Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Business Cycles -- Note to Gadfly:Re to DKmcK
Message-ID: <2006@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 15-May-85 20:48:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.2006
Posted: Wed May 15 20:48:26 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 08:18:18 EDT
References: <1146@ratex.UUCP> <632@whuxl.UUCP> <1976@topaz.ARPA> <637@whuxl.UUCP>
Reply-To: josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall)
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 30

In article <637@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:
>>  From JoSH:  > > from me
>> >In order for there to be *no* economic cycles whatsoever the
>> >system would have to be *constantly* at the exact equilibrium point.
>> 
>> This is complete, utter, total, absolute bullshit.  A system oscillates
>> if it is underdamped;  if it is overdamped (or critically damped) it
>> moves towards equilibrium asymptotically;  under no circumstances
>> does it sit constantly at the equilibrium.
>>  
>Precisely my point: a *dynamic* system can never sit at the equilibrium
>point.  It may tend towards the equiliibrium point which in itself
>is probably shifting.  But there is also the possibility that it
>can have wide fluctuations like: the Great Depression.

That's not what you said at all.  Look up and reread it: you said that
either a system has cycles or it sits at equilibrium.

>> The Keynesian "prescription" for this condition is an even, smoothly
>> but constantly increasing dosage.  ...
>> --JoSH
>
>The Libertarian "prescription" is the Great Depression - lets leave
>any stabilizing government influences aside and let the market put
>33% of the workforce out of work.  
>                 tim sevener  whuxl!orb

This is one of Tim's more flagrant strawmen...

--JoSH