Government Role: The Debate Between Economic Intervention and Free Markets

Last updated 4 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Few questions shape American economic policy more than this: What should the government’s role be in the economy? Answers are motivated by different and compelling philosophies about achieving national prosperity and stability.

At the center of this debate are two main tools the government uses to influence economic outcomes: fiscal policy, controlled by Congress and the President, and monetary policy, managed by the independent Federal Reserve. The core disagreement involves when, how, and whether these powerful tools should be used.

This analysis examines competing economic theories and how they’ve been tested during three major economic crises in U.S. history.

Understanding Economic Health

What Is Economic Growth?

Economic growth means an increase in the production of goods and services within a country over time. Think of the national economy as a single pie. Economic growth makes the entire pie bigger, allowing everyone to potentially receive larger slices without taking from others.

The most common measure is Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which represents the total monetary value of all finished goods and services produced within a country’s borders. Economists focus on real GDP, adjusted for inflation, to determine whether production volume has actually increased, not just prices.

GDP has important limitations. It doesn’t account for unpaid labor like childcare, the value of free digital services like online maps, or environmental costs from production and waste. These measurement flaws matter because government policies are often based on GDP data. A policy that boosts GDP through polluting industries might appear successful while causing unmeasured harm to public health and environment.

Long-term sustainable growth depends on three factors: increases in capital (tools, machinery, and infrastructure), increases in labor (more workers), and most critically, growth in productivity. Productivity means finding better ways to use existing labor and capital, often through technological advances and innovation.

When Economies Contract

Economies don’t grow in straight lines. They experience natural cycles of expansion and contraction called the business cycle. When economies contract, downturns are classified as either recessions or depressions based on severity and duration.

A recession is a significant, widespread decline in economic activity lasting more than a few months. While a common rule is two consecutive quarters of negative real GDP growth, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) officially determines recessions using broader data including employment, personal income, and industrial production.

A depression is a much more severe and prolonged economic catastrophe. While there’s no official NBER definition, depressions generally feature steep GDP declines (often over 10 percent), widespread and persistently high unemployment, and duration measured in years. A well-known distinction: “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; a depression is when you lose yours.”

Government’s Economic Tools

When economies falter or overheat, the U.S. government has two primary tools to steer them back on course: fiscal policy and monetary policy. Understanding how each works, who controls them, and how they interact is fundamental to the debate over government’s role.

Fiscal Policy

Fiscal policy uses government spending and taxation to influence the economy. In the United States, elected officials, Congress and the President, make these decisions through the federal budget process.

Government Spending directly increases demand for goods and services through infrastructure projects, national defense, or social programs. It also boosts the economy indirectly through transfer payments like Social Security or unemployment benefits, giving households more money to spend.

Taxation influences household and business behavior. Tax cuts leave more disposable income for individuals, encouraging spending and investment, while tax increases do the opposite.

These tools implement two types of policy:

Expansionary Policy stimulates economic activity during recessions through increased government spending, tax cuts, or both. Such policies often result in budget deficits when government spending exceeds revenue.

Contractionary Policy cools down “overheating” economies experiencing high inflation by cutting spending or raising taxes to reduce overall demand.

Some fiscal policy operates automatically without new legislation. These “automatic stabilizers” include tax revenues that fall during recessions as incomes decline, and government spending that rises through programs like unemployment insurance and food stamps, providing built-in economic cushioning.

Monetary Policy

Monetary policy manages the nation’s money supply and credit conditions to foster economic growth and stability. The Federal Reserve handles this responsibility in the United States.

The Federal Reserve is the central bank, composed of a Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., and twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks. A crucial feature is its political independence. Governors serve long, 14-year staggered terms, and the institution funds its own operations, insulating it from short-term political pressures.

This independence allows the Fed to make difficult, sometimes unpopular decisions, like raising interest rates to fight inflation, that serve the economy’s long-term interests.

Congress has given the Fed a “dual mandate”: promote maximum employment and stable prices.

Maximum Employment refers to the highest employment level the economy can sustain without causing runaway inflation. It doesn’t mean zero unemployment, as some job turnover is natural in a dynamic economy.

