If a tree falls in the forest, who hears it fall? An old philisophical dilema.

In the temperate rain forest of the Olympic Peninsula in the American Pacific Northwest trees fall as part of the natural order. The fallen trees start to decay and seeds root in the rich nutrients of the decaying vegetation. The fallen trees act as nurse logs for the vigorous new life.

On a human time scale, it may appear that huge trees live for ever. But trees grow old, become susceptible to disease or are no longer able to withstand the forces of the weather and prevailing conditions.

If the forest is to flourish, it is important that the energy contained in the old trees be recycled into vigorous new growth as quickly as possible. The new growth is able to adapt to changing conditions.

If, for any reason, the old tree doesn't fall to the forest floor, decay is much slower and the energy contained in the old trunk can't support new life.

Recent days have seen a hurricane blowing through the financial forest. Some financial giants have fallen. Others are being proped up by government rescue packages.

The resources, talent and energy of the fallen giants will be absorbed into existing businesses and make immediate contributions or some parts will form new businesses which will evolve, adapt and grow in the new economic climate.

For those that are "saved" by government rescue packages the future is not as bright. They will limp along in their present uncompetitive form, using scarce public resources and tax payers money, in most cases, competing unfairly in the market place and distorting the market from their subsidised position.

The institutions which are "saved" lock up whatever talent and energy they contain and make no contribution to the process of adaptation and change that is vital if the economic structure is to evolve.

The natural process of birth, growth and maturity of economic structures requires that old structures that are no longer fit for the market place be allowed to die in order that the component parts can contribute to the next cycle of birth, growth and maturity.

From an evolutionary stand point, this represents the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest.

Government intervention to prop up failed institutions could be viewed as intelligent design.

Does anyone believe that the words "Government", "Intelligence" and "Design" belong in the same sentence?