Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (340294)	6/14/2007 11:22:42 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1574478

They where quire painful, but people pulled out of them by operating in a free market. Yes, after years.......in the meantime, many people suffered and lost everything. Since the great depression, our downturns have not been as severe. I prefer the latter.......which requires gov't involvement. The pullout was much quicker in a very free market then it was with the massive intervention of FDR. Which doesn't say anything, positive or negative, about the idea that a much smaller amount of government intervention, more intelligently applied, might reduce the ups and downs. There is some evidence that the "automatic intervention" provided for by the existing structure of government programs, might reduce the suddeness of downturns. OTOH they probably also reduce overall growth (and even a tiny reduction compounded over a long time can be quite significant). The most important intervention is probably not social programs but the actions of the fed. But that's a quite different form of intervention, and it can also easily be negative if done incorrectly.