Booms and Busts

Three years into one of the most severe bear markets in history, the most striking feature of the typical economic discussion is the persistent state of denial about how perilous our situation truly is. Also notable is the unthinking promulgation of a species of economic fallacies which, though long since discredited, keep springing up like weeds to choke our reasoning about where we might go from here and, therefore, of how we should be preparing to act. Let us take a look at a few of the more important reasons.

No one can argue about the current moribund economy, complete with flat or falling stock prices, nonexistent profits, layoffs, airline bankruptcies, and exploding federal and state budget deficits. But few people have accurately pointed out why there is no recovery from the original recession.

How are fiat money and the business cycle related? Without sound money, calculation is less efficient and the economy will be prone to business cycles. With sound money policy, no boom-bust cycle will emerge and monetary calculation and planning will be as efficient as possible in an uncertain world. John Cochran explains.
 

The looming war with Iraq raises concern among US economists that this could trigger a recession. The possible war, it is said, generates uncertainty, which in turn paralyses business and consumer expenditure. Frank Shostak puts the theory of the "exogenous shock" into perspective; there is a basis for recession with or without war.

Stagflation is a term that originated in the early 1970s to identify the simultaneous occurrence of recession and inflation—a phenomenon that Keynesian theory had previously suggested was impossible. The industrialized world is being rudely reminded that stagflation is indeed possible, and policymakers are at a loss as to what to do about it.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said last Thursday, during questioning by the Senate's special committee on aging, that he does not believe that a housing price bubble exists on a national level in the United States. "Is Greenspan right?" asks Frank Shostak. To provide an answer to this question one needs to establish—or define—exactly what a bubble is.

As the Washington Post recently reported, "The Federal Reserve Board has recently waged a vigorous campaign of defense, arguing that it was better to have boomed and busted than never to have boomed at all." Poetic perhaps, but is it sound?

The United States faces a situation that resembles the late 1970s when the world began to abandon the dollar and liquidate American investments, writes Hans Sennholz. It took two years of Federal Reserve inactivity and 20 percent interest rates to restore foreign confidence and lure foreigner investors and creditors back.

Two and a half years into one of the most severe Bear Markets in History, the most striking feature of the typical economic discussion is the persistent state of denial about how perilous our situation truly is. Also notable is the unthinking promulgation of a species of economic fallacies which, though long since discredited, keep springing up like weeds to choke our reasoning.