[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

what about all of the business cycles that occurred far before the advent of modern economic management or theory? think france in the 1500s-1600s or britain's feasts and famine when money was backed by gold before the increase in money supply of gold came from global exploration? all of those cases point towards horribly large cycles in economic production and sustinance of people far before fiat money or central planning came to be.

[ QUOTE ]


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)

[/ QUOTE ]

what about growth in industrial production? that is a great measure of aggregate economic activity.

the source of business cycles again doesn't come from any one institution.

Barron