The question is: can the authorities curb a crisis by spending borrowed money? According to Keynes, spending would not only prevent the economy from sinking even lower,it would also reduce the extent of the crisis and bring the economy back into balance more quickly. Or was Hayek right when he claimed that misjudged attempts to curb a crisis by means of debt-financed spending can sow the seeds of a subsequent and even deeper crisis? The current situation on our continent – Europe – has much in common with the 1930s. Unemployment is high, while there is a need for investment in infrastructure, new technology-and education. There are also many advocates of investing in a “green” shift towards sustainable growth. But investment is not forthcoming. In the light of the pessimism now holding sway in Europe, this is perhaps not surprising. The situation in Europe illustrates how difficult it can be to curb a crisis once it has arisen. It might therefore be wise to give priority to crisis prevention. A healthy economic system is less vulnerable. Crises can be curbed – or even avoided – by boosting the resilience of the economy. Rather than treating the disease after it has taken hold, much can be accomplished by strengthening the economy’s immune system.The financial crisis revealed deficiencies and system failures worldwide. Many governments and households had taken on too much debt. US investment banks such as Lehman Brothers operated a high-risk business model with low levels of equity. European banks were too dependent on short-term funding in international markets. In a period of growth, it is easy for banks to obtain funding. But the system is fundamentally unstable. Without adequate capital requirements in the banking system, credit growth can spiral out of control.