Stable Prices means keeping inflation low and predictable. The Fed targets an average inflation rate of 2 percent over the long run.

The Fed’s most important tool is the federal funds rate, which is the interest rate banks charge each other for overnight loans of their reserves.

To stimulate a sluggish economy (expansionary policy), the Fed lowers its target rate. This makes borrowing cheaper for banks, which lowers interest rates for consumers and businesses on mortgages and business loans, encouraging spending and investment.

To combat high inflation (contractionary policy), the Fed raises its target rate. This makes borrowing more expensive, helping slow spending and cool the economy.

The Fed uses other tools like paying interest on reserve balances and conducting open market operations (buying and selling government securities) to ensure the actual federal funds rate stays within its target range.

How Fiscal and Monetary Policy Interact

These two policy toolkits create fundamental tension in U.S. economic management. Fiscal policy is slow, political, and direct in impact. A new spending bill or tax cut can take months of congressional debate, but its effect, like a stimulus check arriving in a bank account, is tangible.

Monetary policy is fast, technocratic, and indirect. The Fed’s policy committee can change interest rates in a single day, but effects ripple through the financial system and can take months to fully influence the broader economy.

This structural design means during crises, the Fed can act almost immediately while Congress debates fiscal responses. Ideally, the two policies work together. During recessions, Congress can pass stimulus packages while the Fed lowers interest rates, creating powerful, coordinated responses.

However, they can work at cross-purposes. If the Fed believes Congress’s fiscal policy is too inflationary, it can raise interest rates to counteract it, effectively neutralizing government actions. This tension between the slow, political lever and the fast, independent one is a core feature of American economic governance.

Two Competing Economic Philosophies

The decision of when and how to use government’s economic tools is guided by two fundamentally different philosophies about markets, government, and economic stability.

Keynesian Economics: The Case for Intervention

The modern argument for active government intervention stems from British economist John Maynard Keynes, whose ideas revolutionized economics during the Great Depression.

Keynesian economics holds that free-market economies aren’t always self-correcting and can get stuck in long periods of high unemployment. Government intervention is necessary to stabilize the economy during these periods.

Major economic downturns are caused by a collapse in aggregate demand: the total spending by households, businesses, and government. In recessions, uncertainty and pessimism cause households to save more and spend less, while businesses cut back on investment and hiring.

This creates a vicious downward spiral: less spending leads to less production, which leads to layoffs, which leads to even less spending.

The Keynesian solution is for government to step in and fill the spending gap. By using expansionary fiscal policy (either increasing government spending on public works or cutting taxes to boost consumer demand), government can inject purchasing power back into the economy, break the downward spiral, and restore confidence.

Keynes famously dismissed the classical view that economies would eventually fix themselves by stating, “In the long run, we are all dead,” highlighting the urgent need to address human suffering in the short run.

A key concept is the multiplier effect. This suggests that initial government spending leads to more-than-proportional increases in overall economic output. When government pays a contractor to build a bridge, that contractor pays workers, who spend wages at local businesses. Those businesses have more income to hire staff or invest, continuing the cycle.

Free-Market Economics: The Case Against Intervention

In direct opposition to Keynesian views is the free-market philosophy, rooted in classical economists like Adam Smith and developed by the Austrian school, particularly Friedrich Hayek. This perspective advocates for laissez-faire, or minimal government interference in the economy.

The foundational concept is Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” Smith argued that in free markets, when individuals act in their own self-interest, they are unintentionally guided to promote society’s overall good. This decentralized process of voluntary exchange leads to efficient resource allocation without central planning.

Proponents argue that government intervention, however well-intentioned, often causes more harm than good through “government failure.” The critique has several key components:

The Knowledge Problem – Hayek’s most powerful argument was that complex, modern economies are based on knowledge dispersed among millions of individuals. No central planner or government committee could ever possess all the specific, local information needed to make efficient economic decisions. The price system is the only mechanism capable of coordinating this vast, decentralized knowledge.

Distortion of Market Signals – Government intervention through subsidies or price controls distorts price signals that guide businesses and consumers. Artificially low interest rates set by central banks can lead to “malinvestment”, businesses investing in projects that aren’t truly profitable, leading to unsustainable booms followed by necessary busts.

