by Summary:
...I will outline the issues as I see it. One typical insight offered from neoclassical modelling is that a recession would be the result of some sort of shock. Although my argument is that recessions are hard to forecast, that seems to offer almost no information. We can usually see certain mechanisms behind a recession, as is discussed in my manuscript (which is volume one). So it's a hard sell to say that recessions are purely random processes. We can get slightly more specific, such as having some sort of shock to the credit markets, which might be used to help explain the events of the Financial Crisis. But once again, the Financial Crisis, was hardly "random," market participants (including bankers within "market participants") followed behavioural patterns that Minsky described
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: neoclassical theory, recessions
This could be interesting, too:
...I will outline the issues as I see it. One typical insight offered from neoclassical modelling is that a recession would be the result of some sort of shock. Although my argument is that recessions are hard to forecast, that seems to offer almost no information. We can usually see certain mechanisms behind a recession, as is discussed in my manuscript (which is volume one). So it's a hard sell to say that recessions are purely random processes. We can get slightly more specific, such as having some sort of shock to the credit markets, which might be used to help explain the events of the Financial Crisis. But once again, the Financial Crisis, was hardly "random," market participants (including bankers within "market participants") followed behavioural patterns that Minsky described
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: neoclassical theory, recessions
This could be interesting, too:
NewDealdemocrat writes October industrial production: consistent with a very slow expansion
Barkley Rosser writes How Changes In Changes In Inventories Have Brought US The “Recession” That Is Probably Not A Recession
Mike Norman writes Introduction to Recessions: Volume I — Brian Romanchuk
Mike Norman writes Brian Romanchuk — Money Demand Has Very Little To Do With Recessions
...I will outline the issues as I see it. One typical insight offered from neoclassical modelling is that a recession would be the result of some sort of shock. Although my argument is that recessions are hard to forecast, that seems to offer almost no information. We can usually see certain mechanisms behind a recession, as is discussed in my manuscript (which is volume one). So it's a hard sell to say that recessions are purely random processes.
We can get slightly more specific, such as having some sort of shock to the credit markets, which might be used to help explain the events of the Financial Crisis. But once again, the Financial Crisis, was hardly "random," market participants (including bankers within "market participants") followed behavioural patterns that Minsky described long ago. Saying that there is a "random shock" to credit markets offers a whole lot less information than Minsky's writings.
So I am left with the conundrum: what is worthwhile from neoclassical theory that is worthwhile putting into a second volume of a book on recessions?Bond Economics
What Can Neoclassical Theory Tell Us About Recessions (Serious Question)?
Brian Romanchuk