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