Philosophical, logical or faulty?
The recent analyses and concerns re the public finances in certain Southern European countries, as well as the UK and the United States, prompted me to consider the following sequence of syllogisms:
So let me see if I got that straight or not:
A) There was "systemic" trouble in the financial/banking world, originally caused to a large extent by subprimes (right or wrong so far? )
B) Then most governments/states spent loads of money to bail out or help institutions stay out of potential trouble, and
C) "now" the financial world is ...... (trying to find a proper word for it here) some of the states that either overspent on bailouts or preventive measures or whose finances are in large deficit ("imbalance") due to the fall in revenues (which is due to the economic recession that resulted from the subprime then financial then economic crisis)?
Is the preceding sequence of thoughts (algorithm)
a) on the mark or
b) missing the point?
What mark and what point though?