Political Capture and Inefficiency – Government programs are vulnerable to political pressure from special interest groups. This can lead to resources being allocated based on political connections rather than economic merit, resulting in inefficiency and waste.

The fundamental disagreement extends beyond economics to the theory of knowledge itself. The Keynesian perspective is technocratic, assuming government experts can gather sufficient data to diagnose economic problems and prescribe effective remedies. The free-market perspective argues this is impossible due to the “knowledge problem,” making central management inherently flawed and likely to produce damaging, unintended consequences.

The Great Depression and New Deal Response

The Great Depression of the 1930s was the most severe economic crisis in modern history and serves as the foundational battleground for debates over government’s economic role.

The Crash and Collapse

The 1929 stock market crash triggered catastrophic economic collapse. Between 1929 and 1933, the U.S. economy shrank by nearly a third, with real GDP falling 29 percent.

At the Depression’s height in 1933, unemployment soared to 24.9 percent, leaving over 12.8 million Americans out of work. Nearly 7,000 banks failed, wiping out millions of people’s savings. Families were pushed into poverty, living in shantytowns mockingly called “Hoovervilles” and relying on bread lines and soup kitchens for survival.

Government Response Evolution

President Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) – Contrary to popular myth, Hoover did intervene. He urged business leaders to maintain wages, increased federal spending on public works like dams and highways, and created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to provide emergency loans to banks, railroads, and other large businesses. However, his administration remained committed to balancing the budget and was reluctant to provide direct federal relief to individuals, believing that was the role of private charity and local governments.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal (1933-1939) – Pledging a “new deal for the American people,” FDR launched sweeping government programs that fundamentally expanded federal government’s role in American life. The New Deal is summarized by the “Three Rs”:

Relief – Programs like Federal Emergency Relief Administration provided direct aid to states, while the Civilian Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration created millions of government-funded jobs building parks, roads, and public buildings.

Recovery – The Agricultural Adjustment Act sought to raise farm prices by paying farmers to reduce production, and the National Recovery Administration established industrial codes to set wages and prices, aiming to end cutthroat competition.

Reform – Lasting reforms prevented future crises. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was created to insure bank deposits, the Securities and Exchange Commission was established to regulate the stock market, and the Social Security Act of 1935 created a national system of retirement pensions and unemployment insurance.

Analyzing the New Deal’s Impact

The New Deal’s legacy remains one of the most fiercely debated topics in American history.

The Keynesian View sees the Great Depression as ultimate proof of market failure, a catastrophic collapse in aggregate demand that the economy couldn’t fix on its own. The New Deal’s spending and job programs were necessary applications of fiscal stimulus that eased suffering and began recovery. Proponents often point to massive government spending during World War II as definitive evidence that large enough fiscal stimulus could, and did, end the Depression.

The Free-Market Critique holds that government policies, starting with the Hoover administration and intensifying under FDR, actually prolonged the Depression. Critics argue the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 devastated international trade. They see programs like the NRA and AAA as destructive, anti-competitive price-fixing schemes that prevented market adjustment by artificially raising wages and prices, reducing output, and destroying capital.

Research suggests New Deal funds were often distributed based on political motives, channeling money to key swing states to help FDR’s reelection, rather than economic need, leading to gross inefficiencies.

The New Deal wasn’t a coherent application of Keynesian theory. It was a series of pragmatic, urgent, and sometimes contradictory political experiments. Keynes’s major work, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,” wasn’t published until 1936, years after the New Deal began. Keynes himself criticized core programs like the NRA, arguing they impeded recovery by raising business costs when the sole focus should have been boosting consumer purchasing power.

The 2008 Financial Crisis Response

Nearly 80 years after the Great Depression, the United States faced another systemic economic crisis, originating in housing and financial sectors. The government’s response reignited the fundamental debate between interventionism and free markets.

Anatomy of a Modern Crisis

The 2008 financial crisis culminated from a massive housing bubble fueled by years of easy credit, low interest rates, and insufficient government regulation. Financial innovation led to widespread use of subprime mortgages, loans given to borrowers with poor credit history.

