* From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:jdevine03 CB:> Is this, possibly , the result of new advances in "monetarist science" ? My general impression is that before thirty years ago the Fed was not able to, and possibly because it didn't know how to, run things so smoothly from the standpoint of the ruling class. Is it possible that "they" have solved the problem of general crises (!), knowing how to "spot" crisis or allow it to only occur in isolated industries or companies ? Pocket depressions only, especially in the U.S. Dump big recessions abroad. <
I'd say that monetary economics has improved during the last 35 years or so, but the main thing is that the economy has generally cooperated with stabilization efforts. There are clear exceptions, however, such as the recessions under Bush the Father and Bush the Son, neither of which the Fed really wanted. The Carter/Reagan back-to-back recessions, on the other hand, were desired. In general, the downward trend in real oil prices and the power of working people has helped avoid inflation (what really upsets the Wall Street/Banking bloc). So recessions haven't been desired of late. -- Jim Devine Bust Big Brother Bush! ^^^^ CB; Maybe what I am saying is behind the curve in my characterization of monetarist economics , if there has been for a while an ability to create recessions when wanted. Sounds like conscious and deliberate creative destruction. Seems like slow poisoning of the U.S. working class, a little arsenic at a time, so as not to arouse a big revolutionary response. By the time Rip Van Winkle wakes up , the revolution will be over.
