First,

History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, but too much. Our aim should not be more government, it should be smarter government.

Second,

I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system ... to make sure the economy doesn't collapse.

A disorganized bankruptcy could create enormous economic difficulties, further economic difficulties. I feel a sense of obligation to my successor to make sure there is a not a huge economic crisis. Look, we're in a crisis now. We're in a huge recession, but I don't want to make it even worse.

Yup, same guy, a month apart. h/t: Leo, who asks,

Correct me if I'm wrong, King, but isn't the only way to save the free market to enact and to engage in behavior consistent with those very principles that make it viable? Can one "save" the free market by enacting policies that are antithetical to same, and which by their very nature and in every other known circumstance act to thwart the growth of a free-market economy and benefits thereof? If so, then when is the correct time to right the ship back on that course of economic freedom and the prosperity (and risk) that goes along with it? Can one merely parcel a free market and expect it to then flourish?

Many of us have been quoting Hayek at this moment: The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.One doesn't need free markets just when Bush or Obama or anyone else thinks we need free markets. We either need them all of the time or none of the time. �All the rest is planned chaos.

Labels: economics