What caused the current economic crisis in the United States?

In general terms, The crisis was caused, mostly, by the collapse of the housing bubble in 2006-2007. A large number of mortgage loans securitized on these lost their quote and, suddenly, became illiquid market until then sought funding a significant portion of real state in the United States. From there, and given the framework of structured products around these securitized assets, a growing distrust began in the financial market that is likely to result as coordinated intervention by governments in recent economic history. Also, the finance authorities made a series of mistakes on the regulation and macroeconomics policies which led to inappropiate behavior in both the housing and finnacial market. A lot of people have been affected by this crisis, specially middle clases, because millions are unemployed and also millions have lost their houses.  

SOURCE: CREATIVE COMMONS / FLICKR / IMAGES OF MONEY

Now, i'm going to explain deeper the causes of one of the most horrible crisis the United states have suffered: 


The immediate cause of the crisis was the burst of the housing bubble. Against a backdrop of abundant credit, low interest rates, and rising house prices, lending standards were relaxed to the point that many people were able to buy houses they couldn't afford. When prices began to fall and loans started going bad, there was a severe shock to the financial system. Imprudent lendindg certainly played a role, but subprime loans, which are loans issued to people with poor credit histories, were a relatively small part of the overall U.S mortgage market and of total credit market debt outstanding. 

http://rightfromyaad.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/is-this-happening-again-a-new-us-housing-bubble-say-it-isnt-so/

With its easy money policies, the Federal Reserve allowed housing prices to rise to unsustainable levels. The subprime   homeowners were the most vulnerable part of the population. They didnt have retirment accountsthat they could draw down or family whom they could borrow, when they found that they could no longer meet their mortgage payments. When they no longer had equity in their home against which to borrow, many subprime homeowners had to default on their mortgage. Subprime lenders aggressively, and often marketed mortgages for refinancing to low and moderate income homeowners as a way of getting access to extra money to meet bills or pay for big purchases like a care or home remodeling. As a result of these subprime loans, families who had been secure suddenly faced the loss of their home. 

Securitization 
Securitization fosteres the "originate-to-distribute" model, which reduced lenders' incentives to be prudent, especially in the face of vast investor demand for subprime loans packaged as AAA bonds.
Ownership mortgage-backed securities was widely dispersed, causing repercussions throughout the global system when subprime loans went bad in 2007.
The credit Rating Agencies gave AAA ratings to numerous issues of subprime mortgage-backes securities, many of wchich were subsequently downgraded to junk status. Critics cite poor economic models, conflict od interest, and lack of effective regulation as reasons for the rating agencies' failure. Another factor is the market's excessive reliance on ratings, which has been reinforces by numerous laws and regulations that "use ratings as criterion for permissable investments or as a fctor in required capital levels" (Jickling, 2010) 

The Crisis: 
According to the movie Inside Job by Charles Ferguson, the market for CDOs collapsed and investment banks were left with billions of dollars in loans, CDOs and real estate couldn't unload. In 2008 Bear Stearns ran out of cahs, the Federal Government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which had been on the brink of collapse. Also Lehman Brothers collapsed. Merrill Lynch which was about to collapse, was acquired by Bank of America. Hank Poulson and Timothy Geithner decided that Lehman must go on into bankruptcy making Wall Street panic. Two days later Poulson and Ben Bernanke, Fed chairman, asked Congress for $700 billion to bailout the banks, even if million of people and some congressists opposed this action. 

not found

http://www.neoformix.com/2008/BushSpeechOnFinancialCrisisFAIL.html

References:

•    FERGUSON, Charles. Inside Job, 2010. 
• JICKLING, Mark. Causes of the Financial Crisis. 2010. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/r40173.pdf 
• BAKER, Dean. The housing bubble and the financial crisis. 2008. 
  http://paecon.net/PAEReview/issue46/Baker46.pdf

·          

What are the key differences between Demorats and Republicans particularly on foreign policy?

To introduce this blog, i would like to start with a brief history of the Democratic and Republican parties to know a little bit more about the origin and evolution of the most important political parties in the United States of America.

