"We want to avoid structural damage: Lost jobs, bankrupt businesses, lost mortgages, and so on." I disagree - I think what we need is a constant, low, backgrou

"We want to avoid structural damage: Lost jobs, bankrupt businesses, lost mortgages, and so on." I disagree - I think what we need is a constant, low, background level of structural damage - which includes lost jobs and especially bankrupt businesses. I grow increasingly fond of the forest fire / controlled burns analogy: We have come to realize that preventing, or extinguishing, every wildland fire causes a dangerous level of fuels to slowly build up, eventually erupting in an unstoppable conflagration that destroys much more than the sum of the fuel overload. Preventing recessions and keeping business firms afloat that would otherwise fail without easy loan rollover - that's the financial equivalent of refusing to maintain fuel loads with controlled burns. Eventually the dead fuels (zombie business firms) will overwhelm all firefighting efforts (QE ? Negative interest rates ?) and will take down a much larger portion of the economy than otherwise would have failed along the way ...