>if our choices as a society are: 1) major government intervention and problems, or 2) little government intervention and problems, I think I'd prefer the latte

>if our choices as a society are: 1) major government intervention and problems, or 2) little government intervention and problems, I think I'd prefer the latter. If this summation was accurate, I would tend to agree with your conclusion that little government intervention is preferable. However, I respectfully disagree with the premise, pointing to the success of Glass-Steagall (read 'government intervention') in maintaining a healthy separation of depository/commercial financial intermediaries and their investment bank counterparts. It was, clearly, the deregulation and removal of said safeguard that allowed for the conditions of 'too big to fail' and gave meaningful, even disastrous implications for the average citizen. Finally, the author is either misinformed or intentionally ignoring the causal relationship between deregulation embodied in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the financial meltdown.