I have enjoyed reading your papers on the stimulation and regulation issue. My overall reaction is that most of you do not seem to embrace any consistent form of econolmic philosophy. In the same sentence you may come out for fiddling with interest rates, extending unemployment and other social programs and lowering taxes along with a 'funmdamental long term program' whatever that is. Others quote whichever professor they found who issues the ususal sort of thing that Mike Royko used to pen from his favorite, Dr. I M Kooky. Which is to say they hrummph and pronounce that whatever we have been doing was a mistake, see the headlines, and they would have done it differently.
There are basically two schools of thought about intervention in an economy-hands on or hands off. The hands on version would be Keynesian Economics. Keynes thought that the economy could literally be fine tuned by the governemnt expanding and contracting whet it spent. While he advocated spending with deficits in hard times, politicians have expanded that notion to include deficit spending most of the time.
The other view would be to Friedman's MOnetarist Theories. Margaret Thatcher was influenced by Hayek. At a minimum an MBA should be able to explain them all and then defend his or her position by citing the basic tenets of the chosen philosophy.
The idea here is that a free market will right itself given the time and inclination. Meddling may cause more problems than it solves. Or take a look at some of Tom Sowell's explanations.
But my point is, pick something as the basis for your thinking. Then explain the proposition using that theory. One need only watch the voters in early states to wonder if they do not reflect some sort of People Magazine political science, ie, I am voting for the sexiest politician of the year if only I could figure out who that is.....apparently they have no vision of what they would like and how they plan for society to get there.
Many of you are blithely assuming that in fact the FED can do what it says. This flies in the fact of the matter that the FED has not prevented numerous financial crashes since its re incpetion in 1913. As I said in my comment to several articles, the FED did not prevent the crashes of 1929, 1987, 2001, or the sub prime mess now. By what leap can you assume they will do the right thing now? Indeed, perhaps the lowering of rates to such an extreme, and I would concur, brought on the whole sub prime lending excess, which in fact is exactly what happened. So you are going to entrust solving the problem to the agency that created it? In 1987 we did nothing, and the market resume its upward march in a matter of months regaining all its lost ground. But no one cited that as an example, why not?
Consider today's action. The talking heads on tv watied breathlessly for the FED announcement, wow, they cut 50 basis points, and the market jumped 175 DOW points, only to lose every one of them by the close. Well gee how many more times will the FED shoot before they run out of bullets, then what, at zero interest it will be hard to cut any more. Perhaps we should limit the $300 or 600 or whatever to only those that can explain what a 50 basis point cut means, gee, eveyrone is so certain it will work everyone must know what that means, right?
Well this is great fun and I look forward to our next topic.
dle