3 ms·

> they both choose to save the banking system instead of letting it self correct People keep saying this but few governments in modern financial history have g

> they both choose to save the banking system instead of letting it self correct People keep saying this but few governments in modern financial history have gotten away with letting the system "self correct". Normally it's a recipe for deep depressions or long recessions. Some economists have a recommendation: letting the system self-correct might produce positive long-term results if you print enormous amounts of money to replace the missing credit--enough to cause potentially double digit inflation. But usually, the let-everyone-die crowd doesn't believe in monetary policy; they're just advocating old economics from 1929 that usually fails.

hackuser 11y ago
> People keep saying this but few governments in modern financial history have gotten away with letting the system "self correct". Normally it's a recipe for deep depressions or long recessions. I'd go further and say it's lazy and highly irresponsible. We could (and as humans, tend to) say the same about famine and war, for example, or any situation where others are doing the suffering. You may have heard the line, 'in the long run, we are all dead'. The full quote from John Maynard Keynes, one of history's leading economists, was a response to such an idea: But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the sea is flat again. I think that's a valuable guide to any situation, not only to economic problems.