pheonixiis
Veteran
Joined: 1 Oct 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 532
Location: sifting through the ashes
And yet Austrians like to brag about how they predicted the Great Depression/stock crash when it took Keynes completely by surprise. But then, if you constantly prophecy doom and gloom, someday you'll be right and then be able to gloat about it.
What are some more mainstream analyses on the causes of the business cycle? My intro econ book only stated that business cycles existed and Keynesian policies attempt to smooth them out; it never attempted to explain the origin of these cycles.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Well, monetarists think that the business cycle was caused by money supply issues, usually that the money supply would not be sufficient to keep the economy going, keeping the economy going included keeping the same expected level of inflation I think too, as monetarists accepted the long-run phillips curve earlier than Keynesians.
Keynesians just think that the business cycle is caused by miscoordinations with supply and demand that end up going back. The reasons for these miscoordinations can vary though based upon the theorist and circumstance theorized upon.
Real business cycle people I think just view the business cycle as often a rational adjustment to fundamental economic changes, such as technology shifts and such.
Most economists are Keynesians.
Sounds like Mises in reverse.
Seems a bit vague, but Keynesianism always seems more concerned with fixing a problem than with explaining it.
This seems plausible.
I though Mankiw had started a bit of a shift away from Keynesianism? I would figure that Keynesianism and Neoclasicism would both be pretty dominant.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Differences definitely exist.
Well, it is vague, and I kept it vague as there is no absolute Keynesian position. Keynesians believe in multiple possible causes, but a simple fundamental of a mismatch of supply and demand through market forces.e.
Really? I thought he still considered himself neo-Keynesian. Well, right, and most economists are neoclassical Keynesians.
I don't see how we don't have an economic theory, there are economic theories on political actions, and what is going on here is clearly an economic issue.
Economics deals with the interactions of valuable goods and services and how they self regulate to promote the operations and welfare of society. The current crisis is a loss of belief in the value of the goods presented as the major operators have misrepresented what they exchange for real value as having real value instead of the totally phoney paper which represents nothing worth exchanging. The whole thing is a huge scam and the US government is trying to cover it up by throwing real value down the financial black hole. Aside from the fact that the amounts offered, as large as they are, have no chance of putting real value back in the market, the actual basis of a working society is the welfare of the entire populace and its ability to produce and consume and this is entirely out of the loop of the current remedies.
For the most part, I think that makes sense.