That's BS and you know it.
Are you claiming that the Internet was not originally a government program? Are you claiming that World War II was not government-driven?
If the government comes to control the economy in a recession/depression, do you really think it would ever give up control?
Why is there no Works Progress Administration today, then? Do you think it just upped and magically vanished on its own?
Hell no. Once the government gets control of something, it very rarely gives up control over it.
I have given examples. You have refused to.
Either address my examples, provide examples of your own, or concede the point.
When the Fed takes over a bank, is it nationalized or are the branches sold out and merged into other organizations?
Hell, a part of the problem
is the amount of privatization of public resources that Republicans have been encouraging, up to and including the use of mercenaries in wartime.
It takes an act of Congress for that to change. You have idiots in the government now that think they know how to run the economy better than anyone else.
Then stop voting in idiots. That, in theory, should not be too much to ask.
The biggest problem is that the government doesn't have to make ANY profit. It never makes a profit and is fairly inefficient.
The government has to produce a net positive gain in overall resources in order to be considered stable. That's about as raw a definition of profit as you can get.
Central planning is only inefficient for traditional classes of goods - things where a large number of sellers and a large number of buyers are feasible.
But central planning is not the same concept as government controls. Government controls can also help to ensure things like transparency in a market, which is a requirement for the market hypothesis to hold.
Even more so, why are you objecting to a new WPA on the grounds that the Government won't let go of it when in fact that is exactly what happened
Where do they get their money? Taxes.
The Government has several significant sources of revenue
1) Taxes, yes
3) Fines and fees
4) Printing money
5) Acting as a central bank - making loans and collecting interest on them.
Most of the Fed's taxes are payroll taxes - going to social security and medicaid. But the last four aren't insignificant.
If it goes into debt? No problem, raise the debt limit and either print more money and/or borrow it.
This is not an unlimited source of funds. The amount of money the Government can borrow is limited by its own reserves (the amount it basically has saved up for other purposes - e.g. the Treasury, the Social Security and other trust funds, etc - money the Government owes itself), and the amount other people are willing to lend to it - which is a lot, given that interest rates are so low - people want to lend to the government.
The amount of money the government can print without causing hyperinflation is also limited, though there is a more complex dynamic here.
Transparency is important, but given the current government in the last 50 years, it hasn't helped. Especially when damned near every politician is in bed with special interests and the bureaucracies help cover as many mistakes as they can. The Democrats are just as bad, if not worse in some ways than the Republicans with that.
What's going on seems almost conspiratorially intentional - the Republicans are playing crazy and the Democrats are playing spineless while we literally get sold out.
Morgan Stanley and Citigroup each got two trillion in cheap, no-recourse loans and Democrats had to fight the Obama administration over getting that information out of the Fed. If you want change, I suspect it is going to have to come at the expense of this 'Democrat versus Republican' nonsense and actually focus on electing Democrats and Republicans who swear to a policy of transparency and accountability. That probably won't get very far without a few Constitutional amendments first.