The two original national parties were the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Part. In 1816, the Federalist Party ended leaving a single political party for a short time. However,a split in the Democratic-Republican Party in the mid-1820s gave rise two factions: The National Republicans and Democrats. When Andrwe Jackson lost in 1824, his supporters created their own organization to get him elected. After his election in 1828, the organization became known as the Democratic Party.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jackson_and_Van_Buren,_1837.jpg

During the 1840s and 1850s, the Know-Nothing Party competed with the Republicans to replace the Whig Party as Democrat's major opposition. In 1854, a coalition of anti-slavery forces organized to form a third party, called the Republicans. The Republicans attracted anti-slavery members from the two major parties. Their first candidate, John Fremont lost the elections in 1856, but their second candidate, Abraham Lincoln, won in the next elections.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Republican_presidential_ticket_1864b.jpg

Since the Civil War, The Democrats and Republicans have been the two major political parties in the Unites States. The Republicans dominated national politics from 1860-1932, crontrolling Congress for most of that time and winning all but four presidential elections. Between 1932 and 1980, the Democrats won seven out of 11 presidential contests, and held both chambers of Congress for all but few years. 

http://www.impactony.com/tag/democratas/

Now I am going to compare the two major parties and their beliefs in some aspects:

Major Beliefs: 
Republicans believe that each person is responsible for its own place in society. Government should enable each person to secure the benefits of society for themselves, their families, and for those who are unable to care for themselves. Republican's philosophy is based on limiting the intervention of government as a catalyst of individual prosperity. Government should only intervene in specific cases where society can't effectively act at the individual level.
Democrats believe it is the responsibility of government to care for all individuals, even if it means giving up some individual rights and/or subordinating enterprise and initiative. Democrats have pushed for the centralization of power in Washington D.C, with only secondary consideration for the rights of both individuals and communities. Democrats have favored federal-level interventions that replace community-based solutions to community problems.

Economy 
Republicans think free market has generated economic growth and innovations. Government should help stimulate a business environment. Republicans are more interested in regulating personal matters and in deregulation of business and economic matters. Also they believe in less spending and a samller government.Republicans want to lowers taxes on everyone, not just poor people.
Democrats believe that business decisions should be guided by government officials and in the best interest of labor unions. Democrats are more interested in deregulating personal matters and increasing regulation of economic and business matters.Also the democratic party believe in bigger government and more spending to expand government. They believe in lowering taxes for poor people and increasing taxes to the rich. 

http://dragancastellon.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/eeuu-democratas-y-republicanos-crisis/

FOREIGN POLICY 
The foreign policy of a political party is usualy the same cloth as its domestic policy. The domestic policy of the Democratic Party is to do away with privilege as between individuals, and to secure the cooperation of all citizens for the common good; its standard of success is not the wealth of a few individuals, but the benefit of the people in general. Its foreign policy is to do away with privilege as bewteewn nations, and to secure the cooperation of all nations for their mutual welfare. The Republican party, on the other hand, acts upon the theory that special prileges are essential for national prosperity, that tariff bounties must be granted to some, in order that those who are more enriched may diffuse their wealth and allow it to seep down to the masses.


In National Defense, which is related to the foreign policy, we can say that Republicans know that defending the United States against its enemies must be a fundamental commitment of the federal government and this requires an effective military. After the 9-11 attacks, America must be ready to fight terrorism abroad in order to keep the country safe.
For over a decade, democrats have advocated to reduce the money spent on military technology and intelligence. The democrat party thinks that security can be achieved by negotiations with other nations, even if they have ties with terrorism groups.

http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/fundamental-difference-between-republicans-and-democrats-1.1095908

We can say that Republicans rely primarily on superior military. No need for treaties and agreements. Work only with those nations that follow U.S.A's leadership to transform dictatorships into democracies.Democrats on the other hand, rely on superior diplomacy. Encourage discussions, treaties and agreements. Cooperate primarly with democracies to make the world more peacefull and more democratic (apparently). 

What I just said is related to the National Defense and it explains why the Republicans want to spend more in military while the Democrats want to spend less. 
In general terms, the Foreign Policy of the United States is based under a few principles that will always be present on its policy. Such as the free market economy, the promotion of the Human Rights, defense of Israel, etc. And they weill be the base to establish their general objectives such as colective security, fight against terrorism, promote the multilateralism and the United States' leadership all over the world. In Foreign Policy, the country have a lot of challenges. On one hand, America has to deal with other powers like China and Russia and emerging powers like India and Brazil, the reinforcement of the autocracies in a lot of States, the development of nuclear activities in countries like North Korea and Iran, and other challenges. 

