The article said that the researchers from UK and Hong Kong released their analysis of the global impact of financial crisis taking place in 2008, indicated an increasing suicide rate, in particular the rate of among 15-24-year-old European men and 45-64-year-old men in the Americas, which is likely to relevant to the economic downturn in USA. since 2008. In addition, the Samaritans, a charity aiming to help people having emotional troubles and need support through telephone helpline, displayed the rising callers mentioning about their financial difficulties, which had risen from one in ten callers in 2008 to one in six callers at the end of last year, although they didn't name the economic crisis as a cause of feeling suicidal.
After I have finished reading this article from BBC news website, some of contents have me wonder that "Why does age range of the suicide rate are different between 2 continents ?" As I had studied in University, I had a chance to attend economic class. Therefore, I take a little time to recollect what I used to lecture in that class and contemplate this new information for a while. I realize that it is due to the source of the recession, that is America. In 2008, US was where the collapse of its credit and housing markets occurred. Therefore, people who could invest their money on those markets should be mature person who was employed and able to own or buy a house. That is why 45-64-year-old people tend to feel more suicidal than other age groups these days. In the other hand, European had an effect afterwards, especially in rising their unemployment. This is a evidence to suggest that young men or new work-age people are facing the downsizing of every companies at the moment. All of these, moreover, remind me of the essence of life. Why does money can contributes to commit suicide ? Is it largely because people are so obsessed by material that they cannot live without it? Undeniably, money can provide almost everything for living, but money is an inconstant thing. If we can earn it, we also can lose. For that reason, it is certainly foolish to depend on and replace everything in life by money; however, it is better to change our perspective of money into one of the factors of life, not the whole. Life can go on without money, but if someone still feel depressed by lack of it, keep in mind that we can earn it sooner or later as long as we still alive.
Anyway, I also realize that it seem a good idea to concentrate while studying or lecturing in every class. If not, I would not able to analyse, or even profoundly comprehend what I am supposed to know as a student who used to study economy after reading that article.
__________
I also found Ying's chosen article interesting, so I'm glad she chose it to respond to. And like Ying, I was interested in how economics, and economic analyses, can help us to better understand social behaviour.
ReplyDeleteAnd when we have a better understanding of what is really happening, of the real facts and statistics, we might be better able to solve problems, although economic problems like recessions are not easy to solve.
My own feeling is that less government interference is generally better, but not always. For example, I'm sure that Thailand's farmers would be much better off today if decades of interfering Thai governments had not been forever "helping" them by removing their freedom to do what they want with their own property, such as sell it to non-Thai people.
Suicide is also an interesting topic, but perhaps someone else will take that up.
I agree with you that the money is not the whole thing of our life. But today, it is quite hard to live without it. Frankly, if my parents have no money, I can't finish the bachelor degree and can't find the better opportunity in my life. The world was changed forever when we started to exchange things with money.
ReplyDeleteWhen Noina writes that "the world was changed forever when we started to exchange things with money," I'm not sure that I agree.
DeleteThose who studied last term might have read the brief introductions to the four major types of economic system in "Economic Systems" (Hartmann, 2007, pp. 49 - 50). Something I think that they all have in common is that goods are exchanged. In a money based economic system, this is obvious, but in systems without cash, people still trade what they have for what they don't. Money just makes exchanges easier. So perhaps the world really changed forever as soon as a species of primate become intelligent enough to start trading. Or am I wrong here?
I'm pretty sure that the rise of money has helped greatly to make the world a much better place to live in.
Reference
Hartmann, P. (2007). Quest 2 Reading and Writing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Peter,
DeleteI do agree with Noina and would like to give a support why "The world was changed forever when we started to exchange things with money".
Money does not just make exchange easier but it also promote other kinds of businesses that just stir the assumed values up and down while they did not actually create any tangible benefits to the world. For example, I has ever watched the documentary regarding banking systems. The real money that the bank possess may be just 50$ from a salary man that deposits his saving while the bank allows its debtors to borrow up to 150$ or 3 times of the real properties that the bank has. It means the bank doing nothing creative but just adds up the balance to its debtor's bank account while its debtor has to work damn hard to pay the debt. This kind of profit making process also cause the US economic system to collapse since only the minority actually work to create tangible productivity. What the majority do are just speculating the profit like the middlemen.
In my view, if we continue to let this kind of phenomenon to occur, at last we will have a lot of paper money but no more tangible resources left for us to exploit.
I'm hoping someone with an interest in economics or finance explains why it is actually a good thing, creating real value, that banks lend $150 from an actual holding of $50.
DeleteI don't think this is the cause of the financial crash a few years ago. It may have been a necessary factor, but banks have been doing the same for thousands of years now, and it does not typically lead to such crashes. Something new and different seems needed to explain the Wall Street crash that prompted the US government to actually pump a vast amount into the financial service sector. Presumably the US government things that sector is in fact providing very real, very valuable, services to society. Are they wrong?
I agree that speculating is probably part of a sound explanation.
The tulip mania of the 17th century Holland might offer some clues. Money and banking had both already been around for millennia, but something new seems to have happened to the staid burghers of Amsterdam beginning in 1593 and culminating in the amazing price rises of 1937 before crashing over night in March.
DeleteAnd then there are the interesting political and moral questions of what responsibility, if any, governments have and what, if anything, they should do in such situations.
DeletePeter,
DeleteI love this VDO, "(Official Movie) THRIVE: What On Earth Will It Take?" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s, so much since it seems to explain the world in the philosophical view and it also influences me to agree with Noina that "The world was changed forever when we started to exchange things with money.".
If you are interested to watch this VDO, please tell me your perspective towards its contents after you spend 2 hours and 12 minutes on it.
I agree with you. I think money's management is very important in our life. Without good management in money, humans may false in their life and eventually, they suicide them selves. Actually I don't know a lot about economic but your analysis is very good to describe why age of these two suicide rate are very different and it is very reasonable for clarify the topic.
ReplyDeleteI like the your statement "it is better to change our perspective of money into one of the factors of life, not the whole." and I think it's absolutly true. Many wonderful things such as Facebook are not come from the question like how to get a lot of money.
ReplyDeleteI suppose both your father idea and yours. I think money is the most important thing in our life. There are many things in our life is so valuable such as love, respect, and family. Unfortunately, the present world moves too fast and many people have to concentrate with their works so they forget to look back and consider their life. I think this is a reason that cause people were trapped. Moreover, comparison is another reason that cause people want to have a lot of money to respond their desire and it can easily occur in present since the social network is afforded for everyone. I've read the research that tells about the relation between the happiness and the people who always use the social network. The research shows that some people who always use it have a decrease of happiness because they want to get something like their friends. I think this research sounds terrible but I agree with it.
ReplyDelete