I agree that Bush is an economic shit-for-brains. But that doesn't mean everything he has done has been bad. I still think the tax cuts have been beneficial, for both the investment side, as well as the government side and consumer side. Fed interest rate and money supply control policy under Bernanke and Greenspan have been deplorable, along with Bush's war. There are literally millions of factors that have affected the economy recently, but not all of Bush's actions have been bad. No...you got it all wrong. When the market corrects itself to better reflect intrinsic value, I am happy. When I see that something is undervalued and I can take advantage of that in the form of investment, I am happy. When others selfishly and stupidly run into an "investment" by the masses, causing a huge surge in price for a commodity that everybody needs...I am sad. When those people finally foot the bill for their economic stupidity and selfish lemming-ism, I am happy. The example doesn't fit the point you were trying to make, nor does it apply to mine. I agree with you, and I do understand the point of moral hazard. If anybody bails out the banks, you can say goodbye to the idea that lessons will be learned from this "tragedy". Innovation is hardly a quantifiable object. It is too hard to define, and measurement must come in both qualitative and quantitative forms if any utilitarian good is to be measured. As such, your question or doubt is pretty unanswerable...but I can make an objection to your point: Innovation comes from ideas, which is independent from investment. Investment can speed along the process, but it is not a source of innovation. I would argue, arbitrarily of course, that peoples ideas are more creative in tight times than prosperous times, because prosperity enforces a status quo of creativity.