I can see all reasonable lines of discussion are at an end.
But it seems your line is about having your cake and eat it too, which it not reasonable either.
We rarely see a "crash" unless there was a preceding 'boom". We know that the economy goes in cycles, it just seems to be human nature - and there are reasons why business fall into the 'trap'. You can't let your competition gain market-share, so you end up in a race to expand as fast or faster than they do, but no one knows when the bubble pops. But if you don't keep up, you get left in the dust. I fear we are doomed to boom/bust cycles because of this.
If the govt was to do anything, I'd say they should have been
raising requirements for loans
during the boom. Not only would this have cut off some of the 'gasoline on the fire', but most people would be in a far better position to weather the crash. It would have been a stabilizing move.
The 10% margin requirement for stocks in the 20's payed a role in the sharp meltdown. So we now have a 50% margin requirement for stocks, but 10%, 5% or even 0% on a house in a bubble market? But it seems we wanted everyone to share in the good times, but nobody wants to pay the piper when they are hungover. Can't have your cake and eat it too -
that leads to people 'starving' (maybe not literally, but I don't think the previous post was meant to be taken literally either).
-ERD50