tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post8388596415453881400..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: A Three-way Framework for Classifying Business Cycle Theories?gcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-53842644999971608202013-01-07T14:16:38.262-05:002013-01-07T14:16:38.262-05:00I agree that monetary v real makes sense.
Some t...I agree that monetary v real makes sense. <br /><br />Some theories (example: an increase in the demand for money combined with sticky prices will cause a bust) would not be viable without assumptions that prices and/or the money supply are not perfectly flexible. These theories would be monetary in nature. <br /><br />Others theories (example: lack of new technology leads to lack of investment opportunities) would be viable even with the assumption of flexible prices and money and so could be categorized as real in nature.<br /><br />On endogenous/exogenous and true/pseudo theories: I haven't thought this through fully but I can see a case to say that any cycle theory that is driven by exogenous factors (such as change in technology or demand for money) are not true cycle theories (unless the exogenous factor is itself cyclical - in which case it would be part of the theory and therefore not really exogenous).<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.com