This is a complicated question. There is a paradox of what should have been done before versus where the world is now. The first part of the equation is the extent to which poorly thought out policy has made things worse thus prolonging what the natural duration of the financial crisis would have otherwise been.
There is no way to know what would have happened if they’d have let banks fail and only bailed out depositors. What if the I-banks had been forced to take realistic haircuts on AIG instead of being made whole. What if the Fed had not lent so much to the banks? What if they had not executed all the various acronym programs.
The answer is not about anyone’s philosophy it is about the fact that this is what has occurred up to this point (whether we like it or not) so based on what has been done, what makes the most sense. I was much closer to the tear the band aid off camp before but that was not our reality. Our reality was intrusion on markets on what appears to be an unprecedented scale. This intrusion cannot be undone, so in the face of that intrusion should there be more?
You may conclude no but the process that takes you to that answer must be different than how you would have answered the question three years ago.