Real business cycle theory is not a cycle theory at all

By -
I have pointed this out before, and got some flack for saying it, which is surprising given the fact that RBC proponents have boasted of this as a feature of their theory. Anyway, here is Noah Smith making this point:

"In fact, RBC is really sort of a giant null hypothesis -- a claim that the phenomenon known as the business cycle is just an illusion, and that recessions are the normal, smooth functioning of an efficient economy."

Comments

  1. The Arthurian4:40 PM

    Here is Rush Limbaugh making that point: After the Reagan years,

    "George Bush came along and, seeking to get along with the Democrats in the interest of smooth government, changed course -- at least economically. He betrayed the most important political promise he ever made and made a huge political sacrifice in the process, and ended up compounding a cyclical recession.
    "Liberals then brilliantly took the natural cycle of recession and blamed it completely on the 1980s..."
    (emphasis added)
    From: See, I Told You So (1994)

    And here is Newt Gingrich making that point:

    "The so-called business cycle is in large part a product of the theories of American economists. Since their theories predict that economic recession will always follow growth, they will advise the Federal Reserve Board to follow policies that slow growth and increase rates, that in turn will choke off the growth and lead to recession."
    From: To Renew America (1995)

    I've been waiting a long time to share those bits.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Arthurian4:49 PM

    Oh, and the big gun:
    "In one respect the [Federal Reserve] System has remained completely consistent throughout. It blames all problems on external influences beyond its control and takes credit for any and all favorable occurrences. It thereby continues to promote the myth that the private economy is unstable, while its behavior continues to document the reality that government is today the major source of economic instability."
    Milton Friedman, Free to Choose, Chapter 3, last paragraph.

    ReplyDelete
  3. João Marcus6:24 PM

    Noah´s right:
    http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/is-rbc-theory-winning-out/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob Murphy3:33 PM

    I agree with this post, Gene.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more