And you draw a distinction to deflect the point that I made.
So what, now, about this act we are both referring to, is NOT an EXECUTION of managing the economy?
I would suggest dropping your condescension, as that certainly does not reflect an intelligent human being (which you seem to be to me), nor will it lend to an intelligent debate.
I throw every federal gov't agency not explictly allocated for in the Constitution of the United States into the socialist camp. My preference is to adhere to the document that is the foundation of our country, a document which does not allow for the centralization of power in such manners.
You are. "Bear Stearns" vs. "Creditors". An economic bailout from a centralized managing authority was still authored. You deny this?
O RLY? A lot of Austrians would absolutely laugh at this statement.
There's no such thing as a free market in industry today because those who have money/power like to keep money/power and get more of it.
Hence, the Federal Reserve and other centralized banks.
So let's coin and regulate currency based on something like gold. I'm game.
Your definition of "reasonable people" reveals your bias. There are plenty of reasonable people who argue that such managing of the economy is what results in "booms" and "busts".
Again, you say this like it's stone cold fact, when it is merely dogmatic recitation of an economic schema/philosophy.