"The relevant standard of comparison is not nirvana."

Bob McTeer with a philosophical post you should read:

"The charge that the financial crisis is Alan Greenspan's fault because of too-low interest rates in 2002 to 2004, for example, focuses only on the presumed (seen) unintended consequences of his policy, without ever considering the (unseen) results of his policy. His low-rate policy was successful in avoiding a double-dip recession and in avoiding Japanese-style deflation, but that is never mentioned, partly because they were unseen. I've defended Chairman Greenspan at length elsewhere, but for now my point is to emphasize the seen versus unseen aspects. Successful monetary policy, in general, usually means that nothing bad happens; therefore, nobody sees inflation or deflation accelerating, but they probably will see any adverse side effect.

Another example is the view that the draconian measures taken by the Federal Reserve over the past year have done little or no good. Granted, they haven't cured the problem, but the relevant comparison is what would have happened without those actions. The relevant standard of comparison is not nirvana."

Here's part of my comment:

This is the issue. If the Fed causes a slowdown in the economy in order to avoid a bubble, will that be accepted, or will people decry their action as limiting growth without enough cause. On the other hand, through lobbying and other means, they might not be able to deal with the problem companies effectively.