In conclussion, I can say that the two major parties in the United states of America, have a lot of differences and are in disagreement with mostly everything, but what they have in common is that they formulate their ideas in order to defend the national interest of the United States and its citizens. 

Redes sociales demócratas y republicanos mitin político de discusión EE.UU. - Cienpies Design

REFERENCES: 

• http://www.ushistory.org/gop/origins.htm
• RAGONE, Nick. Evolution of the two Party System. http://www.netplaces.com/american-government/political-parties/evolution-of-the-two-party-system.htm
• KELLY, Martin. Democratic Party. http://americanhistory.about.com/od/politicalparties/p/democratic_party.htm
• http://www.svgop.com/files/Differences%20Between%20Republicans%20and%20Democrats.pdf
• Hutschenreuter, Alberto. Republicanos Vs Demócratas: paralelos en la política exterior frente a sucesos bélicos. http://equilibriumglobal.com.ar/republicanos-vs-democratas-paralelos-en-la-politica-exterior-frente-a-sucesos-belicos-2/
• DAVIS, Norman. American Foreign Policy: a Democratic View. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68525/norman-h-davis/american-foreign-policy-a-democratic-view

 

How did the U.S attempt to stop the spread of communism and influence international security?

After the World War II came to an end, there were disagreements  between the Soviet Union and the other allies, particularly the United States, making this alliance to dissolve and creating a new rivalry, a confrontation of different ideals. On one side was the Soviet Union with its communism and on the other side was the United States with the capitalism. Each side believed that its own economic and political system was the ideal model for European reconstruction, and each side was concerned with its own security.

On March 12, 1947, President Harry S. Truman presented a message asking the Congress for $400 million in military and economic assistance for Turkey and Greece, and established a doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, that would guide U.S diplomacy for the next 40 years. With the Truman Doctrine, President Harry S. Truman established that the United States would provide political, military and economic help to all democratic nations under threat from external or internal authoritarian forces. The Truman Doctrine changed U.S foreign policy, away from its usual stance of withdrawal from regional conflicts not directly involving the United States, to one of possible intervention in far away conflicts.


The fear that ongoing poverty would turn Europe to Communism, made the United States to create the Marshall Plan. It was a european recovery program which encouraged Western Europe to work together. The Marshall Plan generated a resurgence of European industralization and brought a lot of investment into the region. It was also a stimulant to the U.S economy by establishing markets for American goods.
The Soviets were not happy with that plan, so, as a response to that, they established  the Communist Information Bureau (COMINFORM), which united all European communist parties. The Cominform helped create tension between communist and noncommunist parties in Europe but never came up with a succesful economic recovery programme.


During the Cold War, the United States used the policy of "Containment" created by George F. Kennan, which wanted to stop the spread of Communism and keeping it 'contained' and isolated within its current borders, otherwise the 'domino effect' would occur, meaning that if one nation fell into Communist, the other ones would fall as well. This policy led to the U.S intervention in South Korea in order to stop North Korean Communists from taking over the country. It also led to the intervention of the U.S in Vietnam in the 60's to help the south in its struggle against the communist north which was supported by U.S.S.R .
When Kennedy was in the power, the U.S intervene in Cuba sending CIA trained forces (which were killed) after Fidel Castro took the power and  afterwards was supported by the Soviets. Worried with this situation, Kennedy wanted to strengthen U.S realtionship with Latin America, in order that none other country would fall into communism, just like Cuba.

Taking into account what was said before, the United States did everything possible to stop the spread of communism. They wanted to be the only power in the world and with the U.S.S.R in the way, they had a thread in three aspects: economic, political and security. Both countries in their fear of being attacked, developed high technology weapons and other stuff. The United States had its ups and downs in the economy but they could influence a lot of countries with their ideas of liberty and democracy. If those countries were in U.S's side, they would be helped economically and also the U.S would give them protection. The United States established military bases on the countries that were located near the Soviet Union. The NATO and the SEATO were created in order to protect the members' security interests. Of course the U.S.S.R responded helping others, for example they helped the rebels which supported communism in latin america and other countries.

The policy of 'Containment' remained central to American foreign policy throughout the Cold War, officially ending with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

References: 

• Luis Monroy. Cold War Legacy. Power Point Presentation
• Truman Doctrine http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=81
• The Truman Doctrine http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/TrumanDoctrine
• Marshall Plan http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/MarshallPlan
• Kennan and Containment http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/Kennan
• Rober Wilde. 'Containment'. http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/glossary/g/glcontainment.htm

How were the different programs proposed after Roosevelt's new deal tackling the problems created by the Great Depression?

