Almost a strawman argument. You suggest that most such advocates think the market would be beautiful and stable. I’m not one of them. I do think, however, it would be better in the long-run.[/quote]
Ok, it was slightly a strawman. But this is an unprovable statement.
[quote=sdduuuude]If we weren’t so far in debt, we wouldn’t need the intervention.[/quote]
This is systemic. It goes along with debt based currency and how the banking system works. It’s a paradox – if we were not so far in debt we would have a smaller economy. Debt = money
[quote=sdduuuude]The cost of short-term stability is long-term disaster.[/quote]
By all accounts we avoided a disaster. Do you mean the next one will be worse than what an un-intervened 2008 would have been. See where I am going – it’s all just mental masturbation. The next hypothetical crisis will be worse than the un-intervened hypothetical crisis of 2008 because of the intervention. It’s a tautology – it goes back to the same conclusion of intervention = makes things worse – without being the slightest empirical.
Don’t get me wrong – I don’t think throwing more debt on top of a debt crisis will “solve” anything. But I don’t think these actions are quantifiably making things worse. Besides the obvious confidence erosion. Technically, IMO, the whole system is dead.
