When many issued the same judgment, the only thing we have is a shared judgment but not a truth. In other words when an observer issued a judgment rather than describing a particular reality independent of him, she ascribed with bliss opinion, his way of seeing the world and life. When I say ascribe I say project from my subjectivity. That make judgments, we do not speak of reality, what happens there was, but that they speak of what happens to us. On the other hand the trials has the characteristic of being contagious.
When an entity to which we attach authority (President, news, daily), emits a trial may take that as valid judgement, and as such, changed our way of seeing our world and our lives. After this we realize that the rise and low bag is the raise and lowers the judgments that we make and the expectations that we project on the economic future. Summary: a trial is an interpretation, a way of seeing the world and life, it is to project our being and ascribe certain attributes from subjectivity to the reality. This brings us to the analysis of the second part of the question: do we are in crisis or are in a State of interpreted? What I mean when I talk about State of interpreted? In principle I must clarify that this is a State that the philosopher Martin Heidegger attributed to existenciarios (characteristics) of there being (Dasein) inauntentico. I rewriting: the State of interpreted can explain it as a feature of human beings living in the study. Heidegger says that the human being is thrown into a world that precedes it. This is called State-Ject. We are thrown into a world, a language, and a temporality. This throws us into the world of the will or the there is: this clothing is what is used or must be used, this journal is that is read or read, this is the music that is heard in the summer or have to listen.