As we all know, the Great Depression was an economic slump in The United States, Europe, and other industrialized areas of the world that lasted about a decade. It was caused by a huge collapse of stock-market prices on the New York Exchange in October 1929. During the next three years stock prices in the U.S continued to fall. Besides ruining a lot of investors, the decline of the value of the assets strained banks and other financial institutions. The failure of so many banks, combines with a general and nationwide loss of confidence in the economy, led to much-reduced levels of spending and demand and hence of production. The result was a drastically falling output and the rising of unemployment.

The trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange just after the crash of 1929.

By 1932 the situation was getting worse and that led to the election of Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt at the end of the year. The economic policy implemented by Roosevelt, had the objective of getting the U.S out of the Great Depression. It's measures included employment support and employment generation measures, initiatives for public work and incentives for private investment. The package of legislative reforms that came to be known as the New Deal  transformed the politics and economy of the United States. In his first "hundred days" he proposed a program to bring recovery to business and agriculture, relief to the unemployed and those in danger of losing farms and homes, and reform, especially through the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

When Roosevelt started his first term as president, the banking and credit systeml of the nation was in a state paralysis. The administration adopted a policy of moderate currency inflation to start an upward movement in commodity prices and to afford some relief to debtors. New governmental agencies brought credit facilities to industry and agriculture. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured savings-bank deposits and severe regulations were imposed upon the sale of securities on the stock exchange.

In the field of relief, the New Deal was successful. A lot of unemployed Americans might have literally starved to death if not for the government checks they earned by working for new agencies like the Civilian Conservation Coprs (CCC). In the CCC, young men participated in a variety of conservation projects like planting trees to combat soil erosion and mantain national forests; eliminating stream pollution, etc.
In 1933, Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) to provide economic relief to the farmers. The AAA plan was to raise crop prices by paying farmers a subsidy to compensate for voluntary cutbacks in production. Between 1932 and 1935, the farm income increased more than 50 percent.

In that year, the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) were established. They attempted to end cut-throat competition by setting codes of fair competitive practice to generate more jobs and thus more buying. Although the NRA was welcomed at the beginning, business complained bitterly of over-regulation as recovery began to take hold.

By 1935 the Nation had achieved some measure of recovery, but businessmen and bankers were turning more and more against Roosevelt's New Deal program. They feared his experiments, were appalled because he had taken the Nation off the gold standard and allowed deficits in the budget, and disliked the concessions to labor. In response to this pressures, President Roosevelt backed a new set of economic and social measures: Social Security, heavier taxes on the wealthy, new controls over banks and public utilities, and an enormous work relief program for the unemployed.

In spite of Roosvelt's attempts to restore the economy, during the decade of the 30s, unemployment remained high, while economic growth remained slow. Recovery only came with Roosevelt's third term, when the heavy demands of movilization for the World War II finally restored the country to full employment. Even though the New Deal failed in its most important objective, this program changed America. Roosevelt built a dominant new political coalition, bringing many more members into the Democratic Party. The strcutural stability and social security provided by the New Deal's reforms caused a postwar economic boom that many economists and historians have described as the "golden age of American capitalism". Besides that, the New Deal gave everyone a better understanding of the economic consequences of taxation, debt and spending. This knowledge helped the federal government to limit the impact of later recessions.

References: 

• About the Great Depression. http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/depression/about.htm . Taken in March 22 of 2013 
• The Depression in the United States- An Overview. http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/depression/overview.htm . Taken in March 22 of 2013. 
• Franklin D. Roosevelt . http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/franklindroosevelt . Taken in March 22 of 2013. 
• FDR's New Deal. http://www.shmoop.com/fdr-new-deal/summary.html 
• McGEEHAN, John. The New Deal. http://www.netplaces.com/american-history/the-great-depression/the-new-deal.htm 

How did the "big stick diplomacy", "the dollar diplomacy", and "the moral diplomacy" influence the American foreign policy process of the early XXth century?

