Hacker News Reader

>If there were less political intervention into financial markets then solid financial analysis would win almost every time

What empirical evidence exists to support this belief?

View on HN

My understanding is that if it weren't for TARP several more publicly traded investment banks would have collapsed not to mention wider collateral damage in the market.

Most agree that TARP was necessary, but QE2, QE3, and very low interest rates appear to have done little more than inflate asset markets and increase debt. They are trying to unwind that now, but falling back to the mean with this much excess is not likely to go well. We left the cast on way, way too long.

What's done is done. It'll prove out either way in the next few years.

True, but "politics distort prices" does not imply that "without politics, prices are accurate", which is what you claimed.

Bubbles existed before Keynesian policies.

The fact we've replaced (or added) one form of bubbles with another does not make criticizing the other any less valid.

"Bailout"

You mean loans that were repaid? That were forced on many banks to prevent signaling, to lessen the chance of a run on the banks?

That's not the evidence requested.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com