These risky loans were packaged into complex financial instruments called mortgage-backed securities and sold to investors worldwide. When the housing bubble burst and homeowners began defaulting in large numbers, these securities’ values plummeted, leaving major financial institutions near collapse.

The bankruptcy of investment bank Lehman Brothers in September 2008 triggered full-blown panic, freezing credit markets and threatening to bring down the entire global financial system.

Emergency Government Response

The federal government, under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, responded with dramatic interventions aimed at preventing complete economic collapse.

Emergency Financial Rescue – The centerpiece was the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a $700 billion fund created by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. TARP injected capital directly into the nation’s largest banks and financial institutions to prevent their failure, widely known and criticized as “bank bailouts.” The government also took control of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fiscal Stimulus – In 2009, the Obama administration signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, an $831 billion fiscal stimulus package. It included tax cuts, aid to states for programs like Medicaid, and federal spending on infrastructure, green energy, and other projects.

Aggressive Monetary Policy – The Federal Reserve acted swiftly and decisively. It slashed the federal funds rate to near zero and, for the first time, implemented quantitative easing. This involved large-scale purchases of government bonds and mortgage-backed securities to pump money directly into the financial system and keep credit flowing.

Analyzing the 2008 Response

The 2008 crisis response demonstrated significant evolution in government intervention. Unlike the New Deal, which focused on work programs and direct aid, the 2008 strategy was heavily financialized. The primary goal was rescuing the banking system first, based on the theory that functioning credit systems are the lifeblood of modern economies.

The Keynesian Resurgence – Interventionists viewed the crisis as catastrophic failure of deregulated capitalism, leading to renewed support for Keynesian ideas. Free-market advocates contested this interpretation, arguing government policies caused the crisis. Proponents argued the combined force of TARP bailouts, ARRA stimulus, and the Fed’s aggressive monetary policy was essential to prevent a second Great Depression. Supportive analyses suggested these interventions saved millions of jobs and prevented a much deeper and longer recession.

The Free-Market Critique – Critics raised several objections. They argued bank bailouts created severe moral hazard, sending a message that large financial firms could take reckless risks knowing taxpayers would save them from failure. They contended the ARRA stimulus was inefficient use of taxpayer money that added trillions to national debt without producing strong recovery. Austrian school adherents argued the crisis wasn’t caused by lack of regulation but by the Fed’s preceding policy of artificially low interest rates, which fueled the housing bubble. From this view, the government’s response simply papered over fundamental problems and set the stage for future crises.

The political fallout from the “finance-first” approach was significant. Critics, particularly populist movements on both left and right, argued that government had prioritized Wall Street over Main Street, where millions were losing homes to foreclosure. This perception fueled political movements on both left and right and has shaped public discourse about the economy ever since.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Unprecedented Stimulus

The COVID-19 pandemic presented a global economic challenge unlike any other in modern history. It wasn’t a crisis born of financial speculation or typical business cycle downturn, but an external shock from a public health emergency requiring novel and massive government response.

A Unique Economic Shock

The pandemic triggered simultaneous crisis on both sides of the economic ledger. On the supply side, lockdowns, social distancing measures, and factory shutdowns brought production to grinding halt, disrupting global supply chains. On the demand side, consumers were forced to stay home, businesses closed, and extreme uncertainty caused spending to plummet, especially in service sectors like travel, hospitality, and entertainment.

In the U.S., unemployment skyrocketed to 14.7 percent in April 2020, as millions of jobs vanished almost overnight.

Unprecedented Government Response

The U.S. government’s response was faster and larger in scale than any previous crisis, marking a significant shift in fiscal policy. The focus moved away from indirect stimulus toward direct, large-scale cash transfers to households and businesses.

Fiscal Policy – Congress passed massive relief packages totaling over $5 trillion. Key pieces of legislation were:

The CARES Act (March 2020) – This $2.2 trillion package was the cornerstone of initial response. It included Economic Impact Payments (stimulus checks of up to $1,200 per adult), the Paycheck Protection Program to provide forgivable loans to small businesses to keep employees on payroll, and historic expansion of unemployment benefits, adding a $600 weekly federal supplement.

