: 3:In that Link Government ownership was minorminot as % of all, huge as a 'player'
:, and can't be accredited with teh slow down in teh wider economy.
It can be shown to have cause in various aspects, and having an effect to make it worse throughout those ever popular run downs in 19th century US fledgling economy.
What is notable is that some banks dealt with it better (eg the New England example) and having done so the same strategy gets used all over. a learning curve.
I wouldnt suggest that panics and down turns are impossible without government, I would suggest that the govt cure is often worse than the disease, having an effect of carrying over and exagerating the calamity for longer and into the future (leading to new controls which lead to new crises etc etc). its a slippery slope of intervention to which I see little benefit and much disbenefit.
Ofcourse it would be jolly nice if such things never happened, if we all communicated honestly, we all trusted eachother because we were all 100% trustworthy, the banking system (or lack of it) was based upon actual exchangable (or usable) value and not state or fraudulently backed credit etc etc.
hence the ever popular dream of anarchism in either collectivist or individualist modus operandi, and the sobering realization that it hasnt happened, not because we're all toys to some mysterious elite, but because the great majority of people dont want either.
And the reasons why they dont are legion, perhaps I shall post some thing on choice theory soon - thats something different to go over.
