The past can be useful on occasion, but not be major, as showed the MacIntyre philosopher with the example of a child, whose parents want to learn to play chess, and as no one likes, promise you candies everytime you play. The incentive of candies can serve so he knows the game and is interested in him, but if you still like it by itself over time, it will make traps when you can. If the directors of a bank to advise customers are thinking that his salary or his rise depend on it investing in certain funds, tries to persuade him that it is a risk manageable with which will gain considerably. Other settings are conservative, adjective that already has a pejorative meaning. Of course that, unlike chess, the directors also has the ambition of the client. But a good professional is not which does not warn of foreseeable risks, nor which makes loans garbage, because that is not the sense of their profession and why generates distrust. If globalizamos the game of chess, It will be that, in addition to the turmoil that economists speak, there have been organizations and specific people that have not believed in the value of their profession, who have risked his own and outside it, convinced that the chestnuts from the fire will draw to them.
The worst thing is that every time they pay the weak. Those who were left without work, those who could not pay the mortgage, which had to close his small company, migrants who returned to their countries and ran the remittances. In the document of the last G-20 Summit, world leaders made an astonishing assertion: we recognize the human dimension of the crisis. But is it that it has ever existed an economic activity without human dimension? It is not true that the economy has help build a good society, and when it fails, fails categorically, bearing in mind that good society today has to be global?