If you believe that "[t]he government's interference in the market will, as always, result in more harm than good", then how do you square that with your earlier claim that Bush doesn't deserve any criticism on the economy, considering that in the past year, his administration has interfered in the economy perhaps the most of any administration in history since Roosevelt?  After all, it was Bush appointees that orchestrated bailouts and/or takeovers of Bear Stearns, AIG, Washington Mutual, and Wachovia, and outright nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  And it was Bush's man Paulson that proposed this $700 billion bank bailout, along with numnerous other interventionist measures.  So you would have to then admit that Bush has done "more harm than good" in the past year and may have culpability in the severity of this crash, right? 

You can't have it both ways.