Real_Trouble
Posts: 471
Joined: 2/25/2008 Status: offline
|
I will step in here with some brief historical context: In the wake of the stock market crash of 1929, for the most part, the Fed tightened their monetary policy and reduced the money supply. There are any number of papers suggesting this deepened the hurt, and that overall, there could have been a rather negative effect as a result of this action. In the wake of the doldrums of the early 70s, the fed began trying to soften the blow of the recessions by loosening their monetary policy and expanding the money supply. There are any number of papers suggesting this led to stagflation, and that overall there could have been a rather negative effect as a result of this action. Or, in short, I am not sure there is compelling evidence (as I can dredge up many more examples) of what the right course of action is; on one hand, we appear to be moving towards higher inflation and a potential recession / slowdown at the same time. On the other hand, letting large banks fail might be good in terms of redistributing the capital of the bank and ridding the financial markets of poor or inefficient practices, but it might also bankrupt any number of unwitting counterparties who are doing, overall, a relatively decent job and would be the collateral damage of letting Bear be without collateral. I doubt there is an easy answer here.
_____________________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money.
|