Is it even remotely possible for the powers that be to create a recession. Why or why not?
Is it even remotely possible for the powers that be to create a recession. Why or why not?
I don't believe it was entirely accidental. The GOP has long wanted to break government so that industry would have more control over the life of the country, and there is no way they copuld have done it more effectively.
Under GOP principles, such as those advocated on this forum by such persons as mhaze, those who enter the recession with the most in their pockets will begin filling them more abundantly once recovery starts, because they will be more easily to buy control of resources in the fire sale liquidation of public assets by cash-strapped local governments.
Is it even remotely possible for the powers that be to create a recession. Why or why not?
Sure. They just did it.
I don't believe it was entirely accidental. The GOP has long wanted to break government so that industry would have more control over the life of the country, and there is no way they copuld have done it more effectively.
Weakest conspiracy theory ever.
How is sacking the GM of a car company giving power to industry? How is nationalising banks giving power to industry.
If the intent was to remove power from government, it seems to have gone badly wrong.
I don't know about the GOP being the one to put this into play,
The actions TheAtheist was talking about, however, were Democrat-led actions designed to correct the effects of the recession or end the recession itself.
Yes, but the point of it was to show that the conspiracy's pretty worthless if they can't even hold the reins of government. Isn't Obama supposed to be a Bush/Clinton/Reagan/Bohemian Grove shill, or are ******s not allowed in?
I get so confused by which conspiracy is which.
I just think he could have been so much more.
Is it even remotely possible for the powers that be to create a recession. Why or why not?
While I don't think the GOP's plan was to sell government off, I do think Lefty is right that the Bush administration did entirely the wrong thing with large amounts of cash.
You might be right, but he inherited one hell of a poisoned chalice and when he won the Dem nomination, probably didn't expect to be neck-deep in broken banks. 3 months? Give him time.
It is just a language trick really, when a large bank fails it is called nationalization when a small bank fails it is not. Same process though.
Er,... no.
When a small bank fails, it's merged with another (private) bank. Indeed, until recently, when a large bank failed, it was merged with another (private) bank. The problem is that we're running out of healthy banks that are capable of buying and runing BoA or Citi.