[TChris]

4) My plea for humility remains in tact because it assumes arguendo that which you will not accept, that an intervenion would be effective.

My reason for that firm belief is that there has never yet been an intervention that has been effective. The most effective response, proven repeatedly, is for the government to do nothing.

When one response -- do nothing -- always works, and every other response tried to date has only deepened and prolonged economic suffering, why on earth would I expect that yet another government intervention would be effective?

Intervention has never been effective. Ever.

It isn't an affront to humility to recognize clear, repeatable truths.

[nathanbedford]

I am inclined generally to agree with your view. In my very first post on the subject I explained my ideology to be in accordance with your view. I am not unaware of the work done by Amity Shoels on the 1930s depression. Hers is not the only voice on this issue however. I want to agree with her because it conforms to my ideology, but that ain't the way I get to what I believe. I do not believe in working backwards from my ideology. I am agnostic because I have not seen definitive proof.

In the issue at hand, we don't even know half facts, how can you be so sure?

I have a little humility before making blanket pronouncements. For example, our side is fond of saying that tax cuts advance prosperity. That is a government intervention that we think works. You agree? Do you want to amend the blanket assertion that interventions never work?