Free Markets as savior???

I read an article talking about a contrarian position that in fact free markets can repair the economy faster than government intervention, and that it was government regulation that caused this meltdown.

But I don't buy into their historical analysis, suggesting that the 1920-1921 crash reflected how markets can recover themselves faster than with government intervention of the 1929 crash.

Why?

Because for starters, in 1922, the Feds reduced that top tax rate from 77% to 58%, and continued to do so every year until 1929, at the low of 24%.  This to me suggests that there was monetary intervention by essentially providing liquidity to the markets through these dramatic tax cuts.  In my view - and I know it doesn't count for much - this means that the influx of cash into the markets disguised what were otherwise structural problems with the stock market and the economy in general.  The relative short time between the 1920-1921 crash and the 1929 crash means to me that introduction of additional capital into the markets produced an artificial bubble.

Further, the Hoover Administration mostly pushed voluntary measures for banks to increase their money supply, following the 1929 crash.  In fact, the only real action of the Hoover Administration did not occur until 1932, an election cycle which saw Roosevelt win.  Now, if you look closely at the GNP growth, it continued to sink from 1929 through 1932.  It wasn't until AFTER Roosevelt's New Deal and his fireside chats, that we saw GNP recover and move positively.

In effect, a laissez-faire approach in fact DOES NOT WORK, and I think it's disingenuous for free-market advocates to suggest otherwise.   As I see it - and again I know my opinion doesn't count for much - free market advocates are on the extreme end of the spectrum of totalitarian regulations, and neither extremes will provide the necessary response to freeing up the economy to grow once again.

In my humble opinion.