Consolidated Appropriations Act (December 2020) – A $900 billion package providing a second round of stimulus checks ($600 per person) and renewed unemployment aid.

The American Rescue Plan (March 2021) – A $1.9 trillion package including a third round of stimulus checks ($1,400 per person) and extended enhanced unemployment benefits.

Monetary Policy – The Federal Reserve again acted as the economy’s backstop. It immediately cut the federal funds rate to zero and launched unprecedented expansion of quantitative easing programs, buying trillions of dollars in government and corporate bonds to ensure financial markets didn’t freeze up.

COVID Response Analysis

The COVID-19 response became the central economic experiment of the 21st century, providing powerful new evidence for both sides of the government intervention debate.

The Interventionist View (“COVID-Keynesianism”) – Proponents argue the response effectively prevented depression. By directly replacing lost income for households and providing lifelines to businesses, government short-circuited the kind of demand collapse seen in the 1930s and 2008, allowing much faster economic rebound. The crisis was seen as definitive proof that in the face of such massive external shock, markets were helpless and large-scale government action was the only solution.

The Free-Market/Monetarist Critique – Critics argue the government’s response, particularly the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan passed when the economy was already recovering, was excessive and ultimately counterproductive. They point to the surge in inflation that began in 2021 and peaked at 40-year highs in 2022 as direct and predictable consequence of massive fiscal and monetary stimulus. From this perspective, government created a new crisis of inflation by injecting “too much money chasing too few goods,” a classic monetarist diagnosis of government failure.

The debate over the true cause of post-pandemic inflation, whether it was primarily driven by government stimulus (a demand-side problem) or by lingering supply chain disruptions (a supply-side problem), remains central to economic discussion. The outcome will heavily influence how government responds to the next major crisis.

Key Policy Battlegrounds

The fundamental conflict between interventionist and free-market philosophies plays out across several key areas of public policy. A policymaker’s stance on one issue is often highly predictive of their views on others, as they stem from the same core assumptions about government’s proper role.

Taxation and Growth

The debate over taxation is a classic clash between supply-side and demand-side economics.

The Argument for Tax Cuts – Proponents, often associated with free-market views, argue lower marginal tax rates (especially on corporate profits and investment income) are the most effective way to foster long-term growth. Supply-side economics theory holds that lower taxes incentivize individuals to work more, save more, and invest more, while encouraging businesses to expand and innovate. This increases the economy’s productive capacity, leading to sustainable growth. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which significantly lowered corporate tax rates, was a major application of this philosophy.

The Argument Against Tax Cuts for the Wealthy – Critics, drawing on Keynesian logic, contend tax cuts are often inefficient ways to stimulate the economy, particularly when targeted at high-income households and corporations. They argue wealthier individuals are more likely to save extra money rather than spend it, resulting in low “multiplier effects.” Tax cuts for low- and middle-income families are more effective at boosting demand. Furthermore, critics warn that if tax cuts aren’t offset by spending cuts, they increase national debt, which can lead to higher interest rates that “crowd out” private investment in the long run, ultimately slowing growth.

Data shows that in Fiscal Year 2024, the federal government collected $2.4 trillion from individual income taxes and $530 billion from corporate taxes, highlighting the stakes of any changes to these revenue streams.

Regulation vs. Deregulation

The proper level of government oversight of business is another central battleground.

The Argument for Regulation – The interventionist perspective holds that regulations are essential to correct market failures, instances where pursuit of private profit leads to negative outcomes for society. This includes environmental regulations to limit pollution, labor laws to ensure worker safety and fair wages, and consumer protection rules to prevent fraud and ensure product safety. Proponents argue well-regulated markets foster fair competition and protect the public from potential excesses of capitalism.

The Argument for Deregulation – The free-market view contends excessive regulation imposes significant costs on businesses, stifles innovation, and slows economic growth. Critics argue regulations create barriers to entry that protect established firms from new competitors, leading to less dynamism and higher prices for consumers. They warn of “regulatory capture,” where industries end up controlling agencies that are supposed to regulate them, using rules to their own advantage.

The 2008 financial crisis is a key example used by both sides: proponents of regulation blame deregulation for the crisis, while opponents argue flawed government policies, not free markets, were the root cause.

