SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Steven Horwitz)
Date:
Wed Apr 16 18:25:56 2008
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
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


ATOM RSS1 RSS2