It seems reasonable to me to not come up with fixed solutions to crisis, ahead of time.
I'd propose that it is very difficult to, in general, ahead of time, properly assess the viability of a solution. Planning who to fire ahead of time doesn't make sense for a business, since it is difficult to figure out ahead of time, who will be most likely to be useful or harmful during a crisis. For a world wide crisis, it may be more reasonable to have an arsenal of well thought out, potential solutions, and an ordering for considering them in any situation - assuming it can be done more efficiently than coming up with a solution on the spot.
In the specific case of a political body, this sort of planning faces even more problems. If the government had planned ahead on how to deal with a financial meltdown, the plans would have been heavily influenced by those with political clout, increasing the risk of profiteers getting into the fray, to attempt and abuse any recovery plans. The government has to be competent enough at dealing with planned solutions in general, for the plans to be worth making.
Does this sentence contain a typo?
"If the iron approaches your face, and you believe it is hot, and it is cool, the Way opposes your fear. If the iron approaches your face, and you believe it is cool, the Way opposes your calm."