It is these institutions, they insist, that are preventing wealth-generating activities in the financial sector and the other parts of the economy from expanding real wealth. To free market economists, economic adjustment is not menacing or terrible. From an economic point of view, it is nothing more than a time when scarce resources are reallocated in accordance with consumers' priorities. They therefore argue that the best rescue plan is to allow the market mechanism to operate freely. Allowing the market to do the job will result in some activities disappearing all together while some other activities will in fact be expanded.

In short, free market economists are against a government rescue package of any sort. In their mind, a government package will not rescue the economy, but merely rescue activities that the economy cannot afford and that consumers (voters) do not want. It will only sustain waste and promote inefficiency, draining resources for future growth . Moreover, so-called economic disruptions will not be prevented even if a new rescue package is passed and implemented, as interventions would only delay the inevitable de-leveraging and could actually make the disruptions much worse and the recovery that much longer. On the other hand, the free market has the ability to make swift adjustments without much drama, as was vividly illustrated only a few weeks ago when Lehman Brothers was allowed to go belly up.

In other words, Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke and the government interventionists should just stand aside and let the free market take its course, even if it means risking a deep recession/depression. The resulting clearing of markets and balance sheets in the end will be faster and cleaner, clearing the decks for a faster recovery. If the treasury still wants to use $700 billion to re-start the economy then, it will be welcomed by voters with open arms.