Once again completing the cycle of moral hazards in the name of reducing the "impact" of rescissions in the short-term. The only metric that apparently matters.

In the last recession, unemployment in the US reached 10%. How big does unemployment have to reach before you take the quotes away from "impact"? 15%? 20%? Unemployment in Spain reached as high as 26% because Spain was unable to reduce the impact.

The unemployment rate is the short term metric which is exactly what I’m taking about.

A long term perspective means preventing future recessions too, not just fixing the short term problems. Creating new moral hazards, negative incentives, behaviour and careers which would have been tarnished and discredited normally are allowed to continue, often with the same people and companies.

If we were serious about preventing recessions our policies should not only be measured in how they deal with the fallouts but also addressing the things that cause it in the first place, and balancing what’s lost by not letting the markets naturally correct themselves.

We've had recessions for the entire history of capitalism, under a large number of legal regimes. We had recessions back when banking was much more tightly regulated. We had recessions under laissez-faire. Recessions are endemic to the system. Our choices are either "combat unemployment" or get ready for socialism to finally win the war of ideas.

> or get ready for socialism to finally win the war of ideas.

Yeah how's that working out in Venezuela and Ecuador (who only half-heartedly did it and still got burned).

It's working out badly. But we get 25% unemployment, and a lot more countries are going to try it.

The real impact is loss of current and future income and wealth.

Jobs are a means to an end.

Or savers when the currency gets inflated.