Do you applaud the BIS for acknowledging financial cycles or to shake your head that such an article should be thought necessary?
Understanding in economics does not proceed cumulatively. We do not necessarily know more today than we did yesterday, tempting as it may be to believe otherwise. So-called
“lessons” are learnt, forgotten, re-learnt and forgotten again. Concepts rise to prominence and fall into oblivion before possibly resurrecting. They do so because the economic
environment changes, sometimes slowly but profoundly, at other times suddenly and violently. But they do so also because the discipline is not immune to fashions and fads. After
all, no walk of life is. The notion of the financial cycle, and its role in macroeconomics, is no exception.
No s**t Shirlock
This in all probability means moving away from equilibrium settings and tackling disequilibrium explicitly. In many respects, all this takes us back to previous economic intellectual traditions that have been progressively abandoned in recent decades.
You mean those classical economists had something sensible to say after all. Well I never.
If policy is unable to constrain the boom sufficiently and the financial bust generates a serious balance sheet recession, policies need to address balance sheet repair head-on. The overarching priority is to structure them
so as to encourage and support the underlying balance sheet adjustment, rather than unwittingly delaying it.
Take that Krugman, Bernanke et al. Your policy prescriptions have not and can not work. Reality always wins and your policies fly in the face of reality.