I disagree. Allowing the market to correct and take out businesses and industries that are not healthy the way they are right now is just common sense, and fits the economic cycle very well. The shedding of the weak makes room for the strong, and elimination of losers makes room for new winners; that is the function of the economic cycle. NOT allowing the market to correct, for whatever reason, by means of manipulation, favoritism and socialist tactics, is NOT healthy and is NOT sustainable. A return to hard currency, elimination of the Fed and re-industrialization of this country is required, nothing less will do if it is to be sustainable. Anything less is just another bandaid, regardless of the ticket price. No comment on Friedman.
I see there are some libertarians here. Fed kept interest rates low and it did create conditions fertile for speculation BUT the speculation itself was done by private entities. It was not the fed that designed crazy financial instruments or approved people for mortgages they had no business having. Freddie and Fannie were government sponsored entities but were still private before take over. Fact of the matter is, several prominent businesses failed, end of story. It just proves private entities are nowhere near infallible. As further proof of the ridiculousness of assertion that private is always better than public I present the following hypothetical scenario: On your desk there are 2 resumes: One is from U.C Berkley (needs no introduction) and one is from Univeristy of Phoenix Online. Now surely an institution run by godless liberals, incompetent bureaucrats, and other "low lifes" would not hold a candle to a profit driven "american way" run institution. Yet, any reasonable person would feel otherwise. If you feel the example is extreme, try Southern Cal vs Berkley. Berkley is considered more prestigious and "better" (save for film school) As this example illustrates, public vs private comparison needs to be made on the basis of people and policies.
It sounds like you could care less, or you could actually go read a book on economics. Milton Friedman is not in the habit of making political statements. Do you have a point? Boom, bust, and market cycles are part of a standard economy. Sometimes, it doesn't boom. So what. We're still quite hands off. The regulations are in place to stem systemic risk. The depression was caused by two things 1)smoot hawley tarrifs, no debate 2) overleverage, a common them here even today. People were allowed to purchase $30,000 worth of stock with just $1,000. When they went against them and they couldn't pay it, the brokers who loaned the money lost it. This type of regulation was needed.
Since you wanted to respond to this quote, consider that the U.S. congress passed bills pushing for sub-prime mortgages to be issued. I put blame more on government than on the private sector. No regulation. Issue a $400k loan and make $10 grand in commission and sell it to fannie and freddie as mandated by the Congress. Sure, I bet that sounds like private sector's fault.