Barkley Rosser writes: "I would note that indeed the idea of
macroeconomic declines being largely due to declines of investment
following collapses of financial institutions following collapses of
speculative bubbles was indeed a widespread view in the nineteenth
century, arguably the most widespread theory of
"business cycles" extant at the time".


I'm not so sure about this. In the case of Mill, the quotation given
by Barkley misses the point Mill makes elsewhere (III, 23) that the
underlying cause is the disappearance of "new and tempting channel[s]
for investment" in 'real' economic activities.  By focusing solely on
III, 12, it makes it seem as if cycles are a purely finance-driven
phenomenon.  Also, what about Marx?  For him, finance/credit may
undoubtedly accelerate and exacerbate crises, but were not considered
as their dominant cause.

Terry Peach