First of all it's important to contrast the ideas and strategies of Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft and Woodrow Wilson; and how they were important in the development of the American Foreign Policy during the first twenty years of the XX century.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT 

He was the President of the United States between 1901 and 1909. During the time he was in the power, he wanted to increase the influence and prestige  of the U.S on the world stage and make the country a global power. His diplomacy was based on the idea of "speak softly and carry a big stick" mantaining the idea that force, if necessary, should be used for persuassion reasons. He ended the isolationism that dominated the country and acted aggressively on foreign affairs, even without the support of the Congress. 

There were many key points which characterized Roosevelt's Big Stick Diplomacy. 

• The Phillipines: The U.S established a colonial government and Willian Taft was its governor. He established a civil government with an elected legislative assembly. 

• The Panama Canal: in 1903 the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty gave the United States perpetual control of the Canal for a price of $10 million and an annual payment of $250.000. The U.S also agreed to gurantee the independence of Panama. They established a military base for their control of Central America.  

• The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine: This policy was a way to approach Latin America and the Caribbean. It stated that the United States would intervene as a last resort to ensure that other nations in the Western Hemisphere fulfilled their obligations to international creditors, and didn't violate  the right of the U.S. As the corollary worked out in practice, the United States increasingly used military force to restore internal stability to nations in the region. The corollary was the perfect justification for U.S intervention in Cuba, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. 

• Peacemaking: In 1905 Roosevelt led negotiations to end a war between Japan and Russia, resulting in his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. A year later he handled a similarly explosive colonial conflict between France and Germany over the domination of Morocco.
• Great White fleet: Roosevelt sought to strengthen the U.S Navy and solidify previous gains in the Pacific. He went around the world showing the power of the U.S Navy. 

WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT 

He was the President of the United States from 1909 to 1913. He continued the Roosevelt's strategy. He generally aimed at protecting American corporate interests around the globe, Taft called his policy "Dollar Diplomacy". He wanted to expand U.S foreign trade, encouraging investments in South and Central America, the Caribbean and the Far East. It was the first way of globalization. 

With his Dollar Diplomacy, Taft started to use government officials to promote the sale of American goods overseas such as industrial goods and military hardware. He thought the U.S military would be a great tool for diplomacy. He also invited the U.S banks to rescue Honduras from hard foreign debt through the use of loans and grants. At the same time, he sent marines to stabilize Nicaragua and avoid it from falling into the hand of rebels forces. 

In spite of successes, the Dollar Diplomacy failed to counteract economic instability and the tide of revolution in places like Mexico, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and China.

WOODROW WILSON 

Wilson was the President from 1913 to 1921. His foreign policy was based on moral principles rather than commercial or military ones.
During his government a lot of things were happening around the world. First of all the Mexican revolutionary war was happening, Wilson rejected the revolutioanry government of Victoriano Huerta and encourages anti-Huerta forces in Northern Merxico. The United States occupies the Mexican port of Veracrus and engages in confrontation against Merxican forces (Carranza's army).
Besides that, in 1914 the Word War I exploded in Europe. At first, Wilson took a neutrality stance as he opposes the nationalist campaign of the European nations at the time. "Neutral Duties" were supporting the Allies as America was selling products to Britain and France. The President supported the sale of arms to warring nations of the WEst, which enraged the Germans. In 1915 a German U-boat destroyed a Vritish liner killing more than 100 americans. That made the US enter the war to support the Allies against the Central Powers.
When the war finished in 1918 with the victory of the Allies, Wilson wrote fourteen points, which were the most important contribution to the idea of moral diplomacy as he expected to revolutionize international relations at the peace table. The fourteen points were mentioned at U.S Congress in 1918 which included general disarmament after the war, fair treatment of Russia, freedom of seas, free trade, and the creation of the League of Nations for all democratic States. In spite of it, the Congress chose not to allow American membership in the League by refusing to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. For that reason the League of Nations failed. 

At the end of the XIX century, the United States acquired overseas colonies in the Caribbean and the Pacific. In its new status as an imperial power, the United States followed a series of policies that were made to protect American territories and also to expand its international commercial interests.
The first twenty years of the XXth century saw the United States leadership pursue confidently intervensionist strategies in dealing with other countries. The three different diplomacies that were mentioned before by the first three presidents of the XX century, influence the American foreign policy because they started to intervene in other countries in order to gain power and to show them that they were powerful enough and also necessary to solve their problems. Also they wanted to show the world that they were really strong so other won't mess with them because if they do, they would lose.
The United States in the XX century demonstrate that they were a key player in the International System and  after the WWI the world saw the declive of the european power which was ruling the world for the last centuries, and saw the rise of a new power who was going to control the world for the next years.