The National Debt

The size and growth of U.S. national debt is a source of intense ongoing debate.

The Scale of the Debt – As of September 2025, U.S. national debt stood at approximately $37.6 trillion. This is often compared to the nation’s GDP; in the first quarter of 2025, the debt-to-GDP ratio was 121 percent, meaning the country owes more than its entire economy produces in a year. The debt has grown significantly following major spending initiatives to combat the 2008 financial crisis and COVID-19 pandemic.

Why It Might Be a Crisis – The free-market perspective generally views large and rising national debt as a significant threat to long-term economic health. Concerns are that large-scale government borrowing competes with the private sector for capital, leading to higher interest rates that “crowd out” private investment in businesses and technology. This can lead to slower economic growth, stagnant wages, and reduced ability for government to respond to future crises. Rising interest payments on debt are already consuming an ever-larger portion of the federal budget, crowding out other priorities.

Why It Might Be Sustainable – Other economists, often aligned with more interventionist views, argue concerns about debt are overstated. They point out the U.S. is in a unique position because the U.S. dollar is the world’s primary reserve currency. This creates constant global demand for U.S. Treasury bonds, allowing government to borrow at lower interest rates than other countries. This “exorbitant privilege” makes debt far more sustainable than it would be for another nation. From a Keynesian standpoint, deficit spending is a necessary tool during recessions, and economic damage from failing to act is far greater than long-term risk posed by resulting debt.

Industrial Policy: Picking Winners and Losers?

A resurgent area of debate is industrial policy, the use of government tools like subsidies and tariffs to strategically promote specific domestic industries.

The Argument For (A “New” Interventionism) – Proponents argue that in an era of intense global competition, particularly with state-directed economies like China, the U.S. can no longer afford a purely laissez-faire approach. They contend targeted government support is needed to build resilient supply chains for critical goods (like semiconductors and pharmaceuticals), accelerate transition to green energy, and ensure the U.S. remains a leader in key future technologies. Recent legislation providing subsidies for green technology and domestic manufacturing reflects this view.

The Argument Against (The Free-Market View) – Critics argue industrial policy amounts to government “picking winners and losers,” a task for which it is ill-suited. They maintain such policies are inevitably captured by politically powerful industries, misallocate capital away from its most productive uses, and protect inefficient firms from competition, ultimately harming the economy.

The debate over tariffs is central here. While proponents see them as tools to protect American jobs and industries, critics point to evidence that tariffs act as taxes on consumers, raise costs for businesses that rely on imported parts, and invite retaliation from other countries, leading to net losses for the economy.

Modern Challenges and Considerations

The fundamental debate between government intervention and free markets continues to evolve as new economic challenges emerge. Neither philosophy provides perfect solutions, and real-world policy often involves balancing elements of both approaches.

Global Competition has intensified, particularly from countries with different approaches to industrial policy. Maintaining competitiveness while adhering to trade rules and avoiding retaliation requires sophisticated policy coordination that doesn’t fit neatly into either philosophical camp.

Technological Disruption creates new challenges for both market mechanisms and government responses. The rise of digital platforms, artificial intelligence, and automation raises questions about market concentration, worker displacement, and the appropriate regulatory framework that traditional theories don’t fully address.

Climate Change represents a unique challenge that combines market failures (negative externalities) with the need for coordinated global action. Both pure market solutions and government-only approaches have proven insufficient, leading to hybrid approaches that blend market mechanisms with government intervention.

Income Inequality has grown in many developed countries, raising questions about whether market outcomes alone produce socially acceptable distributions of wealth and opportunity. This has led to renewed interest in policies that address inequality while maintaining economic growth.

Financial Stability remains a concern after repeated crises. The complexity of modern financial systems challenges both the belief that markets will self-regulate and the ability of government regulators to keep pace with innovation.

The ongoing debate reflects deeper questions about the role of expertise versus democratic input in economic policy, the balance between efficiency and equity, and the appropriate response to uncertainty and complexity in modern economies. Rather than settling these questions definitively, each crisis and response adds new evidence and arguments to both sides of this enduring American conversation.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.