Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Wed Apr 16 18:25:56 2008 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Aimee,
In looking at the Mises and Hayek sections, I think you've done a pretty
good job capturing them in that kind of format, with one exception.
The business cycle graphic that goes with Mises is not representative of
his views, mostly because the growth trend line is positive! Mises
would have argued that ongoing business cycles of the sort you have
depicted there would, in the long run, damage economic performance. Did
he believe that such cycles would actually lead to *negative* growth as
opposed to a lower rate of growth than would exist sans cycles? That
would depend on the severity of the inflation/cycle. And in the long
run, persistent and high inflation could, Mises argued, do severe damage
to economies. As presented, the graphic does not convey the idea that
central bank-induced credit cycles lead to worse economic performance
over time than would have been the case had such cycles not been
induced. That is Mises's view and the graphic does not make it clear
that the growth trend line in an economy subject to such cycles would be
lower (if not negative) than that of a cycle-free economy.
Steve Horwitz
|
|
|