the Fed has helped create recessions, yes. It's part of the general one-sided class war that's been going on.
On 2/11/06, Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * 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. > -- Jim Devine Bust Big Brother Bush!
