🚀 go-pugleaf

thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu writes:
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Food for another thread: I have said here and in another post that the
>evidence for/against various theories of the business cycle is fairly
>weak.  However, I remember once seeing a graph that suggested that the
>amplitude of the cycles has on average been much lower since the end
>of WW II than before.  The speaker who presented this graph
>interpreted it as evidence that economists and policy makers had in
>fact learned something about business cycles since the turn of the
>century.  Comments?

The other possibility is that we're in the low point of another economic
cycle which has a regular period of between 50 and 100 years.  So, we
still have recessions, but for this 50 year period they will tend
to be small ones.  However, the next 50 years may see recessions of
increased severity.

(NOTE: I'm not proposing this as a rigorous theory.  I'm just suggesting
that there may be other reasons why the economy has calmed down in the
long range view).

Personally I think one of the long under-studied areas is the effect
that the generational cycle has on the business cycle (and other social
cycles).

-- 
Chris Andersen (..!uunet!sequent!toontown!chris)

"...the only thing worse than being hurt is being bored." -- Daniel Mocsny