To: Zeev Hed who wrote (4633 ) 11/10/2001 3:03:34 PM From: que seria Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 99280 Being a libertarian (small "l") myself, yet sharing your concern about the impact upon my fellow citizens, I understand your conflicted feelings on the matter. No civilized person embraces suffering of the innocent, and I would say most consumers are innocent of the level of excess that market corrections are thought to "punish." I put most responsibility on the party-throwers in the Fed and gov't. True, no one forced folks to spend up to whatever lifestyles they chose. True, persons must take responsibility for their own actions. However, I think it's unrealistic to suppose average citizens have enough of a clue about gov't financial machinations to recognize who was supplying the booze for this millenial bash, and why trust in those hosts was no better than trust in the drunks. Most people didn't plan on having to find their own way home; they were counting on going home with who brought them. It was and will be a cruel wake-up call to find that wages from employers are as ephemeral as prosperity. So even if we had a 90% instead of 1% libertarian consensus, we couldn't too abruptly shrug off the gov't role in holding things together via monetary and fiscal policy, without breaching just (even if wrong) expectations. I agree it would be wrong to find solace in the market meeting the need to discipline the "profligate consumer" into "sunbmission. I agree that We do that, and we will have not a disciplined consumer, but a chastised one. Still, I agree with Noland because I can't see that the ultimate "net" misery is reduced by continuing stimulation that prolongs adjustments and thus misery. I fear a long and miserable Japanese-style wringing-out of excesses (much easier but more painful here than there, given our system). If that fails, all that's left would be an eventual resort to what some recommended for Japan--just print currency and inject as needed to move off deflation. I'd rather the market sort out the debts and credits, owners and employees, using honest money. However, that would only be possible in a free market. If we had a free market, of which honest money is a cornerstone, we wouldn't be in this mess. Instead, we have gov't as the barkeep that offers all the liquidity anyone could want. Seeing belatedly that too many imbibed too much, the barkeep is sympathetic: "stuff happens." I say we need to watch the barkeep lest "hair of the dog" be the home remedy. As I recall seeing, it never works and it sets a bad example.