[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that extrapolation is unavoidable and thus business cycles will always be around regardless of whether we have a fed or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

have been cycles gotten larger or smaller since the creation of the fed?

[/ QUOTE ]

much smaller. at least since the introduction of the current day management system.

there was a brief period of increased amplitude due to massive global shocks to the system (bretton woods collapsing). but other than that, no matter what measure of cyclicality you use, the amplitude has decreased significantly.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

want to cite a source?

i'll cite Friedman and Shwartz's "Monetary history of the US", which was one of the earliest empirical cases pointing towards money supply changes from central banks historically having been the most significant source of business cycles. Much data has come since to back this up.

Also read "The Monetarist Case for Rules" in Bernanke's macro text book or the business cycle chapter. Then read anything about the austrian trade cycle theory and try reconcile the information and rethink whether central banking and monetary policy are virtually the sole source of any cycle (defined as changes in aggregate economic activity" rather than fluctuations in a single or specific economic variable)