When we look at the last ten years’ progress, we frequently see that different cycles have prevailed in the world economy. Enlargement and growth cycle that were symbolized with loose money -- low interest rates before the crisis -- led to the rapid growth in national economies. The period that started with the mortgage crisis in 2007 caused the harsh deceleration and shrinkage after 2008. This recession course, which was predicted to last for a long time, was being resisted and reversed. National economies entered a soft growth period beginning in the second half of 2010. However it can be seen that many countries could not keep up with growth cycle and their growth slowed dramatically by the year 2012. In this period the global economy again headed toward deceleration and stagnation. Discussions regarding on how to manage the conjuncture of fluctuation in market economy are still on. In ordinary situations, if there is not a serious inflation or unemployment, in other words, if the economy is stabilized, it is not necessary to design a peculiar policy in order to manage the economic situation. Market economy mechanism functions in accordance with its own rules. Policy executives take a passive stance. It’s avoided to intervene to market mechanism. Governments may implement different politic approaches due to their own characteristics when the signals appear that give the impressions of economy is losing its stabilization. One of these approaches claims that the basic tools of market mechanism are enough to stabilize an unbalanced economy. According to this approach it is unnecessary to set and implement an exclusive policy for the conjuncture. It’s envisioned that policies should remain passive to create effectively functioning market mechanism while regaining the balance. It’s avoided to intervene to public finances and monetary. In fact they find such interventions inconvenient by reason of the possibility that may occur on market mechanism. Another approach claims that it is not possible to regain stability again without an intervention. They support the idea of intervening in an economy to manage the conjuncture. They set and implement policies to this aim that are active rather than just reactive. To put an economy back on a path of growth during the deceleration and recession periods, there can be intervention by loosening policies. Life spheres of economic policies in market economies take form through these approaches. Discussions on how to manage the conjuncture are back after the period of cyclical shift in the last 10 years. Now there is a consensus that immediate interventions to a large extent can be necessary for shrunken and sinking economies. Discussions started at the onset of the global crisis, but in this phase opposition remained only in theory. We witnessed sizeable interventions. Almost in every case, fiscal discipline was neglected and budget deficit increased. Monetary policies loosened dramatically. Interest rates reduced. Recession-deceleration in this conjuncture was expected to last a long time and be harsh, but this was reversed. In a sense validity of intervention was almost approved. Not long after, the economies which were giving growth signals after the intervention started to encounter problems. Simply put, they went back a decelerating the conjuncture. This change in the conjuncture affected the intervention discourse negatively, and advocates of a free market again began being heard more and more. Discussions regarding an interventionist or free market style of economics continue but still everyone keeps acting on their own ways.