Economic Intervention: How Much is Helpful?

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m still undecided when it comes to the appropriate measures to deal with the current financial crisis facing the country.   The US has been an economic juggernaut for the past fifty years due to the direct rewards for innovation & hard work, and the relatively easy access to investment capital.   Thus, I’m all for stabilizing the financial markets (markets are based on confidence), but the notion that the US Government (i.e., we taxpayers) has to pony-up billions of dollars does not feel right.  For example, the de facto Government take-over of AIG is most certainly a move towards Socialism.

A little background: Some years ago, I was honored to be selected by the staff at the Ohio Department of Development to represent the interests of small technology companies for Governor Taft’s “Third Frontier“.   The Third Frontier program was essentially the State of Ohio using money to implement a planned economic policy.  I really didn’t think much of the overall program, but it gave me the opportunity to hob-nob with executives from NCR, LexisNexis, etc.  Based on my expressed dislike for a Government-defined economic policy, I didn’t endear myself with my fellow committee members.

My views have not really changed.  While a total laissez faire approach is not realistic, I prefer to minimize the amount of intervention.

Note: A recent article in the Wall Street Journal noted that any solution should observe three guiding principles:
1) restore the stability of the financial system quickly and at the lowest possible cost  to the taxpayer;
2) punish those who are responsible for losses;
3) address the root cause of the crisis — the price collapse in the residential real-estate market

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.