouts).

-------

Many leftist - and even some right-winged - commentators have been talking about the culture of risk and how it must be reigned in or destroyed. Too few people ask themselves: How come America got a culture of risk in the first place?

If we understand that, we will also understand why the culture of risk is America's greatest asset: There wouldn't be an America without it.

Let me explain: Everyone who is in America right now are descendents of risk-takers. They are descendents of English, French, Irish, Spanish, Scandinavian and other people who sailed over the ocean to make a better life for themself. Many of them would never reach the American shores but would die of diseases that were easily spread on the ships, or by malnutrition, or by drowning if the ship sank.

These brave people had one motto: "Get free or die trying".

Many of them fled from poverty, like the Irish in the 1840's. Or from religious oppression, like many of the Swedes. No-one accepted the condition their life was in, no-one would just lie down and die or surrender to the circumstances.

Is it really that strange, that these people's children would grow up to become risktakers as well?

I've honestly started to believe that the reason why we Swedes are socialists is that all our risktakers have emigrated. All the people who belived in "Live free or die" are long gone. The Swedish entrepreneurs rightfully felt that they would never be appreciated in their homecountry, and so they found a new one. Left over in Sweden was just a bunch of submissive peasants who didn't want to take responsibility for their own lives or situations. People who prefered to whine about their living conditions instead of trying to improve them.

That way, Sweden became a perfect breeding ground for socialism and it's associated doctrines of multiculturalism, sexual liberalism and bureaucracy.

I have myself moved from Sweden, and more and more people are doing the same. Many patriots in Malmö are emigrating to Denmark, looking for a place where they can raise a family and where their kids won't have to bow down to islamism (see my post about islamization for more info). Others are leaving for the US, or for Norway. The rest of Scandinavia is in a much better condition than Sweden, even if they're far from perfect.

Anyway, let's go back to the US: The reason you're in trouble is not your culture of risk, but your culture of inconsistency. The bailouts two years ago where not the first one's, even if no earlier bailouts had received that much publicity. The bankers were counting on you to be inconsistent; to talk about Capitalism, responsibility and taking consequences for your actions, but still in the end do the opposite. This is kind of like hostage takers who are counting on the police or the government to negotiate with them, even if the official policy is that they won't.

Inconsistency is unpredictable, and in unpredictable times, consumers hold on to their money. It's impossible to know what will be a good investment without being able to predict what the next move by the federal government will be. And no-one can do that.

That is why you need to pass a Balanced budget amendment, to make government policy more predictable and more reponsible. That won't happen under Obama, and that is why real, stable growth - whether we're talking about the stock market or GDP - won't pick up before Obama is out of office, and a proven leader has taken his place.

Risktakers are necessary for the economy. Political "Messiahs" like Obama are not.

John Gustavsson