References: 

• http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Resources%20for%20Students/ForeignPolicy.html . Taken in March 14 of 2013 
• U.S DEPARTMENT OF STATE. http://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/RooseveltandMonroeDoctrine. Taken in March 20 of 2013 
• U.S DEPARTMENT OF STATE.  http://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/DollarDiplo . Taken in March 20 of 2013 
• Power point presentation by Luis Monroy 

How did the U.S expand from a country affected by a civil war to a "new empire" at the turn of the XXth century?

To introduce this blog, i'd like to start with a brief history about the Civil War. It was a fight in which the Northern States squared off against the Southern States. One of the reasons for this was that the economic interests were different in each side. The South was largely comprised of small and large plantations that grew crops such as cotton which were labor intensive. The north was more of a manufacturing center, using raw materials to create finished goods. Slavery had been abolished in the north but continued in the south, they used afroamerican people to do all the work without any reward.

By 1860 the conflict between the North and the south became stronger and when Abraham Lincoln was elected president, the Civil War exploded as he vowed to stop the spread of slavery to new territories.

The Civil War lasted from 1861 until 1865 and it was the bloodiest war ever in the U.S. There was about 530.000 deaths, and many more were wounded. Both the north and the south experienced major victories and defeats. However, in 1864 with the taking of Atlanta, the North had gained the upper hand and the war would officially end on April 9, 1865.

At the end of the war, uncertainty gripped both North and South. An entire social system and much of the South's wealth had been destroyed. The Confederacy was practically dead. 

Years after the war, America's industry had an incredible growth. The North began to control the congress, started passing Laws to protect northern products against cheap european goods and helped found American industrial complexes. Old industries expanded and a lot of new ones, including oil refining, steel manufacturing, and electrical power, emerged. Railroads expanded bringing even remote parts of the country into a national market economy. The U.S experiences an industrial revolution that changed the way millions of people worked and where they lived. They experienced the migrations of a lot of people from the rural America to the nation`s rapidly growing cities.

Taking into account what i just said and what i learnt in class, there were two interests that guide America in its pursuit of foreign interests, which led the country to become a new empire. The first one is to pursue favorable trade agreements and aligments to acquire territory and to have power over the Pacific and the Caribbean. And second they wanted to spread Christian and democratic ideals within the continent. These interests are shown when the U.S had an open door policy with China, support for the Panama Canal Project through doctrines such as the Monroe Doctrine and its influence in Latin America, economic expansionism investing in foreign territories, and its belief in the Manifest Destiny (the idea that America was destined to stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans).

References: 

• http://www.tredegar.org/legacies-civil-war.aspx. Taken in March 8 2013. 
• KELLY, Martin. http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/civiloverview.htm. Taken in March 8 2013. 
• http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/progress/. Taken in March 9 2013. 
• Power Point presentation by LUIS MONROY.  

What is the intended scope of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States? Is it an example of an “individual rights theory” or a “collective rights theory”?

Everytime that a massacre happens in the United States , the debate about gun control comes out to light again.

The right of carrying a weapon for self defense is often associated with the United States of America where, with few limitations by law, is fully recognized. But in reality its origins are older and the original interpretation  is different from what it is today.

The second ammendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". 

It is from this ammendment that the two theories, individual and colective rights, are going to debate each other because they understand in a different way what the ammendment say. 

The ones that support the individual rights theory state that the constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession. On the other hand, the ones who support the colective rights theory say that the second ammendment was created to restrict the Congress from legislating against the state's right to self-defense. 

The second ammendment was written a long time ago, and that was a time when the government was still young and it was just established because it was right after the independence. It was supposed to defend the individual from any abuse. Freedom was really important back then and that's why people were allowed to posses weapons. 

Nowadays things have changed, but the ammendmenst is still there without any restoration, instead of the citizens taking care of the government, they have to defend themselves from another citizens, and that's why arms are legal. But we have to take into account the massacres in which innocent people have lost their lives to a maniac who is free to carry a gun. 

I think that the solution is to avoid the sale of weapons to individuals, that means that i'm in favor of the colective rights theory. That way people like us won't have the right to buy weapons not even the ones that are used in the army.